Talk:Squircle

Tell me more

Please elaborate more on the squirrels.

Says who?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that "squircle" is a somewhat satisfying portmanteau but the term is being used here as if it was in widely accepted usage and has a recorded lineage. Nowhere in the article does it mention how the term came into use. Without that, it's as if I just said that a "pentallipsoid" is a shape that has five lobes but is otherwise ellipsoid. Okay, I can conceptualize that, but (a) who first used the term, and where and when, and (b) why not call it an "ellipentagon" or some other portmanteau? It's not enough to say that people are using a term that's not in any dictionary and expect people to accept it as part of the linguistic landscape. Can anyone help with background? Bricology (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathematicians etc. use a lot of terms which are not listed in traditional dictionaries, so that can't be the sole criterion for Wikipedia. The historical background is discussed in the Superellipse article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see no discussion of the term "squircle" on the Superellipse page. And the references in this article are largely marketing and product design, not mathematics. 82.110.138.242 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the historical background of the interest in superellipse-type curves in design contexts. The squircle was an offshoot of this... AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I'm completely with you, Bricology. I roll my eyes every time I see the word portmanteau. Mvblair (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Lewis Carroll feels deeply personally wounded... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The next time that Lewis Carroll contributes to editing an encyclopedia, I'll be careful how I treat him. Otherwise, citing a composer of fantasy verse could not be less relevant here. Bricology (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He's the one who first applied the word "portmanteau" to a method of word composition, so love him or hate him, he's the originator. And his longer fictional works were fantasy prose... AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Need more accurate image

If you click on the image of the squircle, the image's page says that the diagram is not completely accurate, and indeed it is not. By my measurements with a ruler, the ratio of the distance from the center to the northeast point to the distance from the center to the point directly above it is 1.24. But according to the correct formula on the superellipse page at the end of the lead, this ratio should be the fourth root of 2, or about 1.188.

Can someone with imaging skills draw it accurately using a graphing tool that can handle quartics and replace the present graph? Thanks. 208.50.124.65 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The mathematics of Bezier curves allowed in the SVG file format does not allow directly encoding 4th-order curves, so the two alternatives are to approximate the curve with cubic splines, or to use a large number of tiny straight-line segments. But if you mean "Squircle2.svg", then that's plenty accurate enough for display at ordinary computer screen resolutions. Run the PostScript source code on page File:Squircle2.svg, and the inaccuracy can be seen as the purple peeking out behind the black... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you open the SVG file in a text editor, then you can see that the point (242.1782,242.1782) is √(242.1782²*2) distance away from the origin, or 342.4917, and 342.4917/288=1.1892... AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Distance

If I take a square with sides of 2, and a circle inside the square with a radius of 1, and I draw the locations of the points with exactly the same distance to the square and the circle, would that be a Squircle? 81.205.204.122 (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongly doubt it -- that would lead to a shape with a definite corner (tangent discontinuity). AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the equation in polar coordinates?

The article gives the equation in rectangular coordinates. This is a suggestion to give the equation in polar coordinates too. --50.53.35.120 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. I simply inserted n=4 into the equivalent equation on Superellipse#Mathematical_properties, so there's no reference and I haven't verified the result. I don't think that counts as original research. Modest Genius ^talk 11:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but polar coordinates use r and θ (or ϕ). See the transformation here. Note that r is a variable, not a constant, so there is a notation conflict with the equation $\left(x-a\right)^{4}+\left(y-b\right)^{4}=r^{4}$. See, also, equation 1 in the cited article by Guasti et al: "LCD pixel shape and far-field diffraction patterns". If you cite Guasti et al, the equation won't be original research. --50.53.36.42 (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Wolfram Alpha plot of

$r(\theta )={1 \over {\sqrt[{4}]{cos^{4}\,\theta +sin^{4}\,\theta }}}$.

I don't have a source, but the equation follows from a straight-forward substitution of

$x=r\cos \theta$

$y=r\sin \theta$

in

$x^{4}+y^{4}=1$. (plot)

Note that

$0<cos^{4}\,\theta +sin^{4}\,\theta$. (plot)

--50.53.38.206 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

App icons

A squircle?

Squircles, rather than rounded squares, are used as the base shape for a lot of app icons nowadays. On recent Nokia Series 40, in iOS, in the new Instagram logo (right). Maybe the article should mention it. Here are two articles on the shape in iOS:

1. https://www.cocoanetics.com/2013/06/ios-7-icon-squircle/
2. http://www.designbygeometry.com/ios-icon-mask-corner-curve-study/

Nclm (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Worth mentioning. One problem is that these icons aren't squircles, they're still just radiused corners of squares, as the icon sizes are still so low-res that there's no difference as yet. I suspect some bearded designers are looking at the high-res image on a large Mac screen, but not noticing what they're shipping out as the bitmap to the app coders. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Arc length for superellipse

L=a+b*(((2.5/(n+0.5))^(1/n))*b+a*(n-1)*0.566/n^2)/(b+a*(4.5/(0.5+n^2)))

P=L*4

Area of superellipse

A=a*b*((0.5)^((n^(-1.52))))

At=A*4

Maher ezzideen aldaher 20:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for those equations? If not, they can't appear in the article. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, even if the formulas are correct, I would doubt extremely that the non-integer constants are exact as given ("0.566" etc). Finding the arc length of an ordinary ellipse leads to the intractable Elliptic integral problem, so a superellipse might be worse! ... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

These eqs. from my research "New Simpler Equations for Properties of Hypoellipse ,Ellipse and Superellipse Curves " which presented at ICMS2012 available at academia.edu,linkedin websites

Maher ezzideen aldaher (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If you performed the research then you should avoid writing about it on Wikipedia. See WP:COI. Modest Genius ^talk 20:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Dubious term

The references for this article fail to establish it as a term in real use. References to an MP3 player and Nokia branding are really weak, and reek of fanboy-ism. The scientific literature references are scant. This needs stronger references or it should be considered a candidate for deletion. --Stybn (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think that the MP3 player and Nokia references were added to "support" the word, then unfortunately you really don't seem to have the slightest idea what this article is about, and should not be editing it. The term is reasonably well-known in its particular context (which is more recreational mathematics than general undifferentiated "science"), and deleting it would be rather nonsensical... AnonMoos (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This is no place for personal attacks, and you have no place telling me which articles I should not edit. Please take WP:NPA under advisement. You also removed a tag from this article. Per WP:TPFP you may only remove a tag if there is no "detailed complaint on the talk page". You are warned on both accounts. Reiterating the original point, if the term "squircle" is in fact well-known in its particular context as you claim, then it should be better-supported by relevant references. Deleting an article is not "nonsensical" if it violates our community's standards. A good reference would be a published encyclopedia of mathematics. --Stybn (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag because you have several basic misunderstandings about this article, and an apparent lack of knowledge about its basic subject matter which would appear to disqualify you from usefully editing it. And merely saying that you lack competence to edit one particular article is not a "personal attack" -- I'm certainly not competent to edit many articles on Wikipedia (and I try to stay away from them). However, your action to add annoying templates to my user talk page in violation of WP:DTTR certainly displays a certain chip-on-your shoulder attitude which you would do well to dispense with in future. And unfortunately, the generic boilerplate wording about "mathematics encyclopedias" again displays your lack of knowledge about the subject -- in the recreational mathematics domain, a mention in Martin Gardner's Scientific American column would in fact be better than any "mathematics encyclopedias". In short, I completely fail to see how your templating of this article serves any useful purpose or advances any worthwhile goal. AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing here for a few months, whether or not it makes you a "regular", does not exempt you from our community rules. You have violated rules by removing the templates from your user page. You have violated rules by removing tags from this article. You have violated rules by making another yet personal attack ("chip-on-your shoulder attitude") in the above comment. Whether the term "squircle" comes from formal mathematics, recreational mathematics, or anywhere else, it needs authoritative sources to back up its significance. I do not need knowledge about the subject matter to make that statement or take concordant action as an editor. I am giving you (and everyone) the suggestion, and indeed the chance, to properly reference this article. If there is indeed a Martin Gardner citation for this term, then add it. If you don't want to do that, it's your prerogative. --Stybn (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever -- I've been editing Wikipedia for not too far off from 13 years, as you could have easily discovered with minimal effort. (You could have discovered that I've been editing for more than six years without hardly any effort at all by just lifting your eyes and looking at my 2010 comment on this page directly above.) It doesn't mean that I have any special merit, but it does mean that your heavy-handed chip-on-your-shoulder approach of inserting generic warning boxes onto my user talkpage acquires a certain extra level of annoyingness. You don't have to be an expert on the subject-matter of a Wikipedia article to be able to usefully edit it an unobtrusive manner. However, if you aggressively and brusquely shoulder yourself forward with respect to a topic you know almost nothing about, so that the conversation naturally becomes as much about your personal characteristics as about the article itself, then you're doing it wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've yet to make a single statement about myself. You steered the conversation to my "personal characteristics", and you can blame nature for that as much as you like. I hope someone adds some good references. --Stybn (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If the two of you want to bicker about who is or isn't competent, please take it to your user talk pages - it doesn't belong here. To address the actual issue with the article: reference 1 to Wolfram MathWorld is certainly a reliable source and clearly indicates that the term is real and in mathematical use. There's nothing promotional about the article. Some sections or individual statements are lacking citations, which should be improved, but that doesn't undermine the general use of the term. I'm going to remove the neologism tag, and switch the generic refimprove for identifying some specific parts that need supporting references. Modest Genius ^talk 11:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I love this article

It probably contributed to usage of the term, in a kind of citogenesis (xkcd 978) about language. Now, besides Wolfram MathWorld, it is used in multiple academic papers, as a quick Google Scholar search shows, and thus it can't be taken off. Even if it is not a term in use in mathematics (due in part to superellipses in general not being a popular topic) it is clearly a term in use in design. This is probably a valid process when it is about language rather than facts, though I am not sure. Either way, I love this article and it provides me with boundless enjoyment. I am not sure how much you guys care about unregistered users, but it is my honest opinion. For my money, it could be a featured article. 179.228.66.29 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)