Talk:Golden rectangle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Squaring
What does "squaring a rectangle" mean? I mean, a squares sides aspect ratio is 1:1? -- JeLuF 20:56 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
- Same question--it's been a long time since geometry class--what does it mean to "square a rectangle"? older≠wiser 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- It means cutting it into pieces that reassemble into a square, such that the area of the original figure is known from the side length of the constructed square; like squaring the circle, it's pretty much impossible for irrational areas, I think. Dicklyon 06:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Strech out request
This article is too short. Please expand it.
Seriously, it's really dense and condensed. Could someone expand it, maybe offer some history on it, etcetera? From what I remember, the Greeks were the ones who thought it was the most aesthetically pleasing rectangle. Maybe adding that?
- the golden ratio article pretty much covers all that. This article seems pointless, but borrow material from the other if you like. Dicklyon 06:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two ugly figures
If someone is ambitious, replacing two ugly color-incompatible images with one good one would be a worthwhile project. Dicklyon 06:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research
This sentence is original research: "Since the publication of Luca Pacioli's Divina Proportione in 1509,[1] many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the form of the golden rectangle, which has been considered aesthetically pleasing."
It asserts that the use of the Golden ratio is due to Pacioli's publication. That is only your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment said "NPOV". Thanks for explaining that you meant "OR"; I will endeavor to provide a rewrite in the verifiable terms of a scholar instead of my own. Note that I did not say "due to", however; I simply refer to the TIME of of Pacioli's publication. But Livio goes into more detail about why... Dicklyon 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, when you say "was the first piblication to describe the pleasant aesthetics related to this ratio" you are endorsing the idea that pleasant aesthetics are a priori related to golden ratio, and that Pacioli just described what was there. A more plausible explanation is that his publication created the association between aesthetics and the golden ratio. Perhaps we can find a more neutral way to say it that doesn't push either of these two POVs. Dicklyon 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The part about "more plausible" is indeed my opinion. I restate it in contrast to your opinion in case other editors need to understand the issue on this article. Dicklyon 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- On the contrary, it is hard to understand how articles evolve when the opinions of the editors are hidden. Better to be out front about beliefs so that neutral positions can be negotiated. Dicklyon 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Probably we need a little history section, to cover the origin of the golden rect in Euclid (was it in there? I think so but not sure), and its popularization by Pacioli. The paragraph now has become too long and strained for the lead. If we put a brief statement in the lead and clarify in a history section, it will work better. Anyone want to take that on? Dicklyon 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first picture on the front page is irrelevant. If you draw ANY rectangle, take the short side as B, the long edge as A, and use B to define a square inside the rectangle, then you will get the exact same forumla regardless of the ratio. While it is true that in this particular example, a-b x b is a golden rectangle, it is misleading and seems to suggest that any time a square is drawn inside a rectangle, that the leftover will be a golden rectangle. Either needs rewording or new picture. ozort
