Talk:Pascal's theorem

i am a native english speaker with a college degree and I can t see the hexagon and have no idea what the opposite sides are

this is, sadly, typical of math on wiki: written NOT for the general audience but for math students

try again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:387C:4DF:30CF:9B0 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

:Section. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the mention of Pascal's theory of the logic of religious belief? That's one of his most widely quoted theorems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.44.135 (talk • contribs)

: That's not a theorem. Maybe you should start by looking that the article titled Blaise Pascal. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

::Pascal's wager... AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the sixth step?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_theorem&diff=prev&oldid=192916740

--Scottdavies (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

: And the second step?

Why is such a messy proof being used in this article? It looks a very short proof is being linked using Menelaos. A similarly short proof can also be found as Theorem 6.3.1 here: http://www-math.mit.edu/~kedlaya/geometryunbound/gu-060118.pdf. 76.69.85.111 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:I added a short proof using projective geometry which I think is instructive as it applies to the original conic as well. Lim Wei Quan (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The diagram illustrating this article is unnecessarily complicated, because the hexagon has been chosen to be 'tangled-up'.

Although the theorem is of course true in this case too, this will make most readers miss the point.

A simpler and better picture is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THPascal.svg

84.97.149.75 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:Much clearer – thanks! I’ve added it.

:—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pascal's theorem is the polar dual, not projective dual, of Brianchon's theorem, it seems to me. Does anyone have a source for this? Tkuvho (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The page pole and polar mentions the term "reciprocation" which might be more appropriate. Tkuvho (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I get lost when I get to "two sets of 3 lines". Can you clarify? Tkuvho (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did as best I could, but please check as it's not my area. Tkuvho (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pascal's theorem. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801615992 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121129152851/http://www.math.uregina.ca/~fisher/Norma/paper.html to http://www.math.uregina.ca/~fisher/Norma/paper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)