Talk:Golden ratio

Mecca & co

That religious stuff is nonsensical enough and was removed in the past already. If anyone insist on including this under dipsuted claims, then to the very least you need to provide proper citations (no citation needed stuff). Furthermore a consent on the discussion page is needed as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how these facts are nonsensical? Objectively, the values, actually, are very close to the golden ratio. Yes, they are coincidental, but isn't that exactly what adds to the aura of the golden ratio? About the citation, I am not sure whether the source that I have is applicable: It's not a journal, just an amateur website that has some calculations on it regarding this Mecca entry(which I have verified). The problem I found with the source, and the reason I hadn't posted it, is that it includes other claims that are, in fact, nonsensical: it claims that the Mecca is also longitudinally situated on the golden ratio (from east to west), which is completely arbitrary. The citation in question is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9436715/THE-WORLDS-GOLDEN-RATIO-POINT

This is the entry in question:

In geography, the latitudinal position of the Islamic holy city of Makkah(Mecca) at N 21'42 corresponds closely to the golden ratio. That is the ratio of the latitudinal distance from the North Pole to the city to the latitudinal distance from the South Pole to the city equals 1/φ. In fact, any city situated near the N 21'42 line would have that same characteristic. ^{[citation needed]} In religious literature, the city of Makkah once again presents itself in a position of the golden ratio. In the Qur'an(Quran), the Islamic holy book, the word Makkah or Bakkah, referring to the city of Makkah, appears only twice. The word first appears in surah 3: verse 96, and it does so in a golden ratio position. There are 29 letters in the verse upto, and including, the word Bakkah; whereas the entire verse consists of 47 letters. This fraction, 29/47, is appoximately 1/φ. ^{[citation needed]}

99.253.250.110 (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is based on reliable sources discussing serious topics in mathematics and the arts. It is not the place to record every calculation that fringe groups may have performed. While it is mildly interesting to see how inventive minds can devise calculations to obtain some desired result, this is not the article to record such results, particularly without reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am asking for this entry to be placed in the Disputed Observations section. I think this entry adds to the aura of the golden ratio. It is an instance of the golden ratio appearing coincidentally, once again, in human history. Whether this is purely coincidence or not is up for debate or further research, which is why it is 'disputed'. For me, given the significance of Mecca in human history, this entry deserves a place in this article. 99.253.250.110 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Even disputed claims require reliable & reputable sources. If at all such a section is allowed at all it is to list well known claims published in reputable sources on which the academic community however does not agree. It is not meant as discussion forum or for including arbitrary fringe claims.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I can only find self-published, questionable(amateur) sources for this, although, the content seems easily verifiable. I hope we can leave this discussion up for others to see. It will save repetition of discourse. 99.253.250.110 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why it doesn't belong into in the article. Numerical verification is not the issue here rather notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand and agree. An entry's potential to generate interest in a topic does not compensate for a lack of notability. 99.253.250.110 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(indent pushed <---- thataways, sorry). For the proponents of the measurements of such cities: This is stepping away from mathematics and toward numerology. Given any number, you can look and find items that closely resemble it. If not a city, then a mountain range. If not that, then the trees. There is no point whatsoever in visiting each of these. IF A NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED (words to the effect of) "Matching items to the golden ratio", then perhaps. Tgm1024 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A number of problems

The assertion that "many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio" is misleading. If you search for actual examples, you will find that very few have. Try finding a major painting, for example, with a frame ratio of 1:1.612

There is no evidence supporting the use of the golden ratio in the Parthenon, or Pyramids of Giza.

Leonardo da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man" is not based on the golden ratio. It is based on a circle and a square, ratios of 1:1 not 1:1.612

The Illustration from Luca Pacioli's De Divina Proportione does not have anything to do with the golden mean.

You will find few postcards, playing cards, or posters with ratios of 1:1.612 as claimed by the article.

Wide-screen televisions (16:9) have a ratio of 1:1.77 not 1:1.612

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.204.222 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's another nice Devlin's Angle article. Please click "new section" to add a comment on a new topic to a talk page. That puts it at the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

8"×10" and quarter-sized 4"×5" are popular formats in photography, and it would seem logical that the half-format 8"×5" would be particularly popular — conveniently derived from the others, and a decent approximation of the golden ratio. But, instead, 5"×7" became a standard size. In an 1891 magazine article, an author even writes: "I would recommend the 6½×8½ in preference to the 5×8, since for most work the latter is not so well proportioned." Matthew Miller (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

new link

In spite of the warning in the external links section I went ahead and added

• Schneider, Robert P. A Golden Pair of Identities in the Theory of Numbers

to it. I had just recently added it to the article on Euler's totient, and thought it belonged here as well.

Virginia-American (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

negative reference for golden ratio

In researching photographic formats, I came across an interesting 1875 journal article. The article mentions that a certain in-vogue format is too narrow to meet "the best proportion, according to the golden mean", continuing "Unfortunately, but little attention has been given to the beauty standard, just as is the case in the cutting of our garments, and in the same way as it is impossible to argue down a new fashioned garment, no matter how foolish and ridiculous it may be, so we should be powerless to rob a picture of its popularity."

This makes the somewhat funny argument that while the golden mean provides the most beautiful portion, popular opinion seem to foolishly prefer others instead. And this continues with the relevant quote: "We may console ourselves with the thought that painters, on their part, trouble themselves very little about the golden mean."

The author, H. Vogel, appears to be reasonably notable. And his nationality (German) and the timing fit with the spread of the golden-ratio-as-beautiful meme. Matthew Miller (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good find! Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Blogs

Per WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BLOGS - Blogs especially this one, are not reliable sources. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 07:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, regardless if the blog is reliable or not, common practise is actually discuss with an editor on the talk page, rather wp:edit warring, and the possibility of violating wp:3RR. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 07:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Per WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BLOGS - Blogs *especially this one*" I think you are discriminating Google Blog Service which I find excellent (or which do you find "honorable"), plus, none of your references is mentioned this *blog* or blogs in general are not reliable sources. And I remind you that wp:3RR also applies to everyone, YOU included. Also, you should have started the talk request clarification before undoing it to explain in detail your IMO invalid reasons. Is there another instance or arbiter that can decide this besides you?

Don't know what point you are trying to prove, but an editor specifically told you they have issue with this blog being unreliable. I didn't warn you about the 3RR - another good-faithed user did - and you haven't broken 3RR anyway - that warning is to tell you, that you're a close to it. Don't tell me what I should and shouldn't have done, I did my job. Also, everyone's IMO is valid. Not just yours. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 08:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

the arcticle's writer

who is the writer of this arcticle, im doing a work on the golden ratio in the pyramids so please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.130.253 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Amen break

From WP:RS, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That seems to fit the situation to a tee. He has a masters in Mathematics Education, and his book "A Beginner's Guide To Constructing The Universe: The Mathematical Archetypes Of Nature, Art and Science" has been published by a non-vanity press (HarperPerennial). Further, we are giving it as his POV, as with some of the other examples (e.g. Roy Howat). Superm401 - Talk 07:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This concerns an edit (diff) which added text "The mathematician Michael Schneider analysed the waveform of the Amen break and found that the peaks are spaced at intervals in the golden ratio.ref"

The problem is that people have found the golden ratio in all sorts of things: looking hard enough often locates a pattern. The author's writings suggest a specialty in finding mathematical relationships, which is not what is needed in this article. Has the author analyzed other popular tunes looking for the golden ratio? If a significant proportion of such tunes fits a predefined pattern, a suitably qualified person might conclude something significant had been observed. Otherwise, it's just like noticing the decimal digits of the golden ratio in a car number plate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In an article for which we can find tens of thousands of actually-reliably-published sources, and on a subject on which many people have written and published many ridiculous things, I tend to think we should use stricter standards than He has a master's degree! In SCIENCE! Also, is a drum solo from the 1960's really central enough to the subject of this article to devote a whole paragraph to it? And finally, is it much of a surprise that you can take a sequence of 13 beats, break it up into 8 and 5, and find the golden ratio? It just looks like more numerology of a type we have too much of here already, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is a topic with many dubious claims, but a wealth of (highly) reliable/reputable sources available, so we should stick to the latter and avoid any content that is somewhat dubious or of less or unclear notability to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should try to base our discussion on actual policy. You haven't directly addressed WP:RS. David Eppstein, it isn't a question of a master's degree "IN SCIENCE!". It's a master's in Mathematics Education, which seems relevant to the topic at hand. I don't think the fact that it's from the 1960's makes it less relevant. It's been used in many notable songs since then, and there's no time limit on notability; that's why we have an article on it. Johnuniq, I would be more concerned if the author found spurious golden ratios in every populuar song. It seems relevant that it's specifically this break. Quite unlike a car number plate, there is no suggestion that the Amen break was generated randomly or automatically.

Finally, the point of the mention is not to say definitely that the song uses the golden ratio. It is to relay his POV that it does. If we have to tweak the wording, that's fine. Superm401 - Talk 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want argue from the point of WP:RS is kinda simple, as there are enough "high quality" source on subject hence there is no need to relax the criteria on sources. So if it is not published in a reputable (academic) journal, a book from a reputable academic publisher and/or by an particularly reputable academic/scholar then it stays out as in that case it is neither reliable nor notable enough for inclusion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing that Amen Break is a bad subject for an encyclopedia article. It might even be reasonable to mention its mathematical analysis within the Amen Break article itself. I just don't think it is sufficiently important to the topic of the Golden ratio to mention it in this article, and that the quality of sourcing (relative to the total volume and quality of sources for topics related to the golden ratio) is low. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with David Eppstein. If this isn't important enough to mention in the Amen break article, why is it important enough to mention here? —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of edit without adequate explanation

I made an edit which made several improvements to this article. [1] The edit was reverted with an enigmatic edit summary of "An edit that removes the numeric value from the lede is unacceptable," I'm putting the improvements back in. If anyone would like to make additional improvements, please feel free to do so, but don't simply revert a major, good-faith edit containing several changes without discussing it here first. (If that edit summary comment was about moving the equations from the introduction, please read WP:MOSINTRO before making any further edits.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are seriously mischaracterizing my edit summary, which invited you to discuss this here per WP:BRD rather than as you say didn't discuss it. And, WP:BRD is not about redoing your edits until the other editors give up in frustration: it's about actually discussing it *before* trying it again, which you haven't done. As for MOSINTRO: it says not to have unnecessary formulas in the intro, a very different thing than having no formulas at all. In a math article such as this one, some amount of math may be necessary to satisfy the other requirements of the MOS, that the lead section actually summarize the article and provide a concise description of the subject. In this particular case, it is absolutely essential that the approximate numeric value 1.618 be included in the lead, and that's not possible without a little bit of math to explain how that value relates to the English-language description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I just realized that until about a month ago what MOSINTRO actually said was "Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles." So you are edit-warring based on a change to MOSINTRO that has barely had time to have the ink dry and that has never been discussed with WP:WTM. And if you go back to the edit to MOSINTRO that is leading to this interpretation, and read the edit summary, you will see that the intent of the change was not to restrict the use of mathematical formulas in mathematics articles, but rather to broaden their use to allow formulas in other technical article leads. So your edit seems to be based on mistaken premises to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you taking the time to discuss this here. The edit made several improvements to the article, including improvements to the layout, and several others plus the moving of the equations. I was concerned that all of the changes were reverted (not just the equation-moving part). If the equations are the only concern, then please put back the other improvements and then we can discuss the equation issue in the following section. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather you broke down your changes into smaller chunks and tried them again separately. The removal of all the mathematics from the lead was what I primarily objected to, but in part that was because you made a lot of changes and it was difficult to tell what the effect of them was all at once. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I did the edits separately, except for moving the equations which I'll hold off on until we work it out. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Equations in intro

I feel the article would be improved by moving the equations from the intro. If this were only a mathematics article, then the equations would be appropriate in the introduction, however, this article covers a broad number of disciplines, including the arts, music, nature and many others. Readers will be coming to this article from many differing areas and with a variety of levels of understanding of mathematics. If there was no other way to introduce the subject and explain what the ratio is, then the equations would be needed, however, the prose, along with the graphical representation to the right of the intro adequately explain the ratio. Plus, the equations are revealed in the very next section of the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sparkie82, be aware that this article has a long history of attention and compromise by lots of good editors. If you have an "improvement" you want to make, make your case here. We have no problem assuming your edit was in good faith, but perhaps more of a problem believing that removing the symbol, value, and defining relationship from the lede is an "improvement". As for the rest of your edit that was reverted, you can try less controversial parts again; it will be best to make changes in smaller chunks that can be digested by others, and discussed as needed. If you look at your diff, you can see it's got a lot going on, making it hard to review. And don't take out the blank lines after headings, or I'll revert you just for that. As for the field of this article, it's basically mathematics; the "applications" in all those other areas are interesting, too, but not the real topic. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page before making the edit and didn't see anything pertaining to the changes I was making, but yeah, I see what you mean about bunching them up in one edit. I did some of changes again -- a bit at a time -- so it's clearer. Regarding the stuff removed from the intro, I was more concerned about the two equations themselves. The value and the symbol, as part of the explanation text needs to be in the intro, I think. I stumbled upon this article by looking up something I saw on TV -- a news program -- so the concept is definitely part of the popular culture. And the goal of the style guide is to make article introductions accessible to those who read them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)