Talk:Squaring the circle

Espen Gaarder Haug
Re this edit: I'm beginning to wonder if there is a conflict of interest here. Is in some way linked to the author of the paper?-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Who wrote the new section on squaring the circle? It was not me (MetricoGeo)! This I am sure someone can investigate.
 * So why did David Eppstein delete it? The Squaring the circle page has a series of references to even books and popular science and non-peer reviewed web-cites. As asked before, how many peer reviewed papers on Squaring the Circle has been published in the last 20 years (in decent journals)? Whoever put in the new section (unknown to me) also seems to have put it under the right section. It is not a section that endorse it. It is simply a section made on the Squaring the Circle page long time ago that simply state "Other modern claims". And under this section two non-peer review books are mentioned. But a peer reviewed paper, that claim to give new light on the problem and also do not hide that it "We could argue that this is bending the rules and moving the problem of transcendental ⇡ into a transcendental velocity between the reference frames, rather than directly into the construction of the Circle and the Square. Still, one could just as well argue that the previous attempts to Square the Circle have not taken into account that observations of space and time are a↵ected by motion, and that space and time are closely connected." https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1514&context=tme is deleted by Eppstein. MetricoGeo (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahaha, I wondered about this deletion, then investigated a bit further. Eppstein that quickly deleted what someone referring this this paper had put on the Squaring the Circle wiki page, is the same guy (active on wikipedia for years) that deleted Haug's wikipedia page some years ago. A wikipedia page that had been there for more than 10 years. Eppstein is clearly allergic to Haug's work, and he want to delete as much of references to Haug's work as possible? The conflict seems to be about Eppstein do not like Haug's view on physics? Who should declare conflict of interest here, do we need to dig up the old wikipedia archives of deletion and debate? Could Eppstein be slightly biased here??? I am just asking! I am not going to edit or write a single world on the Squaring of Circle page, this I leave up to the very Objective types such as Eppstein. Very objective to have series of references to very popular stuff and delete references to work in good journals (if he do not like that person). I suspect it will be deleted, more and more pages of wiki are dominated by science-activists. These are often highly educated scientist, but with very biased view the do not even want to see problems from other angels than their own biased view. (UTC) QuantitativeGeometry (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"The "Other modern claims" section isn't meant to be a list of everybody who's claimed to have squared the circle,". It should naturally be limited to peer reviewed work published in scientific journals and for non-peer reviewed claims only too well known historical disputes that are well documented, such as yes for example The Indiana Pi Bill. How many well known, well documented historical disputes on Squaring the Circle (in modern times, last few hundred years) of any magnitude exist? A handfull at most! This should be minimum requirement for anything on the whole page? Or is the wiki-page an opinion page now where wiki editors can bring in links to work (even non peer reviewed) they just like, and then delete what they dont like, or references to work form people they dont like for whatever reason? But from what I see here now, it clearly looks like what was deleted will be deleted, we now understand why Eppstein deleted it so quickly! His argument for deletion was clearly just something he came up with that made it sound reasonable, but that the writer of the new section was looking straight through (see recent history on the page and arguments). People spending lots of time editing on wiki have likely high status among other active wiki editors, backing each other, so yes I think we know how this ends. Can someone list all the references given on the page and rank them roughly, based on scientific validity and quality, documentation etc., grope into peer-reviewed and non peer reviewed etc.? MetricoGeo (talk)  13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry - why is this claim important? The "Other modern claims" section isn't meant to be a list of everybody who's claimed to have squared the circle, just a few of the most important ones. The Indiana Pi Bill, for example, is notorious. Why is this paper from a mathematics education journal considered important enough? Furthermore presenting phrases like "presented an practical way of squaring the circle" is likely to mislead the reader.  Hut 8.5  12:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, "accelerate the train to a speed relative to the embankment of $$c\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{\pi^2}}$$" (roughly 2.84 &times; 108 meters per second) is not exactly "practical". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Squaring the circle is based on achieving it with a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. This is known to be impossible. The paper introduces all sorts of concepts from the Theory of Relativity and non-Euclidean geometry which are at best speculative.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to promote work that has not attracted attention and interest from the scholarly community, whether or not that work is technically correct. Including Espen Gaarder Haug's paper is not appropriate, and this has nothing to do with any supposed personal animosity against Espen Gaarder Haug. (I doubt there is any such animosity; deleting articles on non-notable academic types is commonplace.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"** Yes, "accelerate the train to a speed relative to the embankment of $$c\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{\pi^2}}$$" (roughly 2.84 &times; 108 meters per second) is not exactly "practical". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)" XOR'easter is here searching for arguments to delete the reference to the paper. Had XOR'easter read the whole paper would he have seen that this is only one of the special solutions and that even a printer head moving at v>0 as stated in the paper will do. So his indication that one need to move so fast as it is not practical even close to possible is totally false.

Further XOR'easter writes "is not the place to promote work that has not attracted attention and interest from the scholarly community, whether or not that work is technically correct.". I cannot see how any author of any paper has written anything about own paper on Squaring the Circle page and thereby doing self promotion. The paper is one of the very few peer review papers published on Squaring the Circle the last 20 years. And this despute I think will get interesting in the coming months and years, far outside wiki !! XOR'easter are you in any way part of Eppsteins circle? Where you part of working and voting for deleting the wiki page about Haug years back? MetricoGeo (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The "printer head" proposal is still a thought experiment involving lasers and synchronized clocks, not a practical method. Promotion is not limited to self-promotion. And with this edit, you crossed the 3RR line, meaning that you could already have been blocked (and willy-nilly casting aspersions upon the character of those who disagree with you is not likely to earn you friends). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. So XOR'easter want to change that one sentence to theoretical solution rather than practical, do anyone have problems with this, I doubt that the dispute has anything to do with this? Is any other discussed solution to the Squaring of the Circle more practical as they exclude 100 years + last discovery on Minkowski Space-Time?

I am looking up old wiki archives now. So Eppstein was as stated earlier one of the persons active on wiki that bashed Haug on wiki talk pages for his lack of qualifications years ago and successfully got the 10+ year wikipge about him deleted, with the help of vote from? XOR'easter surprisingly was one of the others bashing Haug for his physics in 2018 and working hard to delete the wikipedia page about him. A wiki page that had been there long over 10 years was attacked by XOR'easter and Eppstein. Did Eppstein message you XOR'easter for support also here now? I am just asking you XOR'easter, if this is what happened now? Do you think you and Eppstein think the past here could make you the slightest biased? Is this how wikipedia work these days? Has it become corrupted with circles of people spending much time here, becoming buddies defending each others editing, rather than trying to get the best out of wikipedia? Just asking, please explain to us non frequent visitors how this now will work? Will Eppstein and XOR'easter and a few others in the Eppstein-circle now vote for deletion of what a user wrote, and show how democratic and fair wiki editing is, with voting process and all? Yes we know the result of this dispute (for the year being), take care!! QuantitativeGeometry (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL out of the thousands of wiki editors, here we have Eppstein quickly deleting a reference to Haug's work someone put on the Squaring the Circle Page (and it was not put there by me either). Then out of the blue: XOR'easter shows up, coming to defend Eppstein's decision, throwing in all types of weak arguments and threatening by blocking's people. XOR'easter off course totally unbiased, except for Eppstein and XOR'easter both part of the little circle that worked hard to delete a wikipedia page about Haug that had been there for over 10+ years before they got it deleted. XOR'easter back in 2018 bashed Haug's physics work also on wikipedia, so the Eppstein-circle is off course unbiased, but as people spending lots of time on wiki to get some wiki status, we yes know how it ends = deletion of references to science not in favor of scientist activists!! QuantitativeGeometry (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So XOR'easter want to change that one sentence to theoretical solution rather than practical &mdash; no, I don't want any of those sentences included at all, for reasons I have already explained clearly.
 * The deletion of the Espen Gaarder Haug article was the result of community consensus, arrived at through open discussion and debate, and confirmed in a second round of discussion, not the conspiracy you seem to want it to be. Sorry to disappoint! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting: XOR'easter wrote "His physics "work" has been rightly ignored by the scientific community. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)". Is your claim "has been rightly ignored" based on number publications in certain journals or of the number of references within just months or years it is published? Is it correct for a physicists like yourself to claim work published in peer reviewed journals, some under well known platforms as Springer and Elsevier to be called "rightly ignored"? Even the way you word yourself clearly indicated Prejudice, because how many fresh papers do we know if will be well cited or not, just months and a few years after publication?

And yes there are thousands of editors on wikipedia, do you think you and Eppstein that worked hard on deleting the wikipage about Haug, and bash his research, not are in any way biased? You pretend it was a large number of unbiased voters, this was not at all the case, mostly what now looks like a little circle off frequent wiki backing each others editing rather than try to maximize best for wiki. Can you also look up if peer reviewed research with few or no references by other peer review research is referred to on other wiki-pages? For me it seems like Eppstein and you are highly biased, and that you out of the thousands of wiki editors should have got others not involved in that episode to make the decision on what someone now tried to contribute with on the Squaring there Circle page now. You have not come with any solid argument that not have been easily refuted. What is the point of a talk page and discussion page when a little closed Eppstein-circle (that clearly are very biased) just can overrun any common sense and arguments ?MetricoGeo (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm also getting worried about WP:SOCK here. At this rate the article will be protected.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sock- or meat-puppetry seem quite possible. I wonder if the allegations of conspiracy aren't a bit of projection. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That two people having worked to delete a wikipedia page about Haug and bashed his research on wikipedia are exactly the same two (Eppstein and XOR'easter)  that now have deleted what someone else than anyone on the talk page, have edited on the Squaring the Circle page, is clearly amazingly biased against Haug (Eppstein and XOR'easter). And now attempts to get focus away from this fact. If you think it is me that put in the recent reference or edit on the Squaring the Circle page, then you are very wrong, and now indicates this to take attention away from the biased non-wikipedia policy editing. Just that you are frequent on wikipedia and have contributed to editing many articles do not automatically mean you can "monopolize" your bias, as I see the one editing the page (that got deleted) now are pointing out. But yes we know how this ends, the little biased circle empty for good arguments, now work to block and expel people that have edited a page against their biased view MetricoGeo (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have any actual arguments for the inclusion of this content, or are you just going to accuse people of being biased? Because the latter isn't an argument.  Hut 8.5  17:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of stepping into what is clearly at least a one-sided personal dispute (with poor grammar and spelling to spice it up), I support the reverts and oppose the inclusion that was attempted. It was strangely phrased (with implicit praises to the author), it gave undue weight, and is out of step with the rest of the article. Magidin (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"The paper introduces all sorts of concepts from the Theory of Relativity and non-Euclidean geometry which are at best speculative." Please be more specific. Are you of the opinion that special relativity is speculative or what? Have you not studied the Squaring of the Circle page in its current form? "Although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it sometimes can be in hyperbolic geometry under suitable interpretations of the terms.[12][13] As there are no squares in the hyperbolic plane, ". Why are then this new edit discriminated?

So why was the edit deleted? Well non of the arguments so far have held water. So it now seems to boil down to XOR'easter latest claim argument for deleting, namely "curprev 16:28, 21 May 2020‎ XOR'easter talk contribs‎ 37,202 bytes -614‎  Undid revision 958015295 by 141.0.150.76 (talk): no, this paper has not received attention, and this edit violates 3RR after a warning thank Tag: Undo"  Has not revived attention? Compared with what? Can someone go though when the links to the various pages the Squaring the circle pages link too, when they where added and what attention they had got at that time? I doubt the Eppstein-circle will do any serious quantitative work on that, as it will almost for sure fall in their disfavor! Best luck forward with the biased editing, and also I see XOR'easter now is so irritated he tries to get me banned from even writing discussions on the talk page. Will he also try to delete what has been discussed here? MetricoGeo (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the "Other modern claims" section is not meant to be a comprehensive list of everybody who has claimed to have squared the circle. If it did then it would be enormous. It just includes a selection of the more prominent ones. The Indiana Pi Bill is very well known. Carl Theodore Heisel is a sufficiently well known crank to get his own Wikipedia article. The other example has at least been mentioned in a book written by someone else. So what attention has this particular claim got - has it been discussed in books, articles, papers etc? Because if it hasn't then it's hard to argue it has had any impact at all. This claim is hardly cutting edge research, it was written by a nonspecialist (according to his now-deleted Wikipedia page he's a specialist in mathematical finance) and was published in a journal focusing on undergraduate mathematics and mathematics education.  Hut 8.5  17:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sleeping through so much of this discussion, but I think it's worth mentioning that the journal the article was published in, The Mathematics Enthusiast, is not included in MathSciNet nor zbMATH, unlike almost all serious mathematics journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Come on stop pretending not biased. Look at the many references on the Squaring the Circle page:

Youtube: I assume they get linked to based on number off views. "James Joyce Quarterly" included in MathSciNet nor zbMATH? long series of references not included in these. You have made a biased decision. Your first reason you stated for doing so clearly did not held water. Then the XOR'easter was "called in" with all arguments refuted. So please list now why the last edit was deleted? Can we get a summary from XOR'easter that deleted it last time may be?MetricoGeo (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The James Joyce Quarterly does not pretend to be a mathematics journal, so its exclusion from mathematics indices is unsurprising. Unlike The Mathematics Enthusiast. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes makes exceptions and come up with criteria to fit own biased view. Youtube is not a math journal so that you have accepted I see. Some workbook in mathematica is not in the list so that can be linked to, non peer reviewed books not in the list that can be linked to, lectures of various sorts can be linked to. You stated "is not included in MathSciNet nor zbMATH, unlike almost all serious mathematics journals. " so almost? how many serious journals not in this list, is it 1 to 5 if so you must remember them, is it more than 10, more than 50? So the argument now for your vote for deletion is that the journal is not in these two lists?MetricoGeo (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only YouTube video used as a reference is a Numberphile video, which is no worse than semi-respectable, and it is about the Indiana Pi Bill, which is a topic of well-established notability regardless. And even if some of the existing references are poor, that's not an excuse to add more. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to point it out XOR'easter but your claim here is evidently false. You state ":The only YouTube video used as a reference is a Numberphile video," this is false The link too "2000 years unsolved: Why is doubling cubes and squaring circles impossible?" is also another youtube. And I see you are working hard to get me blocked for posting out politely error and weaknesses in your argumentation. And even if on a academic platform also "the Squaring the Circle and Other Impossibilities, lecture by Robin Wilson, at Gresham College, 16 January 2008 " is just a film, what is the criteria for ranking filmed lectures higher than peer reviewed journal research? I have nothing against these linkes, the YouTube and lecture film is informative and useful, what I am against is your biased view and from now working to block me even to point out the weakness and error in your argumentation! MetricoGeo (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. I said used as a reference, because I meant used as a reference. External links are not the same as references. And that video is by Burkard Polster, a mathematician and published author who is, if anything, more conscientious than Numberphile. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

okay point taken on your last argument, so only 1 youtube that has passed and used as reference in addtion to non peer reviewed books, dictionary etc.. And more YouTube etc used in external links. Glad we got it right! Thanks!

Still what is the summary for deleting the new edit with the reference (an edit never done by me)? What arguments are you holding on to for this decision?

And why I am getting warnings I will be blocked because of this discussion ? (I mean XOR'easter clearly reported me, despite I point out exactly why I mean he and Eppstein is biased. And I have politely answered any argument!). If loosing arguments, get your opponents blocked!! MetricoGeo (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * warned you that you are risking a block because you are not, in fact, being civil. Instead of showing that you understand the points made by myself and four others, and responding to them in ways that indicate you are here to build an encyclopedia, you throw around accusations of bias and conspiracy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I am asking why the edit will has been deleted. I have pointed out that among thousands of wikipedia editors the one first deleting with a weak argument not holding water was one of the persons before working to delete Haug's wikipedia page. And this was not a new page, this was a page that had been on wikipedia for 10 years. Next I pointed out that the one coming with other arguments to delete was XOR'easter. It is a false claim to claim I here to build an encyclopedia. This because I have not written a single word on the Squaring the Circle page, not under any other names. I have however witnessed what I still claim is biased. History will tell, anyone can read this also in the future (as already backed up) and see the arguments posted here. You claim I am holding on to conspiracy theories! This is also false. Among thousands of wikipedia editors we now have 2 that have attacked Haug and bashed his research in the past evidently that have deleted the edit referring to his work. If I am considered to be a conspiracy theories for pointing out this, and questioned if this not lead to bias then please feel free to call me for so. And I am again now asking why the edit is deleted. The point of a talk page must be see what arguments hold some scientific standards. Lets list the arguments given:

1. XOR'easter claims I am a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that Eppstein and XOR'easter can be biased because they have been writing very negative about Haug's research before and being part of a very small grope deleting the wikipage about him, all evident from the wikipedia archives. Is this a good argument for deleting a edit on the Squaring the Circle page not done by me?

2. XOR'easter pointed out the solution presented in the paper at all not was practical by using a special case presented in the paper that gives a solution at velocity (roughly 2.84 &times; 108 meters per second) is not exactly "practical". I pointed out this was not the case if he had read the whole paper, as one have solutions for any v>0. So this was just nonsense. Also I pointed out that Squaring of the Circle in general a theoretical exercise and asked why this was less practical than other solution. Then he seems to conclude that he basically had no point with his point that he wanted deletion for other reasons.

3. Eppstein pointed out that The Mathematics Enthusiast, is not included in MathSciNet nor zbMATH, unlike almost all serious mathematics journals. I pointed out this was not the case with series of references on the wikipage. It refers to 1 youtubes, to non peer received books, it has also external links to more youtubes, to mathematica work books etc. Eppstein also do not answer what he mean with “almost all”. Is 10, 20, 50 journals still of quality that he think should have been on that list?

4. XOR'easter wrote “Instead of showing that you understand the points made by myself and four others,” Please point out exactly what point I do not understand since you comes with such non specific claims and accusation that even can lead to my blockage.

Feel free to list more arguments already given and we can discuss if they hold etc. Deletion on wikipedia can not be monopolized by small editor circles. This is why we have such talk pages!

MetricoGeo (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My very first statement on this matter was that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to promote work that has not received attention from the scholarly community. You have ignored this and never provided verifiable, documentable evidence of such attention, even to the extent that one might reasonably expect for a niche-interest topic. The addition you have been trying to defend is a bad addition and would have been so even if the paper weren't by Haug. In fact, when I made that edit, I barely remembered Haug's name and had only a vague sense that it was familiar. So, your entire conspiracy theory is an irrelevant tangent. And yes, by this point, you are well into the regime of conspiracy theories. You write, I have pointed out that among thousands of wikipedia editors the one first deleting with a weak argument not holding water was one of the persons before working to delete Haug's wikipedia page. And this was not a new page, this was a page that had been on wikipedia for 10 years. First, no, 's argument wasn't "weak", but really quite reasonable: "there are lots of non-compass-and-straightedge ways of describing squares of area π, so what makes this overcomplicated one special?" Second, yes, there are thousands of Wikipedia editors, but not all of them regularly edit articles about mathematics. That's kind of an important point. Both David Eppstein and I are regulars in deletion debates about scholars and scientists, and like all regulars there, we've seen far too many to bear strong feelings about any of them. Sometimes we regulars advocate keeping a page, and sometimes we advocate deleting it, and we don't always agree. In the case of Haug, we were two out of six people all arguing that he fell short of notability standards. Third, the article on Haug only existed because the "delete" result of an earlier AfD in 2008 was ignored, presumably due to a clerical error somewhere. Fourth, the fact that an article has existed for 10 years doesn't automatically mean it should keep existing; mediocre pages and even outright hoaxes have lasted longer than that, just because it's a big place and nobody noticed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Squaring the circle is one of the Four Problems Of Antiquity. Although not explicitly stated, it is assumed that these constructions should take place in Euclidean space. What the Haug paper appears to be saying is that by moving the goalposts into non-Euclidean space, the problem becomes solvable. As a general rule, if you can't get an exact answer on a calculator, you can't do it in Euclidean space in a finite number of steps either.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that rule is oversimplified. Most calculators won't give you an exact answer to $$1/7$$ or $$\sqrt{2}$$ either, but both are easily constructed by compass and straightedge. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think the main thing, though, is the goalpost-shifting. As is well known, if you change the rules, the game becomes winnable. The article seems to suffer from a bit of recentism in this regard, talking more about hyperbolic space than about the quadrature methods known since Hellenistic times. I added a little about Greek solutions, but I think that could be expanded. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I edited the Wikipedia entry to add Haug's article, not MetricoGeo, whoever they are. I stand by my opinion (shared by many people in my community where I first saw the paper) that it is a valid and interesting contribution. Judging from the above naive attempts at a physics discussion about it, not anyone here who's against it has credentials to judge it. In particular, Haug's work (like the majority of works on relativistic physics - including academic ones) is clearly a thought experiment, so the argument that it's impossible to realise it in practice is ludicrous! - HOWEVER, it could be realised in a particle accelerator or in nanoscale (and it would be interesting - I've seen such works published in Science or Nature). I don't have any personal interest in promoting Haug's work, as I was accused above. I merely briefed his bio to distinguish him from other Espen Haug's on Wikipedia, because his entry didn't exist in English (your impression that my objective note was of excessive praise only realises how unfairly he's been treated here). Now I can see that the asking absence of Haug's scientific contributions from Wikipedia (he's a celebrated expert and author in mathematical finance) is a result of a David Eppstein's personal wars with his imaginary (and real?) enemies. I contacted Haug and he is aware of Eppstein's actions, but he doesn't know Eppstein and his hostile motivations. To give him the praise he actually deserves: Haug is an established researcher in mathematical finance, gained a worldwide recognition as a lecturer and the author of bestsellers on derivative instruments (in English and even translated to Chinese). He collaborated with many distinguished names in his field, and also published physics works together with academic physicists. His works on physics (or natural philosophy) as a sole author are of a typical cross-sectional kind and it takes a bit more than a narrow mind to understand and appreciate them. I refuted all arguments against my edit. In particular, I responded that Haug's paper, typically of works of this kind (quoted in that section or in other similar contexts on Wikipedia) wasn't cited and won't be cited much, but XOR'ester twisted my statement to contrapose Haug's paper with a mathematical article on a more general problem of hyperbolic spaces. Summarising, it looks to me like XOR'easter and Eppstein used all tricks in the book to prevent me from contributing to this entry, and the achieved "consensus" (on this or the scandalous removal of EG Haug's Wikipedia page) is clearly the action of a clique you have formed here. Not the first such a story on Wikipedia from what I've been told. --UK-WK-ed (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Highly remarkable, but no big surprise, as I told in the beginning we know how this end! MetricoGeo got even blocked on own talk page from discussing why was blocked from just asking critical questions about the editing of C Eppstein and XOR'ester. MetricoGeo clearly never wrote a single word on the Squaring the circle page, that is clearly UK-WK-ed that have done. MetricoGeo was falsely accused for this despite explaining not written a single comma on the Squaring the Circle page. Eppstein and XOR'ester refused answering questions when it was pointed out weaknesses in their arguments for deleting the edit done by UK-WK-ed. Instead they use well known control and manipulation techniques such as claiming "“Instead of showing that you understand the points made by myself and four others,”" without answering what MetricoGeo or others asking precisely what not have understood in their arguments. Interesting the last message MetricoGeo was allowed to state on own talk page arguing for why should not be blocked was

"Is Squaring the Circle in Minkowski Space-Time also not purely mathematical? You have yourself pointed out it is not practical so then it falls in under pure mathematical and geometrical?. As I have pointed out before on the talk page of the Squaring the Circle Page the one sentence put in by others than me that the paper referred to gave a practical solution could naturally be edited. But CXOR'easter then claimed this at all not was an issue causing the deletion. So again I keep asking why it was deleted? Now you will block me for asking you questions about your arguments? Is it considered a personal attack to point out serious flaws in your argumentation? Or can perhaps blocking someone for question and pointing out flaws in your argumentation be seen as a attack on free speech ???? MetricoGeo (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MetricoGeo

And then after this message, clearly blocked from even arguing why not should be blocked from discussing why was blocked. Clearly free speech and constructive critics of why things have been edited is not allowed if one touch upon the editing of the Eppstein circle. Do Eppstein and XOR'easter really think this is fair behavior? Off course they think so...or at least will keep pretending so. QuantitativeGeometry (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on the comment from UK-WK-ed (and the whole talk page, and the archives of Eppstein/XOR'easter previous editing in relation to this case) I think it is a fair question to ask exactly why was the edit by UK-WK-ed deleted again?QuantitativeGeometry (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Espen-I believe this is what you are looking for:Drypuglia

-
 * Solution to Squaring the Circle:::
 * I tried to wade through the comments-some interesting-others not pertinent to the drafting puzzle, but like many problems I have encountered and solved as an engineer I have concluded that there are No Simple Problems only Simple Solution!, and I believe I have found the graphical solution to this puzzle-using the simple tools. After a brief study of the Pi- circle and square diagram I noted that the circle and square intersecting points were close to/or at a 60 degree angle! So I decided to use a transcendental function(Sine) and eliminate Pi as the solution.
 * Using only a straight edge and compass I drew an arbitrary circle, with vertical and horizontal lines. I had made some simple calculations that indicated 60 degrees was not the single line, angular solution I was looking for. However it is necessary as part of the solution, well as 45 degree lines. The angle- calculated by area comparison or from the square root of Pi gives the angle 62.4 degrees. At this point it should be obvious that I have substituted one problem for another and indeed this puzzle would remain unsolved (for how does one draw an angle of 62.4 degrees?) were it not for the fact that I have solved the Trisecting an Angle problem having exact solutions. That drawing solution allows angles to be sected at 3,5,7,11,etc. with a high degree of drawing accuracy. Now if we 5-sect our angle of 60 degrees on the same circle we get 12 deg. segments. On the same circle we then 5-sect the 12degrees to get 2.4 deg. segments. with  the compass we measure this span and add it to the 60 deg. point of intersection on the circle, to give us the required angle of 62.4. Thus -the solution! In like manner, the  Doubling the cube and constructing a Nonagon problems are solved. Any Questions?
 * At the time I posted this solution I did not have a user name. this was shortly after they refused my solution on tri-secting Angles.Drypuglia (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Drypuglia (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The talk page is for discussions to improve the article. It is not a forum for general discussion, nor a place for you to self-promote. Magidin (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Quadrature of a sphere
I came across this figure and think it could be used in an article like this one or perhaps some of those listed under quadrature. We don't seem to have any with a focus or even section on spheres though, so just putting it here for the moment. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Using other apparatus
Bell: Men of Mathematics remarks that with straightedge and compass it's impossible to square the circle, but if other apparatus is allowed then it's easy to square the circle. Is he right? If so, could such a construction be included in this article? What sort of apparatus is required?

By the way, Olds' approximate construction in his book Continued Fractions is the same as Jakob de Gelder's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it's possible to square the circle using other tools. The last paragraph of the "Impossibility" section says a little about this. See also MacTutor's page on the topic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not with pythagorean theorem?
(4/sqrt(phi))² + x^2 = pi^2

or: x^2 + (4/(sqrt((1+sqrt(5))/2)))^2 = pi^2

Squaring is a process and there are no straight lines in nature. Everything curves along with time. Thus a process where time proceeds, drawing a circle actually produces helix in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.179.215 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * there are no straight lines in nature: this is bollocks, see picture to the right. Quartz, Tibet.jpg
 * Your contribution has nothing to do with improving the article. And that is what this page is for. Go to a chatroom for chatting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have come across something like this before. 4/sqrt(phi) is 3.1446 which looks vaguely Pi-ish but is nowhere near the actual value. Even 22/7 is a better approximation. Not very close, no cigar.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A major point is missing here
While I think this article successfully explains why it is not possible to square the circle, it completely ignores the question of why anyone would want to. The "squaring" of various objects was far more important to ancient mathematicians than modern readers would normally be aware of. It seems this article would be greatly improved with one or two paragraphs explaining the concept of squaring, and perhaps a simple example using the triangle. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of lines on this to the second paragraph of the history section. But although the source for the quote I added, Proclus, was in the tradition of Greek mathematics, he was far later than the origins of the problem and the theory he gives is speculative. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)