Talk:Simson line

The "Proof of existence" appears to apply to a figure with different lettering than the one at the top of the page. For the proof to apply as written, the diagram should have the letters M and N interchanged, and the letters A, B, and C rotated around the triangle, i.e. the point now labelled B should be relabelled A, the point now labelled C should be relabelled B, and the point now labelled A should be relabelled C. Alternatively one could replace the letters in the proof to apply to the existing diagram. As it stands, however, it is confusing and unacceptable.
 * Good point. Why do you not proceed with changing the text rather than the diagram. It seems the easier option Frank M Jackson (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proof of existence

O.K so PMB is a right angle (perpendicular from P to CB) So by Thrales theorem we can draw a circle through P,M and B with PB a diameter. We then note that BNP is also a right angle so N also lies on the circle and BNMP is a cyclic quadrilateral. Took me 15 minutes to work this out (timed it). Am I stupid or is the explanation a bit wanting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.144 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Undefined notation
Point D in the conclusion of the second generalization has not been defined. Loraof (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring
I believe that the two IP editors and  who have recently been edit-warring to include the minor generalizations of Dao Thanh Oai are sockpuppets of User:Eightcirclestheorem, previousy blocked for sockpuppetry in connection with self-promotion of Dao's results on other articles in Wikipedia. They are now blocked. See also multiple AfDs on articles promoting Dao: Articles for deletion/Dao Thanh Oai line, Articles for deletion/Dao's theorem, Articles for deletion/Dao's six point circle, Articles for deletion/Dao's theorem on six circumcenters, and Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably meatpuppets, but that is of no matter. What should be done with this section? You have removed it once, and I could support that action. I am just wondering if there is anything here to be saved or if taking a hard line is our best course of action. These Dao supporters are a persistent lot and perhaps we need to take an extreme stance to deal with them. On the other hand, they have been able to find some outlets that will publish this stuff and a few real supporters of elementary geometry results. In the latest round I removed three references that appeared in a new Slovakian on-line journal (not predatory since they don't charge any fee) because, first of all, this was overkill for the result and secondly, I concluded, by examining their articles, that the editorial standards were very (too) low.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Trimmed version looks ok to me but if someone wants to trim it further I won't object. Given that they geolocate to Viet Nam my feeling is that they are Dao himself, but that doesn't make a lot of difference. I agree, the new journal looks legitimate (it is indexed in MathSciNet) but low-quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternate "proof"
... is no such thing, nor has it been for the 23 months it had been allowed to remain.

See

216.213.165.204 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)