84:
74:
53:
22:
477:-- anyone reading at this level should understand that. Therefore the comment about 'degrees' shouldn't be needed. But the people who *do* need to have it explained to them are not likely to get the point you just made if all you do is say "if measured in degrees". In attempting to make the article more accessible, you're potentially misleading the very people who need it to be more accessible.
454:
whether this unit system is degrees, gradians, multiples of a whole circle, or whatever. But it does matter for accessibility. The easiest, clearest, and most accessible way to express the requirement on the angles is to say that it is a rational number of degrees. Your original addition of gradians just confuses the issue without adding any value. β
517:
Yeah, I'd be happy with that too. I suppose it depends on whether you prefer footnotes or parentheses when reading. I love footnotes, some people hate them. As for your proposed change in wording, I have no strong opinion. Those of you who teach math should have a better idea of which wording would
453:
I continue not to see a problem to be fixed. There is no implication that only degrees will work. The angle needs to be measured in a unit system for which the whole circle is a rational number in order for it to be a rational number itself. It doesn't really matter for correctness of this sentence
401:
well-informed enough, are also not able to come up with a correct description, I don't see how we can expect uninformed readers to be able to understand an incorrect description. JBL, I would expect calculus students to understand "rational fraction of a circle", but if they don't, that just proves
288:
Quadrangles aren't adventitious because they're measured in degrees. Come on, people, this is elementary, and it's irresponsible for us to imply that they are. Most people reading this article will understand that we don't actually mean what we say, and correct it in their heads. But you never know
162:
The drawing must be wrong because the large triangle consists of angle B =80+20= 100degrees and angle C=80+30=110degrees and angle A=20degrees. Together these becomes 100+110+20= 230degrees inside the large triangle. That is not possible. All triangles have only 180degrees Please fix the article.
382:
David, it's not about using the more accessible unit. It's about implying that the choice of unit defines whether or not a quadrangle is adventitious. If you don't like my wording, fine. Surely you can come up with wording of your own. And if (I'm not trying to be insulting here, merely making a
284:
This is re. the misleading statement that "the sides are all rational (when measured in degrees)", which I addressed, only to be reversed, then tagged, only to have the tag deleted by two different editors -- one of whom admits that the statement is inaccurate!
438:
Truly, I cannot understand why you would obstinately oppose attempts to fix a problem with the article. Are you not able to accurately explain the situation? Can't you just ask JBL or another editor to come up with appropriate wording? β
397:(The discussion should be here.) Response from David's page: I may very well not be intelligent or well-informed enough to come up with the proper wording, but that's rather beside the point. If the editors of the article, who
220:
Then a better diagram is needed, or a restatement of the problem that does not require such a bad illustration. The triangle is isosceles; it is sufficient to state that angle A is 20 degrees.
140:
383:
point) you're not smart enough to explain this in your own words, what makes you think our readers will be smart enough to understand it without a proper explanation? β
339:
192:
The user, and myself, are misinterpreting the drawing because it is badly drawn. Nesting angles in this way is unclear and should be avoided without good reason.
435:
to be measured in degrees to determine whether a quadrangle is adventitious. It's obvious you understand this, since you admitted as much in your edit summary.
549:
130:
544:
178:
You are misinterpreting the drawing. B=80, not 80+20 (there is a 20 degree wedge inside it that does not add to it. Similarly C=80, not 80+30. β
106:
475:
The angle needs to be measured in a unit system for which the whole circle is a rational number in order for it to be a rational number itself
495:
Can't we just use something like "where each angle is a rational angle (a rational number of degrees or a rational multiple of pi radians)".
304:
Do you agree that the set of angles that have rational degree measure is the same as the set of angles that have rational gradient measure? β
164:
97:
58:
206:
The statement of the problem involves angles that nest. So illustrating the problem as stated requires drawing nested angles. β
289:
when someone is reading at the limit of their comprehension, and will be confused by inaccurate statements like this. β
33:
459:
422:
360:
350:
211:
183:
21:
168:
368:
309:
523:
485:
444:
407:
388:
294:
39:
83:
504:
455:
418:
346:
342:
242:
207:
179:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
364:
305:
266:
89:
73:
52:
318:
If I were writing for mathematicians I'd write that the angle should be a rational multiple of
527:
508:
489:
463:
448:
426:
411:
392:
372:
354:
313:
298:
274:
246:
234:
229:
215:
201:
187:
172:
519:
496:
481:
440:
403:
384:
290:
270:
500:
321:
225:
197:
238:
473:
Okay, my original fix was suboptimal. I'm not fighting to keep it. But where you say,
538:
102:
221:
193:
79:
431:
There is a claim with an incorrect implication, that a fraction might
345:
we should use the more accessible unit here. Which is not gradians. β
480:
How about we add your wording as a footnote, as JBL suggested? β
15:
497:
Integer triangle#Integer triangles with three rational angles
417:
There is no "incorrect description" in the current article. β
324:
402:
my point. But a footnote would of course be fine. β
265:
Must contain generalized solution. Add it, please!--
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
363:
is the main locus of discussion for some reason. --
333:
518:be more intelligible to the average reader. β
8:
19:
47:
323:
49:
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
359:Ditto. Also, for anyone watching,
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
550:Low-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
545:Start-Class mathematics articles
361:User talk:David Eppstein#Warning
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
1:
109:and see a list of open tasks.
275:19:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
188:18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
173:18:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
566:
499:has something similar. --
247:11:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
230:23:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
528:08:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
509:22:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
490:21:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
464:20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
449:20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
427:20:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
412:20:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
393:20:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
373:16:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
355:04:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
314:02:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
299:01:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
216:16:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
202:13:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
98:WikiProject Mathematics
335:
28:This article is rated
336:
334:{\displaystyle 2\pi }
322:
121:mathematics articles
331:
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
557:
340:
338:
337:
332:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
565:
564:
560:
559:
558:
556:
555:
554:
535:
534:
320:
319:
282:
263:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
563:
561:
553:
552:
547:
537:
536:
533:
532:
531:
530:
512:
511:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
456:David Eppstein
436:
419:David Eppstein
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
347:David Eppstein
330:
327:
281:
278:
262:
261:Generalization
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
208:David Eppstein
180:David Eppstein
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
562:
551:
548:
546:
543:
542:
540:
529:
525:
521:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
478:
476:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
437:
434:
430:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
400:
395:
394:
390:
386:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
328:
325:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
286:
279:
277:
276:
272:
268:
260:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
165:193.71.60.110
158:Nested angles
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
479:
474:
472:
432:
398:
396:
381:
343:WP:TECHNICAL
287:
283:
264:
161:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Lowβpriority
40:WikiProjects
163:Thank you.
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
539:Categories
501:Salix alba
341:, but per
235:WP:SOFIXIT
280:Degrees
139:on the
267:Nashev
36:scale.
520:kwami
482:kwami
441:kwami
404:kwami
385:kwami
291:kwami
222:Calum
194:Calum
524:talk
505:talk
486:talk
460:talk
445:talk
433:need
423:talk
408:talk
389:talk
369:talk
351:talk
310:talk
295:talk
271:talk
243:talk
237:. --
226:talk
212:talk
198:talk
184:talk
169:talk
507:):
399:are
365:JBL
306:JBL
239:JBL
131:Low
541::
526:)
488:)
462:)
447:)
425:)
410:)
391:)
371:)
353:)
329:Ο
312:)
297:)
273:)
245:)
228:)
214:)
200:)
186:)
171:)
522:(
503:(
484:(
458:(
443:(
421:(
406:(
387:(
367:(
349:(
326:2
308:(
293:(
269:(
241:(
224:(
210:(
196:(
182:(
167:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
