Talk:866: Compass and Straightedge - Revision history

Gunterkoenigsmann: Straight edge movement

2022-03-04T15:46:14Z

Straight edge movement

162.158.78.232 at 00:51, 27 October 2020

2020-10-27T00:51:26Z

108.162.246.17: Suggested reference

2018-08-08T16:26:24Z

Suggested reference

CRGreathouse: agree

2018-08-08T06:17:09Z

agree

Spagovir at 18:33, 10 August 2017

2017-08-10T18:33:08Z

162.158.202.100 at 04:30, 9 April 2017

2017-04-09T04:30:19Z

JFreund at 00:37, 27 August 2013

2013-08-27T00:37:52Z

Dgbrt at 18:14, 29 June 2013

2013-06-29T18:14:16Z

213.203.138.251 at 13:23, 29 June 2013

2013-06-29T13:23:01Z

76.106.251.87 at 04:33, 5 June 2013

2013-06-05T04:33:10Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 No, the comic is funny because many geometrical theorems prove something along the lines of "With a compass and straightedge you cannot construct..." (e.g. a square and a circle with the same area) If you have knowledge of this type of proof, the humor is that you think he's about to talk about something that is impossible in geometry, but really he's talking about the inapplicability of geometry to real life. This is often a difficulty with nerds and brainy people, they try to apply their theoretical knowledge to human relationships and fail. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 :And then there's the converse: people who are able to apply theoretical knowledge and succeed. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further.  What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility.  For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 27 October 2020
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Anyone think of adding a reference to 710 Collatz Conjecture? Where in a similar vein, he begins by explaining the steps for applying the conjecture, then finishes up by losing all his friends. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.17\|108.162.246.17]] 16:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)		Anyone think of adding a reference to 710 Collatz Conjecture? Where in a similar vein, he begins by explaining the steps for applying the conjecture, then finishes up by losing all his friends. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.17\|108.162.246.17]] 16:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	There's some irony in the fact that Randall could give Cueball friends using only a compass and a straight edge, since Cueball himself can be drawn using only a compass (for the round head) and straight edge (stick figure).

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:26, 8 August 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[[User:Spagovir\|Spagovir]] ([[User talk:Spagovir\|talk]]) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)		[[User:Spagovir\|Spagovir]] ([[User talk:Spagovir\|talk]]) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
	: I'm pretty sure you're right, it sounds like a Hawking party reference to me too. - [[User:CRGreathouse\|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse\|talk]]) 06:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)		: I'm pretty sure you're right, it sounds like a Hawking party reference to me too. - [[User:CRGreathouse\|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse\|talk]]) 06:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	Anyone think of adding a reference to 710 Collatz Conjecture? Where in a similar vein, he begins by explaining the steps for applying the conjecture, then finishes up by losing all his friends. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.17\|108.162.246.17]] 16:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 8 August 2018
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Could this "most awesome birthday party" be a reference to Stephen Hawking's party for time travelers?		Could this "most awesome birthday party" be a reference to Stephen Hawking's party for time travelers?
	[[User:Spagovir\|Spagovir]] ([[User talk:Spagovir\|talk]]) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)		[[User:Spagovir\|Spagovir]] ([[User talk:Spagovir\|talk]]) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
		+	: I'm pretty sure you're right, it sounds like a Hawking party reference to me too. - [[User:CRGreathouse\|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse\|talk]]) 06:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 10 August 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Could the “most awsome birthday party“ bear another deeper meaning, for example be analogue to the rational polynom with rational coefficients?		Could the “most awsome birthday party“ bear another deeper meaning, for example be analogue to the rational polynom with rational coefficients?
	[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.100\|162.158.202.100]] 04:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.100\|162.158.202.100]] 04:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	Could this "most awesome birthday party" be a reference to Stephen Hawking's party for time travelers?
		+	[[User:Spagovir\|Spagovir]] ([[User talk:Spagovir\|talk]]) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 9 April 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I tried forming a club for compasses and straight edges but no one signed up :( ~JFreund		I tried forming a club for compasses and straight edges but no one signed up :( ~JFreund
		+
		+	Could the “most awsome birthday party“ bear another deeper meaning, for example be analogue to the rational polynom with rational coefficients?
		+	[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.100\|162.158.202.100]] 04:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 27 August 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	If such constructions are "impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques," then why don't we just use older algebraic techniques? ;){{unsigned ip\|213.203.138.251}}		If such constructions are "impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques," then why don't we just use older algebraic techniques? ;){{unsigned ip\|213.203.138.251}}
	:Those "modern algebraic techniques" just did prove that you can't solve this constructions by using only "classical geometry".--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)		:Those "modern algebraic techniques" just did prove that you can't solve this constructions by using only "classical geometry".--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	I tried forming a club for compasses and straight edges but no one signed up :( ~JFreund

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 29 June 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:
	The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further. What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility. For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87\|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)		The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further. What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility. For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87\|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

−	If such constructions are "impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques," then why don't we just use older algebraic techniques? ;)	+	If such constructions are "impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques," then why don't we just use older algebraic techniques? ;){{unsigned ip\|213.203.138.251}}
		+	:Those "modern algebraic techniques" just did prove that you can't solve this constructions by using only "classical geometry".--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 29 June 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:

	The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further. What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility. For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87\|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)		The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further. What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility. For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87\|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	If such constructions are "impossible with the use of modern algebraic techniques," then why don't we just use older algebraic techniques? ;)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:33, 5 June 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	No, the comic is funny because many geometrical theorems prove something along the lines of "With a compass and straightedge you cannot construct..." (e.g. a square and a circle with the same area) If you have knowledge of this type of proof, the humor is that you think he's about to talk about something that is impossible in geometry, but really he's talking about the inapplicability of geometry to real life. This is often a difficulty with nerds and brainy people, they try to apply their theoretical knowledge to human relationships and fail. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206\|75.103.23.206]] 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)		No, the comic is funny because many geometrical theorems prove something along the lines of "With a compass and straightedge you cannot construct..." (e.g. a square and a circle with the same area) If you have knowledge of this type of proof, the humor is that you think he's about to talk about something that is impossible in geometry, but really he's talking about the inapplicability of geometry to real life. This is often a difficulty with nerds and brainy people, they try to apply their theoretical knowledge to human relationships and fail. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206\|75.103.23.206]] 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
		+	:And then there's the converse: people who are able to apply theoretical knowledge and succeed. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87\|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	The explanation mentions that there are "three such constructions", but doesn't go any further. What they are should at least be addressed (or linked to), even if we're not going to elaborate on the "why" of their impossibility. For the uninitiated, they are squaring the circle, trisecting any angle, and doubling the cube. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87\|76.106.251.87]] 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)