Talk:Coin rotation paradox

Issues with the Article

 * For one thing, Coin Rotation Paradox is not a hoax.
 * It has plenty of sources, both on the web and in books.
 * Wolfram Mathworld is most reliable source you can ever get for mathematics related articles.

Novonium (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This article needs sources (RefImprove template)
The article has no citation in all sections. Only the lead has one.

Siyeou (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unequal radii
The formula R/r + 1 is correct. However, the reference – author Y. Nishiyami – doesn't give the formula, much less prove it is true for any R and r. Also, Nishiyama says, “Separating revolution from rotation is helpful for understanding, but doing so does not provide a fundamental solution.” This latter part is not true. For a coin with radius r to make one revolution around a stationary coin with radius R, the center of the moving coin travels a circular path with radius R + r. (R + r)/r = R/r + 1. Likewise, the circumference of the path is 2*pi*(R + r)/(2*pi*r) = R/r + 1 times the circumference of the revolving coin. Rotation is irrelevant. Merjet (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, stop this embarrassment!
Why is English Wikipedia embarrassing itself with this hoax article?! Just take two coins of the same size, draw a line on both and circle one around the standing other. You'll see for yourself that this is ridiculously wrong. And after that, you should burn this article with fire! 141.136.215.208 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * you should see the new Video from Veritasium Osw719 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't even a paradox, it's just geometry. This term has been used in some internet videos or in few books which rather target maths learners than scientific demands. But since it isn't really a paradox and covered by regular geometry, this doesn't need an article for it's own. And even if it does it describes more a phenomen of popular culture than physics. - Flexman (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, this article is just fine, and plus, multiple people wanna keep this. TheguyinterestedinstuffIG (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)