Talk:Incircle and excircles/Archive 1

Deleted link
I recently added an external link to this page to another related page (www.mathopenref.com/incenter.html) Someone removed the link saying it was commercial which it is not. The reason it is an external page is that it contains a java applet to convey a deeper understanding of the subject. This is not possible in Wikipedia.

Other links on this page are to cuttheknot which is clearly ad-based and therefore commercial, yet these links remain.

Could the person that deleted the link explain why? Should I remove these too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.151.150 (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who deleted the link, but it was probably done by mistake. Shinobu 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Printable version needs fixing
The "printable version" of this article needs fixing. Several equations do not print and the margins need adjustment so that figures print properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.96.142 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

contact triangle, context
Contact triangle redirects here, but the article doesn't really define it. It's sort of implicitly defined in the caption of a figure. The article also seems to me to lack context. There's no explanation of why any of these notions are interesting or useful -- whether they have applications, or links to other areas of mathematics.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gergonne Point Link
The link in this article to the Gergonne point redirects back to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.50.242 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mittenpunkt
This should not be merged with the Incircle/Excircle article. A quick scroll through the Internet shows that there are a number of interesting properties relating to the this triangle center X(9) and it is one of the leading 20 triangle centers categorised in ETC. A stub requesting more elaboration should be added to the mittenpunkt article, instead.Frank M Jackson (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

separate
this article should be separated into incircle and excircle Gauravjuvekar (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Other polygons/polyhedra
The center of the largest inscribed ball (i.e. circle in 2D) of a triangle should be its incircle. In other polygons, the largest inscribed circle may not be an incircle because a) it is still unique, but doesn't touch all edges, or b) it isn't even unique (e.g. in a non-quadratic rectangle). This seems to be related to one of the two definitions of Chebyshev center (I changed that article because this definition was missing although it seems to be more common in literature).

If I'm not totally wrong, a Support Vector Machine is the center if a maximum-radius circle in the dual rendering of Version space (c.f. Slides about SVM active learning). Should there be an article about maximum-radius circles/balls inscribing any polygon/polyhedron? Or should this be included here? -- 132.231.198.153 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Another incircle property
In a Pythagorean triangle, the radius of the incircle is always an integer. Proof on request. :) Captain Pedant (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This property appears in Pythagorean triple. It's also true of each excircle. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, no need to duplicate then. :) Captain Pedant (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

reorganising article -- new sections
I want to reorganise the article it has not much information and i found it badly organised

my idea of the article is - first have a section " incircle and incenter" where we collect all what is only on the incircle, the incenter and subjects only related to these 2 objects

- then a section " excircles and excenters" where we collect all what is only on the excircles, the excenters and subjects only related to these 2 objects

And after that some sections that combine the incircle and excircles.

At the moment I started on the section " incircle and incenter" (it now contains bits of the incenter article related to triangles) without removing the bits from lower in the article

so it has quite some duplication at the moment Please feel free to add, correct, and improve, (and to be honnest it needs lot of improvement)

please give comments on the new structureIf you don't like this new structure please comment here

Hope I did not offend anybody WillemienH (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)