1278:
this case an increasing radius. An editor objected to my inclusion of this information with the rationale that the page was written from the viewpoint of a fixed radius for the sphere (in fact, unity), so an increasing radius should not be mentioned. I am not sold on this rationale, but fortunately an alternative phrasing was given (that I have now adopted) that made the point moot. Unfortunately, another editor, for the sake of parallel construction, changed this back to a limit statement (without a variable). My recent edit keeps the parallel construction but removes the limit statement. In this setting, one can either talk about limits or about approximations, but if you phrase things in terms of limits you need to specify the variable in an article at this level, otherwise you are falling into the "math jargon" trap. Yes, it is easy for an experienced reader to figure out what "in the limit" is going to mean in this setting, but this is not the intended audience. Also, the terms, "reduces to" and "is a special case" which had been used here are inaccurate and misleading, so had to be removed. There is one more instance of the use of "in the limit" occurring in the last section. I have left this alone for the time being (assuming that only more sophisticated readers would get that far), but the same reasoning could be applied there.--
417:
definition). If this is the case, a, b, and c will all be 90 degrees as well, and the statement sin c = cos a cos b evaluates to 1=0 although it is implied by the given drawing of Napier's pentagon. As further proof, if the right spherical triangle in question is not quite a great triangle, a, b, and c may still be very close to 90 degrees, sin c would be close to 1, and cos a cos b would still be very close to 0. I think the statement should probably read "the cosine of the middle angle is equal to the product of the cosines of the opposite angles." This makes more sense in the case of the angles opposite c, however, I cannot verify it.
1298:
1260:
fundamental in modern geometries and, perhaps more importantly, very accessible. Of course purely algebraic methods are fine, but
Knowledge pages on the scalar triple product and on the parallelepiped clearly talk about their application to volumes. Given that the cosine rule has been accorded a formal proof, I see no harm in using the same basis to derive the sine law. Relating to the volume is a simple extension that does not affect the concision in my opinion. This relation to the volume is not unusual and given in
84:
74:
53:
1312:
that AB is the other side of the great circle (i.e. ellipse in the figure) that lies to the NW of the origin (also opposing poles should be at the same distance from the rim in the image, which they are not, and the polar axises be perpendicular to the major axises of the ellipses, which looks doubtful). Compare my figure to the lower right (note that the angles between the "equatorial planes" are not the same in both images).
1305:
309:
pole and run the side with length given, up the prime meridian. Knowing both angles to either end of the segment of fixed length ensures that the other 2 sides emanate with a uniquely determined trajectory, and thus will meet each other at a uniquely determined point, so ASA is valid. On the other hand, take side lengths of pi, pi/2, pi/2. One has a continuous family of non-congruent triangles with such measurements.
22:
1328:
than in my image, which is a contradiction. The sides of the polar triangle does not look like correct ellipses, which should be symmetrical around the origin (look at B'C'in the current image - in no way can that be part of an ellipse centered around the origin with the major axis equal to the diameter of the sphere, and neither can A'B' nor A'C').
402:) 06:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, I created a new version of the figure in .svg format with the complements reversed, uploaded that to Commons, and changed the link (old and new figures are in the "spherical trigonometry" category). I then edited the text to give the correct corresponding formulae and added a description of Napier's mnemonic.
855:
1404:
There is a double implication between the two statements and I feel that is important to make this clear from the very start, in other words to say that are equivalent. The presence of two "by convention" hides this - no problem if one knows this, but may be a problem if he does not. Our disagreement
1311:
The image of the polar triangle (upper right) is wrong. For all corners of the polar triangle to lie on the visible half of the sphere the origin in the image must lie inside ABC. As AB lies SE of the origin, the corner C' lies on the backside. The image with the poles as shown in the figure implies
1183:
I have added a paragraph on alternative derivations of the fundamental formulae and at the same time I have given a reduced description of the proof added by recent editors. I hope the article will not be expanded to include more of the alternative derivations and thereby lose its concision. I would
1162:
has been widely adopted in spherical trigonometry for centuries, and is found in most of the best and most historically important textbooks. It is not ambiguous, just differs slightly from conventions found in (some) modern sources which donāt typically need nearly so many half-angle trig functions.
308:
Certain degenerate triangles (those with antipodal vertices, e.g.,) make these congruences not generally valid, even if they are generically valid. ASA is the only one that actually holds: since "congruence" is upto an action of O(3) we can situate one of the vertices at a given angle at the south
261:
Yes, there is a SSS congruence for spherical triangles such that AAA is also true where Angle A = Angle B = Angle C = 270 Degrees (implying that each angle is 90 Degrees). The distance of each "side" in this "spherical" model would be the
Circumference (measurement 360 Degrees) divided by 4. For a
1264:
and the book by
Jennings on Modern Geometry. I did not want the page to simply be a collection of identities and not offer accessible insight into some of the mathematics of spherical trigonometry. For example, there is no mention of dual triangles on the sphere that could also provide alternative
653:
Yes! the page definitely needs an overhaul and has several gaps that need filling. One request: L'Huillier's theorem is the only formula offered to calculate the spherical excess and this is used by some software packages to compute the area of a general spherical polygon. However a triangle is
187:
I'm not sure. This whole article contradicts itself in the way that it is now. In the example you gave, for example, it says the spherical excess formula calculates how much the triangle exceeds 180 degrees. But in the formula, it subtracts pi, not 180 degrees. On the other hand, geometry is often
1327:
Also: the smaller triangle you start with, the greater polar triangle you will get (when the sides are all 90Ā° the triangles are identical, and when one of the triangles is a dot, the other is a great circle). In the current image both the original and the polar triangles are smaller respectively
1277:
I have recently made some changes in this section that I think need some additional explanation. The issue has to do with the comparison of the spherical laws with their planar counterparts. The phrasing "in the limit" that had been used is ambiguous without referring to the changing variable, in
995:
I've just reverted a bunch of reformats of trig formulas. These made the formulas less easy to understand, e.g., by using built-up fractions instead of a 1/2 multiplier for half-angle formulas and by introducing unnecessary parentheses. I recommend that such blanket changes be discussed on this
1039:
I disagree with your assertion that the inclusion of parentheses is necessary to make the formulas "formally correct" (see my comment on
Meridian arc talk page). (And I don't understand the point you are making about implied and explicit multiplications.) I can go either way on the square root
637:
I started out with the intention of adding Napier's rules but I have branched out to a general tidy up, re-ordering material where necessary. The section on identities will get some more added. The section on derivations will be condensed a little. Please check for typos. Please let me have any
1259:
I am not sure if concision is necessarily a virtue. If someone seeks concision (s)he can simply stop reading beyond the statement and the section on
Alternate derivations. Students (even in high school) and researchers often seek more than simply the statement of the results. Vector methods are
416:
There is an error with the statement "the sine of the middle angle is equal to the product of the cosines of the opposite angles." As a counter-example, consider the case of a great triangle, where all corners are 90 degreees (I presume this also counts as a right spherical triangle by Napier's
1243:
defined as a volume of a parallelpiped although it can certainly be interpreted as such. Similarly the cyclic symmetry follows from algebraic definitions and it does not need a proof by the basis independence of volume. Furthermore I know of no problems using spherical trig in which the volume
1011:
These were no blanket changes but corrections. As stated now (without the brackets), these formulas are formally incorrect. The parentheses are not optional here as there is no universally accepted or understood rule giving implied multiplication a higher priority than explicit multiplication,
916:
A fairly major limitation to the suggestion to use
Mathjax rendering is that it can only be used by people who are logged into Knowledge. I've no idea how many people this leaves out, possibly it's 90% of readers. In any case, I've started lobbying for a way to expand the use of the Mathjax
474:
This entry needs some work before it is explanatory. It uses a lot of terms without defining them. For example, the formula sin A/sin a etc is stated without explaining what a, A, b, B etc refer to. The diagram is pretty but the letters in it do not correspond to those used in the entry.
1199:
I like your edit as it provides a sensible approach to the alternative derivation "problem". I say problem because I have seen too many articles where some editors have felt that every alternative should be reported on. This may be alright if the subject of an article is the
393:
The choice to change the picture (made by Arif Zaman above) was an unfortunate one, because it completely loses the incredibly clever mnemonic developed by Napier for the right spherical triangle formulae; I will attempt to restore it. I also corrected the title above.
654:
sometimes badly characterized by its sides so the resulting area can be inaccurate. A better alternative for area calculations is one of Napier's analogies applied to the quadrangle bounded by a segment of a great circle, two meridians, and the equator for which (
940:
The image of the Polar
Triangle shows references to A',B',C',A,B,C. Yet, the text formulas that seem to be associated with it include a,b,c,a',b',c' but these lower-case points are not shown on the image. It may be confusing for the easily confused such as me.
1579:
i.e. area of nearly a whole hemisphere). If you allow "improper" angles (e.g. take any small spherical triangle and swap your idea of the interior and exterior) then the triangle can have area of nearly the entire surface of the sphere (spherical exces of almost
616:
theyāre respectively large and small letters, as is more usual among navigators and consistent with the others in the section. Moreover, FWIW, the first is āupside downā WRT the other two. Do we need to provide this formula twice in one article, anyway?
1741:
901:. I shall also move the Spherical excess to the end of the article (and include the above expression) although Spherical excess probably deserves a page of its own where its applications could be discussed. Perhaps a stub should be created?
685:
431:
The counter-example you give is in error because you forgot to use the complement of c (indicated by a bar over the c) in the formula. The sine of c_bar is the cosine of c, so it comes out as 0 = 0, and the formulae are correct.
377:
Since the image is a projection into R^2 and none of the angles are labelled with an "L" type symbol indicating an angle of pi/2, i think that the figure can be used as a general spherical triangle on S^2 without much problem...
502:
Also, the gamma label has been lost from the first illustration. It would also be nice if there were some way to accentuate the triangle in the figure, e.g. by heavier lines defining the triangle of interest, or by color.
1160:
1239:. There is absolutely no need to bring the parallelpiped into the discussion. The scalar triple product is simply a descriptive name of a scalar product in which one of the vectors is a vector product of two others: it is
1362:
The sides of proper spherical triangles are less than Ļ and satisfy 0 < a + b + c < 2Ļ; it may be shown that a spherical triangle is proper if and only if all the sides are less than pi . (Todhunter, Art.22,32).
1040:
signs; the editor that used the 1/2 power presumably thought that this looked better. I tend to agree (the large square root sign is distracting); in any case, I would normally defer to the preferences of the editor.
356:. The equations as stated in the wiki article are the co-equations of this page. So either the equations need to be corrected, or the picture needed to have the complementary angles drawn. I chose to fix the picture.
351:
I corrected the image a bit more. The original figure was mismatched with the description of the equations given in the text. The figure, as it was previously drawn was similar to the one on the referred page:
1359:
A naive reading suggests that there are SIX independent constraints on the triangle, moreover one may wonder why the sides' sum is 2*pi rather than 3*pi. What about replacing the second sentence by
455:, P.R.China. Maybe just experimenting to see if wikipedia is available. Or a Chinese censor trying to be disruptive? Who knows, this is just speculation... Let's just revert to the full version.
1423:
I did not make any assumptions on the nature of other readers. I only mention that your suggestion confuses me. Moreover, it did not make me understand what you explained in your last comment.
960:
opposite, respectivelyāas shown in the illustration immediately above. Adding all six labels to this drawing could make it look rather cluttered and impede visualization in three dimensions.ā
140:
1654:
1528:
1090:
367:
the image labeled "Spherical
Triangle" is actually of a "right spherical triangle", as indicated by its German title: rechtkugel dreieck, literally "right-angle three-corner". --
678:
850:{\displaystyle \tan {\frac {E}{2}}={\frac {\sin {\frac {1}{2}}(\phi _{2}+\phi _{1})}{\cos {\frac {1}{2}}(\phi _{2}-\phi _{1})}}\tan {\frac {\lambda _{2}-\lambda _{1}}{2}}.}
1018:
Regarding readability, is there any particular reason to use the ^(1/2) form instead of the much easier to read square root form (which, again, made parentheses obsolete)?
1625:
1601:
1575:
1551:
1426:
I think that the solution is to introduce the definition of a proper triangle elsewhere (not in the notation section) and list the properties of such triangle there.
451:
No idea why someone would want to remove large sections of this page as has been done recently. The last edit (which i reverted) was from someone at an IP in
290:
These are good questions--do SSS, SAS, ASA, and/or AAS imply congruence of spherical triangles? The answer deserves to be in the article. Does anyone know?
876:
Upgrade is proceeding. This article is obviously fairly heavy on mathematics. Only recently have I discovered the great improvement made the
Preference-: -->
1384:
That the sum of the angles is <3*pi and that the sum of the sides is <2*pi, are both easily explained by the limit case of 3 points on a great circle?
1839:
130:
897:. I shall therefore replace it with a link and brief comments. The section on Conruent triangles didn't really sit well here so I shall moved it to
1095:
1015:
I am open in regard to using a 1/2 fore-factor or using fractions instead, it is only that by using proper fractions we can avoid the parentheses.
533:
page credits J.H. Lambert with Girard's
Theorem; this page Harriot. (At least you agree it wasn't Girard! Ā :-) Perhaps there was a Harriot--: -->
1366:(perhaps another article of Todhunter is needed; I am not absolutely sure about the if-and-only-if statement, if I am wrong please tell me this)
262:
sphere, each Side then equals 2*Pi*r/4. For a Unit Sphere, this Equilateral Triangle has it's sides equa to 1.570796327 == 1.57. "I Think"
106:
1834:
1481:
1012:
therefore we should avoid this formally incorrect jargon where it causes difficulties for the readers to correctly interprete the formulas.
585:
219:
510:
319:
173:
977:
278:
97:
58:
1352:
The angles of proper spherical triangles are (by convention) less than Ļ so that Ļ < A + B + C < 3Ļ. (Todhunter, Art.22,32).
1355:
The sides of proper spherical triangles are (by convention) less than Ļ so that 0 < a + b + c < 2Ļ. (Todhunter, Art.22,32).
192:
Actually, I've just thought now to check the page for triangles. That whole page is in degrees. Should this page align to that? (
188:
performed using degrees. I would agree to your proposition, but I do still have reservations. I'll begin switching it over now.
1816:
578:
The figure showing a spherical triangle can be improved to display the projection of the circles as ellipses. Bo Jacoby.
162:
this artical seems over complicated by use of both degrees and radians. I propose to a change to make it entirely radians.
491:
33:
861:(Of course, this requires a generalization of the definition of spherical excess to polygons; this is also needed!)
1249:
1189:
906:
883:
643:
422:
1485:
956:
By convention, where vertices are labelled with capital letters, the corresponding small letters refer to the
918:
589:
223:
514:
894:
540:
323:
274:
177:
1297:
919:
Village pump (technical)#How can an user without a Knowledge account get the benefits of Mathjax rendering?
1795:
1333:
1317:
1026:
964:
946:
622:
613:
605:
563:
437:
407:
399:
1501:
1802:.). I could give it a try but ... anyone know enough about this formula to do it properly? Thank you ā
1449:
1410:
1371:
898:
197:
39:
1266:
1236:
1057:
942:
270:
83:
878:
mathJax. Is there a nice way of flagging an article which encourages readers to set this preference?
487:
255:
581:
506:
479:
266:
215:
169:
21:
1812:
1633:
1245:
1185:
1167:
902:
879:
657:
639:
551:
530:
418:
295:
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1736:{\displaystyle \sin {\tfrac {1}{2}}\varepsilon =\tan {\tfrac {1}{2}}c\,\tan {\tfrac {1}{2}}h_{c}}
1283:
1209:
536:
483:
89:
893:
The end of my upgrade is now in sight. The History section had been lifted almost verbatim from
73:
52:
1799:
1648:
353:
1329:
1313:
1022:
961:
618:
559:
433:
403:
395:
1445:
1433:
1406:
1391:
1367:
544:
368:
441:
426:
411:
371:
362:
346:
1767:
1758:
is the angular difference between two parallel small circles -- one is through the points
1607:
1583:
1557:
1533:
1261:
359:
1204:
of a result, but outside of that limited scenario I don't see that it has much value. --
1803:
1630:
1265:
proofs to the spherical law of sines. Again, the book by Jennings is worth mentioning.
1223:
1164:
1045:
1001:
926:
866:
555:
460:
383:
291:
1304:
1828:
1279:
1205:
193:
609:
1820:
1636:
1489:
1453:
1437:
1414:
1395:
1375:
1337:
1321:
1287:
1253:
1227:
1213:
1193:
1170:
1049:
1030:
1005:
984:
950:
930:
910:
887:
870:
647:
626:
593:
567:
518:
495:
464:
387:
327:
299:
282:
227:
201:
181:
1429:
1405:
on this evidently reflects a disagreement on the probable nature of the readers.
1387:
343:
318:
As an aside, the sum of angles - pi = area formula should probably be included.
102:
608:
uses Greek letters for angles and italics for sides, mathematician-style as at
1381:
Your suggestion makes it confusing for me. What's wrong with the current text?
1155:{\textstyle \tan {\tfrac {1}{2}}{\bigl (}{\tfrac {1}{2}}\pi -\theta {\bigr )}}
79:
1219:
1041:
997:
922:
862:
456:
379:
535:
Lambert progression? Anyway, I think the two pages should be consistent.
1495:
No, but that whole section is confusingly worded and technically sloppy.
1054:
Itās a bit late for this discussion, but note that notation of the form
452:
212:
It seems necessary to say something about the radius in the sin law?
1553:
radians as a sum of such internal angles (spherical excess of almost
1498:
By "proper angle" it means angles less than a straight angle (i.e.
1218:
I agreeāavoid multiple derivations and keep the article concise.
1798:
article too (or at the very least a summary and then a link to
15:
1303:
1296:
354:
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/rbfnotes/trig/strig/strig.html
251:
Is AAS a valid congruence theorem for spherical triangles??
248:
Is ASA a valid congruence theorem for spherical triangles??
245:
Is SAS a valid congruence theorem for spherical triangles??
242:
Is SSS a valid congruence theorem for spherical triangles??
1235:
Sadly I am again reverting the edits of new wikipedian
238:
Please try to answer whether these questions are known:
1794:. I'd like to see this area formula described in this
1262:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html
554:
no longer mentions Girardās Theorem at all AFAICT, and
1712:
1689:
1665:
1125:
1106:
1098:
1068:
1060:
1657:
1610:
1586:
1560:
1536:
1504:
688:
660:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1735:
1619:
1595:
1569:
1545:
1522:
1154:
1084:
849:
672:
638:adverse reactions. There is still more to come.
1184:be grateful if experienced editors can comment.
558:agrees with this articleāwith a citation, yet! ā
1530:radians), so that a triangle could have almost
921:. Please consider adding to this discussion.
1147:
1119:
8:
47:
1727:
1711:
1688:
1664:
1656:
1609:
1585:
1559:
1535:
1503:
1146:
1145:
1124:
1118:
1117:
1105:
1097:
1067:
1059:
832:
819:
812:
794:
781:
764:
747:
734:
717:
708:
695:
687:
659:
340:I corrected the image for Neper's circle
550:I donāt know the facts of the case, but
1747:is the area of the spherical triangle,
1703:
49:
19:
1603:or sum of "internal" angles of almost
629:Edited 07:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
604:The spherical sine law as given under
7:
1523:{\displaystyle 0<\theta <\pi }
606:Spherical trigonometry#Islamic world
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1244:interpretation is of relevance.
1085:{\textstyle \tan {\tfrac {1}{2}}a}
14:
1840:Mid-priority mathematics articles
614:Spherical trigonometry#Identities
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
1293:The image of the polar triangle
1273:Limits in sine and cosine rules
135:This article has been rated as
800:
774:
753:
727:
673:{\displaystyle \phi ,\lambda }
627:07:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
568:07:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
1454:07:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
1438:21:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
1415:17:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
1396:14:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
1376:13:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
1050:16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1031:15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1006:12:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
496:23:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
442:03:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
427:20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
363:16:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
283:08:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1835:C-Class mathematics articles
1171:01:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
680:are latitude and longitude)
594:22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
545:14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
519:13:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
347:08:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1637:22:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
1490:21:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
1477:(3Ļ for proper triangles).
610:Law of sines#Spherical case
525:Credit for Girard's Theorem
372:23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
182:15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
1856:
1651:page, appears the formula
931:00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
1776:and the other is through
1471:(3Ļ for proper angles).
1444:Thanks and happy new year
1338:09:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
1322:08:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
1288:18:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
985:06:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
951:06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
911:11:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
888:21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
871:12:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
648:22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
600:Inconsistency in notation
465:16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
388:16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
328:20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
202:17:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
1821:18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
1254:18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
1228:01:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
1214:21:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
1194:20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
991:Formatting trig formulas
412:22:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
300:17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
258:18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
1179:Alternative derivations
936:Polar Triangle Question
895:History of trigonometry
524:
228:20:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
98:WikiProject Mathematics
1796:Spherical trigonometry
1751:is a side length, and
1737:
1621:
1597:
1571:
1547:
1524:
1308:
1301:
1156:
1086:
851:
674:
335:
28:This article is rated
1738:
1622:
1620:{\displaystyle 5\pi }
1598:
1596:{\displaystyle 4\pi }
1572:
1570:{\displaystyle 2\pi }
1548:
1546:{\displaystyle 3\pi }
1525:
1307:
1300:
1157:
1087:
899:Congruence (geometry)
852:
675:
556:Thomas Harriot#Legacy
166:"E=A+B+C-Ļ radians"
1655:
1608:
1584:
1558:
1534:
1502:
1269:16:08, 12 May 2017.
1096:
1058:
686:
658:
121:mathematics articles
1643:Add an area formula
552:Hyperbolic Geometry
531:Hyperbolic Geometry
1733:
1721:
1704:
1698:
1674:
1617:
1593:
1567:
1543:
1520:
1348:The text contains
1309:
1302:
1152:
1134:
1115:
1082:
1077:
847:
670:
158:Radians or degrees
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
1720:
1697:
1673:
1237:User:Joao Nemmers
1133:
1114:
1076:
996:talk page first.
842:
804:
772:
725:
703:
584:comment added by
509:comment added by
499:
482:comment added by
286:
269:comment added by
218:comment added by
184:
172:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1847:
1808:
1800:Lexell's theorem
1793:
1789:
1782:
1775:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1740:
1739:
1734:
1732:
1731:
1722:
1713:
1699:
1690:
1675:
1666:
1649:Lexell's theorem
1628:
1626:
1624:
1623:
1618:
1602:
1600:
1599:
1594:
1578:
1576:
1574:
1573:
1568:
1552:
1550:
1549:
1544:
1529:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1280:Bill Cherowitzo
1206:Bill Cherowitzo
1161:
1159:
1158:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1135:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1107:
1091:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1069:
981:
974:
971:
968:
877:Appearance-: -->
856:
854:
853:
848:
843:
838:
837:
836:
824:
823:
813:
805:
803:
799:
798:
786:
785:
773:
765:
756:
752:
751:
739:
738:
726:
718:
709:
704:
696:
679:
677:
676:
671:
596:
521:
498:
476:
470:Some Work Needed
285:
263:
230:
208:Explicit Radius?
167:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1855:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1825:
1824:
1804:
1791:
1784:
1777:
1770:
1768:antipodal point
1763:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1723:
1653:
1652:
1645:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1582:
1581:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1532:
1531:
1500:
1499:
1474:be replaced by
1466:
1346:
1295:
1275:
1181:
1094:
1093:
1056:
1055:
993:
979:
972:
969:
966:
938:
828:
815:
814:
790:
777:
757:
743:
730:
710:
684:
683:
656:
655:
635:
602:
579:
576:
527:
504:
477:
472:
449:
447:Minor vandalism
338:
336:Napier's circle
264:
236:
234:Valid theorems?
213:
210:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1853:
1851:
1843:
1842:
1837:
1827:
1826:
1754:
1730:
1726:
1719:
1716:
1710:
1707:
1702:
1696:
1693:
1687:
1684:
1681:
1678:
1672:
1669:
1663:
1660:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1616:
1613:
1592:
1589:
1566:
1563:
1542:
1539:
1519:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1496:
1482:151.29.137.229
1465:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1399:
1398:
1385:
1382:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1294:
1291:
1274:
1271:
1258:
1246:Peter Mercator
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1186:Peter Mercator
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1149:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1132:
1129:
1121:
1113:
1110:
1104:
1101:
1081:
1075:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1052:
1034:
1033:
1019:
1016:
1013:
992:
989:
988:
987:
937:
934:
917:renderer; see
914:
913:
903:Peter Mercator
880:Peter Mercator
874:
873:
859:
858:
857:
846:
841:
835:
831:
827:
822:
818:
811:
808:
802:
797:
793:
789:
784:
780:
776:
771:
768:
763:
760:
755:
750:
746:
742:
737:
733:
729:
724:
721:
716:
713:
707:
702:
699:
694:
691:
669:
666:
663:
640:Peter Mercator
634:
631:
601:
598:
586:89.239.205.120
575:
572:
571:
570:
526:
523:
471:
468:
448:
445:
419:Planet sputter
391:
390:
337:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
313:
312:
311:
310:
303:
302:
253:
252:
249:
246:
243:
235:
232:
220:71.230.115.205
209:
206:
165:
164:so for example
163:
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:
1852:
1841:
1838:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1830:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1801:
1797:
1787:
1780:
1773:
1769:
1728:
1724:
1717:
1714:
1708:
1705:
1700:
1694:
1691:
1685:
1682:
1679:
1676:
1670:
1667:
1661:
1658:
1650:
1642:
1638:
1635:
1632:
1614:
1611:
1590:
1587:
1564:
1561:
1540:
1537:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1505:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1463:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1306:
1299:
1292:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1272:
1270:
1268:
1263:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1178:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1130:
1127:
1111:
1108:
1102:
1099:
1079:
1073:
1070:
1064:
1061:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
990:
986:
983:
982:
976:
975:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
935:
933:
932:
928:
924:
920:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
872:
868:
864:
860:
844:
839:
833:
829:
825:
820:
816:
809:
806:
795:
791:
787:
782:
778:
769:
766:
761:
758:
748:
744:
740:
735:
731:
722:
719:
714:
711:
705:
700:
697:
692:
689:
682:
681:
667:
664:
661:
652:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
633:Major tidy up
632:
630:
628:
624:
620:
615:
611:
607:
599:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
537:Jamesdowallen
534:Girard--: -->
532:
522:
520:
516:
512:
511:98.222.58.129
508:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
469:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
446:
444:
443:
439:
435:
429:
428:
424:
420:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
389:
385:
381:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
365:
364:
361:
357:
355:
349:
348:
345:
341:
329:
325:
321:
320:128.84.234.59
317:
316:
315:
314:
307:
306:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
259:
257:
250:
247:
244:
241:
240:
239:
233:
231:
229:
225:
221:
217:
207:
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
185:
183:
179:
175:
174:138.251.30.10
171:
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:
1805:
1785:
1778:
1771:
1646:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:please check
1365:
1361:
1358:
1347:
1330:Episcophagus
1314:Episcophagus
1310:
1276:
1267:Joao_Nemmers
1257:
1240:
1234:
1201:
1182:
1023:Matthiaspaul
994:
978:
965:
957:
943:Tesseract501
939:
915:
875:
636:
619:Odysseus1479
612:, but under
603:
577:
560:Odysseus1479
528:
501:
473:
450:
434:Ted Sweetser
430:
415:
404:Ted Sweetser
396:Ted Sweetser
392:
366:
358:
350:
342:
339:
271:Bumppjohnson
265:ā Preceding
260:
254:
237:
211:
189:
186:
161:
137:Mid-priority
136:
96:
62:Midāpriority
40:WikiProjects
1446:Suppongoche
1407:Suppongoche
1368:Suppongoche
580:āPreceding
505:āPreceding
478:āPreceding
256:66.245.7.28
214:āPreceding
168:āPreceding
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
1829:Categories
1344:suggestion
360:Arif Zaman
1631:jacobolus
1480:? thanks
1165:jacobolus
292:Duoduoduo
1817:contribs
1809:uantling
1766:and the
962:Odysseus
582:unsigned
507:unsigned
492:contribs
480:unsigned
279:contribs
267:unsigned
216:unsigned
194:Buggy793
170:unsigned
1647:On the
1468:should
453:Kowloon
139:on the
30:C-class
1743:where
1430:Gollem
1388:Gollem
574:Figure
484:Gnomon
344:Eroica
36:scale.
1202:proof
958:sides
190:EDIT:
1813:talk
1790:and
1515:<
1509:<
1486:talk
1450:talk
1434:talk
1411:talk
1392:talk
1372:talk
1334:talk
1318:talk
1284:talk
1250:talk
1224:talk
1220:cffk
1210:talk
1190:talk
1046:talk
1042:cffk
1027:talk
1002:talk
998:cffk
947:talk
927:talk
923:cffk
907:talk
884:talk
867:talk
863:cffk
644:talk
623:talk
590:talk
564:talk
541:talk
529:The
515:talk
488:talk
461:talk
457:Boud
438:talk
423:talk
408:talk
400:talk
384:talk
380:Boud
324:talk
296:talk
275:talk
224:talk
198:talk
178:talk
1706:tan
1683:tan
1659:sin
1634:(t)
1241:not
1168:(t)
1100:tan
1092:or
1062:tan
807:tan
759:cos
712:sin
690:tan
369:Don
131:Mid
1831::
1819:)
1815:|
1783:,
1762:,
1709:ā”
1686:ā”
1677:Īµ
1662:ā”
1627:).
1615:Ļ
1591:Ļ
1565:Ļ
1541:Ļ
1518:Ļ
1512:Īø
1488:)
1452:)
1436:)
1413:)
1394:)
1374:)
1336:)
1320:)
1286:)
1252:)
1226:)
1212:)
1192:)
1143:Īø
1140:ā
1137:Ļ
1103:ā”
1065:ā”
1048:)
1029:)
1021:--
1004:)
949:)
929:)
909:)
886:)
869:)
830:Ī»
826:ā
817:Ī»
810:ā”
792:Ļ
788:ā
779:Ļ
762:ā”
745:Ļ
732:Ļ
715:ā”
693:ā”
668:Ī»
662:Ļ
646:)
625:)
592:)
566:)
543:)
517:)
494:)
490:ā¢
463:)
440:)
425:)
410:)
386:)
326:)
298:)
281:)
277:ā¢
226:)
204:)
200:)
180:)
1811:(
1806:Q
1792:C
1788:*
1786:B
1781:*
1779:A
1774:*
1772:C
1764:B
1760:A
1755:c
1753:h
1749:c
1745:Īµ
1729:c
1725:h
1718:2
1715:1
1701:c
1695:2
1692:1
1680:=
1671:2
1668:1
1629:ā
1612:5
1588:4
1577:,
1562:2
1538:3
1506:0
1484:(
1448:(
1432:(
1409:(
1390:(
1370:(
1332:(
1316:(
1282:(
1248:(
1222:(
1208:(
1188:(
1163:ā
1148:)
1131:2
1128:1
1120:(
1112:2
1109:1
1080:a
1074:2
1071:1
1044:(
1025:(
1000:(
980:9
973:7
970:4
967:1
945:(
925:(
905:(
882:(
865:(
845:.
840:2
834:1
821:2
801:)
796:1
783:2
775:(
770:2
767:1
754:)
749:1
741:+
736:2
728:(
723:2
720:1
706:=
701:2
698:E
665:,
642:(
621:(
617:ā
588:(
562:(
539:(
513:(
486:(
459:(
436:(
421:(
406:(
398:(
382:(
322:(
294:(
273:(
222:(
196:(
176:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.