This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
About trisection of an angle (0-180)
Little help here. I'm in +1. I found how to trisect angle with the Greek tools. Don't know what to do next. Need guidance. E-mail: [redacted].
Rahul2312160 (
talk)
16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)reply
As the lead of
Angle trisection says about the tools allowed by the Greeks: "With such tools, the task of angle trisection is generally impossible". This is a proven result and not just speculation. Either you are using tools they didn't allow (or using them in ways they didn't allow), or your method only works for some specific angles. If you post the method to
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics then somebody will probably tell you what is wrong. This talk page is only intended for discussion about how to improve the article.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
PrimeHunter, I have posted to the Math reference desk- not looking to be published on a wikipedia page for O.R., just would like someone to refute my simple construction.
Wcichello (
talk)
14:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Angle trisection. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
My understanding, is that certain angles can be constructed (directly or indirectly) and that these angles, where there are multiples of 3, are called trisections. Is this actually an accurate description? To me it appears to be multiple constructions of angles over eachother that could be constructed anyway, the 3-fold factor is incidental rather than intrinsic (albeit deliberate).
92.6.144.20 (
talk)
15:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Do we assume the ruler have a width? Is it even relevant?
Deletion: "Approximate trisection for angular greater than 0° to 180°"
Hi Joel B. Lewis,
Unfortunately, you deleted my work for the following reason:
"Sorry, but this is an enormous amount of detail copied directly from someone's webpage with no proper sourcing at all."
My approach was:
In Commons I worked out a construction description in English with the
files I created and inserted this (my) work together with the
file into the article.
My question, what did I do wrong?
What can I do to get my work back into the article?
The answer is "nothing" for both questions. Being reverted does not mean that you have done something wrong; this means that someone considers that your edit does not improve Wikipedia. For second "nothing", please, read the Wikipedia policy
WP:OR. Wikipedia is not the place for your own research. For having a chance for being accepted in Wikipedia, a work should have been published in a notable journal, and been cited in several
secondary sources. This is necessary, but not sufficient, as
notability is also required. So, it seems that there is no chance that your work could be accepted here.
D.Lazard (
talk)
15:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
Petrus3743, I agree with D. Lazard. You can read our policy
WP:OR to understand what the phrase "original research" means in the Wikipedia context. (It is a kind of local jargon.) In particular, to include something about this there should be a refereed published paper about it, not just something on some website somewhere. Separately, you seem to have copied large chunks of the website verbatim; this is both a form of plagiarism and a copyright violation, and Wikipedia certainly cannot accept copied text like that. --
JBL (
talk)
14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi Joel B. Lewis,
Now I'm already surprised and concerned about your answer, I think you were wrong about both arguments:
"... just something on some website somewhere.":
Rouben Rostamian of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County published this really good
approximation construction, as described in my work. You shouldn't doubt his raputation and competence!
Your claim that I violated copyright law in my post is a serious allegation. I ask you to show me the relevant positions, but please compare beforehand who wrote the text that I copied. I have taken over only one sentence from Rouben Rostamian verbatim (cursive script and marked with reference): Stage 3, corresponding to the steps 8-10 of the construction, produces the angle AOT which, as noted above, is within 1.33 ⋅ 10-16° degrees of the exact trisection.
Petrus3743 (
talk)
15:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Here by "published" you mean "wrote on his personal website". I, too, am a mathematician and have a personal website on which I can write things, but the things I choose to write there are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if they are not appropriately published. Wikipedia's rules about this are quite clear. I have struck through my comment about copyright. --
JBL (
talk)
15:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your advice, I will remember! By the way, I think it is an important character trait to make an apology if I mistakenly made a serious allegation to a WP colleague. With regards from Munich
Petrus3743 (
talk)
16:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:PSTS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". Your source is a primary source. It is published is a non-notable journal (see
WP:GNG). The article itself and its content are not notable, as there are no secondary sources that refer to them. So, the paragraph that you want to add does not satisfy any criterion allowing its inclusion in Wikipedia. See policies
WP:OR and
WP:Notability for more details.
D.Lazard (
talk)
13:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Rearranging images
@
Nerd271: Can you please explain/justify your recent edits to image positions? What principles are you applying? On my display, after your edits, the page is considerably harder to read because of seemingly haphazard image placement. --
JBL (
talk)
17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Images have been moved around to avoid overcrowding or collision, which may be a problem if you have narrower screens, hence the addition of the 'Clear' templates for flexible white spaces. Others were rearranged to make better use of the space available.
Nerd271 (
talk)
17:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, the link is even more confusing. First, it talks about the apex of the angle, which is A. To me, the apex is the top, right? It looks like A is near the bottom. OK... Next it says the handle of the tomahawk is touching the apex - A. It looks to me like the handle is the line crossing C D E. What touches A does not look like a handle to me. Would be better if it were animated. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jokem (
talk •
contribs)
21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The apex is the point where the angle is measured. The tip of the handle is placed at that point, as the article says. The description of which pieces of the tomahawk have which names is clearly given in the "description" section of the article. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Animation of the construction with a right triangular ruler.
Some times ago, I replaced this animation by its static version for several reasons. The main one was that it was almost impossible to follow and understand the method with it: For improving the description and adding a proof, I had to draw a figure myself, before finding the static figure on commons.
Recently, a link to this animation has been added again. I have reverted it for the other reasons of the former removal:
This animation is advertising for a specific model of right angle ruler, and, during the display of this ruler, the figure is unreadable.
The angle to be trisected is shown only after several steps of the construction, and this is highly confusing.
The animation draws a large circle and 3 points on it that are not used for the construction. These are also present in the static figure, but this is much less confusing, because it suffices to not mention them in the description.
it's a shame that my two constructions don't convince you.
The
set square has no company name, there are many manufacturers. I am not aware of such a narrow interpretation of advertising. Please see
Demi-carré, compare this is another one set square.
The animation largely follows the original description by Bieberbach.
Well, in spite of everything, a team working well together brought the article Dreiteilung des Winkels up to the award Excellent.
With so many errors in my constructions, now my suggestion: Replace the static version with your construction, which will surely better match your description and your proof.
"Geodreieck" is the product name of a specific setsquare designed and produced by a German company. So, using an image of a Geodreieck is advertising (and possibly copyvio, as it is unclear how the image has been generated).
D.Lazard (
talk)
16:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, you do not go into factual arguments. I already know that the company ARISTO (Austria, Wörgl) invented the classic Geodreieck®, but as I said above, there are now many manufacturers who produce Geodreieck in very similar designs.
Your remark "(and possibly copyvio, as it is unclear how the
image has been generated)" is unacceptable. In doing so, you discredit committed WP authors. You are indirectly accusing them of disregarding the license rights and making product advertising in the article
Geodreieck. These are very serious allegations. You don't say something like that without evidence!--
Petrus3743 (
talk)
19:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the situation on German wikipedia is irrelevant. A set square or triangle that is popular in the German-speaking world is not always popular in the English-speaking world. In other words, some people may think that ruler and half circle protractor are extra information. I'm not sure what to do with wikidata links.--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)reply