Talk:Golden ratio: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis m (→Silver ratio: red link) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Silver ratio: 2.414) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Isn't there a [[silver ratio]], too, that is 1.414? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | Isn't there a [[silver ratio]], too, that is 1.414? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Oops, it's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_ratio 2.414]. They all seem to claim that they are pleasing to the eye! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:50, 20 September 2009
I removed the sentence which read:
- The golden ratio is irrational and, in a sense, the hardest among irrational numbers to approximate by rational numbers. Only rational numbers are harder to approximate by other rational numbers. Thus one may say that of all irrational numbers the golden ratio is the least irrational.
because it doesn't make much sense to me, and what it seems to be saying appears to me to be clearly wrong. Anthony Argyriou 22:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it sure doesn't make any sense to *me*! Please don't think that *I* put it in there! Hayford Peirce 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
why does it follow
The article states: "If it follows that " Why does it follow? I don't follow. --Joe Quick 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I hope that's clearer now. --Daniel Mietchen 07:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that makes more sense. Thanks. --Joe Quick 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, ho, people, couldn't we have a Definition that made a *little* sense!?
Has anyone *read* the current definition? What does it have to do with the Golden ratio? Hayford Peirce 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, I wuz so aggravated by this dumb definition that I fergot to sign me name?! Hayford Peirce 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot that needs to be done. It would help, right at the beginning if CZ had articles on ratio and proportion...which are not exactly the same thing[1]. (My background is in the visual arts, and it would not be a good idea for me to create those articles.)
In my view the Leipzig old townhall image does very little to explain the subject of the article, but I hesitate to remove it until I can find something better to replace it. Something like this [2] would be more helpful, but I have not yet found a good free use image. (Actually, I would like to add an image gallery showing a number of natural and art works that demonstrate the golden ratio.) I would also like to show some problems with claims made be exponents of the golden ratio, such as claims of the ratio in nautilus shells even though the match is far from perfect [3]. Malcolm Schosha 12:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Silver ratio
Isn't there a silver ratio, too, that is 1.414? D. Matt Innis 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, it's 2.414. They all seem to claim that they are pleasing to the eye! D. Matt Innis 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Mathematics Category Check
- Architecture Category Check
- Visual Arts Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Mathematics Developing Articles
- Mathematics Nonstub Articles
- Mathematics Internal Articles
- Architecture Developing Articles
- Architecture Nonstub Articles
- Architecture Internal Articles
- Visual Arts Developing Articles
- Visual Arts Nonstub Articles
- Visual Arts Internal Articles