Talk:Golden ratio

Binary

In binary, sqrt(5) and the golden ratio's bits look very similar. I just wanted to post this here because using decimal numbers often hides pretty simple things. Here they are in binary: sqrt(5): 10.00111100011011101111001101110010111111101001010011111... golden ratio: 1.100111100011011101111001101110010111111101001010011111... 92.107.251.225 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And in decimal, the digits of 1+pi/10 are lot like those of pi itself! Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit by anonymous editor properly removed Copyrighted material

Material was pasted from pg 6 of cited source[1]. Ward20 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry didn't relaize it was in a quote. Ward20 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

proof in Golden triangle section

At the end of the "Golden triangle" section it says "The proof is left to the reader". What is this, an encyclopedia or a math textbook? *sigh*134.147.194.112 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed a rather unappropriate (and some what pointless) line, hence I removed it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A minor point

Does it bother anyone that an irrational number bears the label "ratio"? I mean, the one thing an irrational number cannot be by definition is a ratio - else it would be rational.

PcGnome (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The one thing an irrational number cannot be by definition is a ratio of integers. But it can certainly be, say, the ratio of the length of the diagonal of a regular pentagon to the length of the side of the pentagon, since there is no regular pentagon where both those lengths are integers. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

All fives

You can express the golden ratio using just the number five and exactly one use of each of the major arithmetical operations of exponentiation, multiplication and addition:

$\varphi =5^{.5}\times .5+.5$

--  Denelson83  23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

an orphan wants you to help him

Dear authors of the "Golden ratio” Wikipedia entry: Concerning your article, may I cordially suggest you to read the text “The TK Theory of Visual Proportions” and, if necessary, link or cross-reference the latter article with the former. Please contact me in case you have any doubts or questions. Yours, espaisNT. --EspaisNT (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC) --EspaisNT (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A Note

This article appears hesitant to present accurately the nature of the "golden ratio", in that it is a trivial construct and a simple geometric property whose only peculiarity is that it describes an approximately similar growth pattern to that of the Fibonacci sequence, which is itself a simple and related analytic construct, namely, increasing a population by summing the previous two terms in the sequence. Of course this creates a regularity of pattern! It is by definition and design a series of proportionate growth! This is not mystical, but is certainly of interest. I feel the esoteric tone of this article needs to be reduced, and that the endorsements of the subject's perceived profundity be relegated to headings lower on the page. All of the information is correct, only the strucure is imbalanced. Thank you. 150.135.210.78 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)