Talk:Pentagon

Suggestion for improvements
I don't have time at the moment to do this, but this page could use substantial revision. I may try to get to this.

It's really great that people have put a lot of time into this page and that there are several constructions here-- that's what led me here in the first place. But now that they're here, it'd be nice to systemize the presentation and make it more unified.

after all, all the constructions (compass and straightedge constructions, that is) begin in the same way: construct the midpoint and the perpendicular to the given radius. the alternative method and that using the Carlyle circles follow each other for even longer. All the constructions could have, for example, the same notation for the same objects and common steps described in common. There's at least three other constructions that should be included in detail -- Euclid's; a variation where (using the notation of the alternative method) one goes through step 4 of the alternative method, then takes a circle centered on D through point O; two of the five vertices lie on the intersection of this circle with the original and point B is another. Finally, a very nice construction that might or might not be due to John H. Conway and seems the simplest of all: using the notation of the alternative method, go through step 3; take point E to be the intersection of segment AB with the circle centered on midpoint C passing through O and B. Now take the circle centered on A passing through E-- presto! The intersection of this circle with the original gives two vertices.

A construction of penta, given an edge would also be nice to include.

Additional comments: the proof given is kinda beside the point. A purely synthetic proof would be more in the spirit of compass and straightedge, and would be simpler and much less intimidating to some people. All of these constructions set up a golden section and then plop it around; all that's needed is that the golden section appears in the penta as advertised. There are many simple variations -- Euclid's is great.

The so-called direct method really seems kinda, well, stupid. Certainly not at all of the same spirit as the others.

In any case, nice material, but now that it's here, can be taken to a more professional standard.99.175.93.95 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

One problem is at least on my two computers the pdf version refuses to print. I get a notice "Died Code 1" (Corrected post) Nicodemus (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

the pentagon
Excuse me a minute, but isn't it a bit thick to put the geometrical object ''pentagon aside for a building bearing its shape? Most people in this world will not associate the word "Pentagon" with a building, even though most USA-citizens probably do.

The thing that is on pentagon (shape) should be moved here, and the things here to pentagon (building). Need opinions about this before I do it.

-- Jörgen Nixdorf

Agreed. I thought the same as soon as I saw it. I was going to rename the articles pentagon and The Pentagon. In fact, it seems that articles with those names exist, so your work is half done. -- Heron

There I did it. Nixdorf 07:12 May 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Now begins the real work. Start fixing all these links that now point to the wrong page. -- Minesweeper 08:35 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I fixed them. All of them. Nixdorf 10:44 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * Did you good:
 * Whew! Nicely done. -- Minesweeper

What is a "no salute, no cover" area? - Montr&eacute;alais


 * "Cover" is military jargon for "hat". Normally a US serviceman must salute his superior officers whenever he (the subordinate) is wearing a cover, or is indoors, and must not do so otherwise.  Covers are not usually worn indoors.  Outdoors, a "no salute, no cover" area is one where you are not required to wear military millinery, and therefore not required to salute your superiors.  --Heron

Thanks. If I weren't 10 minutes late for school I'd try to think of a graceful way of putting this into the article. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * Done, but not gracefully. --Heron

Origami pentagon
I thought you might find this interesting: http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/polygons.htm Shinobu (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

a pentagon has 5 side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.187.156 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is what you mena...http://britishorigami.info/academic/polygons.php Arydberg (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Quintgon?
Can a pentagon also be called a quintgon?24.150.136.68 (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Please stop doing using Wikipedia as a discussion forum for original research. You can read more about original research, and why it is not allowed in Wikipedia, at the page WP:OR. If you'd like to help contribute positively to Wikipedia, there is a good capsule guide to Wikipedia's policies at WP:PILLARS. -- The Anome (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTNEO. --Thnidu (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Diasambiguation
I noticed that there could be some confusion between the pentagon (shape) and the intelligence base going by the same name. It's probably too much hassle but thanks for taking the time to read this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)