Talk:Pons asinorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
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.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Mid Importance
 Field: History of mathematics

Quote source[edit]

This article quotes Aristotle "There is no royal road to geometry", but googling for the phrase in quotes provides many attributions to Euclid, not Aristotle.

Since the quote, however interesting, is not essential for explaining "Pons asinorum", the entire paragraph should be deleted.

No difference[edit]

Comparing triangle ABC to triangle ACB is comparing a thing to itself. D021317c 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it just shows how good Pappus proof is. If you look in Elementa http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI5.html it looks 'more' complicated. When Pappus mirrors the triangle it becomes so obvious. It should be rewritten by someone that can write English
Not quite. When we assert that triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB, we are also asserting that the vertices correspond in the given order (A to A, B to C, and C to B). 98.240.230.81 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, if there were no difference, then all triangles would have two equal angles ... in fact, all triangles would be equiangular. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Content fork[edit]

There is some duplication of material between this article and Theorem on isosceles triangles. Perhaps a merge is in order but I think there is a distinction between the mathematics of the theorem and the Latin phrase and it's meaning in culture. The other article should have the mathematical material and this article should have the non-mathematical.--RDBury (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While reading this article a lengthy alliteration describing "separating daft from dalliers" or something of the sort struck me as particularly, needlessly, and un-tastefully pseudo-eloquent. Flowery, as it were, and tacky too. In a similar tone as this comment itself (but without my shameless deployment of sentence fragments). The ... aroma of the language was imprecise and not entirely good, like the smell of milk. (Which should not have much of one at all). I hope I've made my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.233.112 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Original diagram of pons asinorum[edit]

I think this article should at least have a diagram of pons asinorum as done in Euclid. That is integral to the original meaning. It is not enough to point to another article which treats it as a mathematical proposition and solves it using a later method. In fact I think probably the whole original proof is notable in itself and not particularly for the final result. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm planning to add a proof or two to the other article and it would be pointless to duplicate them here. Everything by Euclid has been hashed and rehashed for two millennia so there is a huge amount of material to sort through.--RDBury (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There is
Byrne Preface-15.png
picture in commons. I'd prefer a less gaudy one. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Pons asinorum and Isosceles triangle theorem talk about the same theorem. Isosceles triangle theorem presents proofs, while Pons asinorum is more about the metaphorical use. I don't see why they have to be separate: since the articles are not very long, everything about this theorem (statement, history, proofs, etc...) could be in the same page until some sections become too long to justify sub-articles (for example, there isn't yet the page History of the Pythagorean theorem, because it's just fine for it to be in the main article: Pythagorean theorem#History). Chen10k2 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above under Content fork. Neither article is so stubby that it's a candidate for a merge because of article length. --RDBury (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that article length isn't a good reason for a merge in this case, but content is (both are on the same theorem). For this reason I have carried out the proposed merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)