Talk:Kepler triangle

{{GA|22:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)|topic=Mathematics|page=1|oldid=1073666796}}

{{DYK talk|13 March|2022|entry=... that although the Kepler triangle has similar proportions to the Great Pyramid of Giza, the triangle's connection to the golden ratio makes it unlikely to have been used in ancient Egypt?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Kepler triangle}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

mathematically incorrect illustration

the current illustration would mean that traversing two sides of the triangle would require the same distance as traversing its hypotenuse. Alas, if only such a triangle truly existed. I was unable to change this illustration unfortunately. Owen214 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:You've misread both the illustration and the caption, I think: those aren't side lengths, they're areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::That makes the diagram even worse then, there's no indication that those are meant to be squares. Wouldn't it be more useful just to have a diagram with the actual side lengths? Owen214 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::The caption says "A Kepler triangle is a right triangle formed by three squares with areas in geometric progression according to the golden ratio." Or are you looking at something different? Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

People naturally focus on the pictures first and may not even read the text. The digram should be complete without having to read the caption. This current diagram doesn't take proper consideration of the encyclopaedia's guests. Even if you want to keep it with areas labelled, the squares are not currently labelled as being squares; none of their sides have markings and neither do their angles. Owen214 (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that the illustration is only difficult to read, it seems to me that it is also wrong, if the base is 1, i guess that we should read 1, square root of phi and phi, and not 1, phi, and square phi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.54.236 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Relation to Fibonacci numbers

Who is Marty Stange?

And why is it related to the Fibonacci sequence?

This reasoning works with any sequence in which each number is the sum of the previous two, not just Fibonacci, since any random sequence approaches Phi as larger numbers are used in the series.

FJofre (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

We in Anchient Egypt just see this sort of thing

To say we do not use the basic relations of mathematics is absurd. To think it bears much speech but witness, also fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:C1D:4E00:3012:DADE:352D:9476 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It always takes me a moments to speech of this level... The proportions of triangle are not fixed as are they to all points, but to the line, yes, but the line only to it's one point, and the three only seperately conjoined, for else the triangle was the fix. The Fix is the place of anchorage within the explorer of the meme-plex or some word to the notion. We do not limit ourselves to any particular dimensionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:C1D:4E00:3012:DADE:352D:9476 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)