Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special triangle ratio


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Special triangle ratio

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an interesting try, and it kept me happy for an hour checking it out, but I'm afraid it's rather something made up one day (the few Google hits are not about this), and the conclusion is wrong. There is an infinite number of such triangles, for any value of φ from 1 to the Golden ratio (1 + &radic;5 ) / 2 = 1.618 approx.; and they are not particularly special or interesting: not worth an article. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree: delete, as it does not seem to have an autonomous existence out of this article. Goochelaar (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Google shows no evidence this exists outside of Wikipedia.  Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable, no reliable sources found (in article, or on mathsci), and it seems unlikely the original had a reliable source, since the main conclusion appears to be false (per nom; one is just finding solutions x=a/b=b/c to x-1 < 1/x < x+1, and both x=1 and x=3/2 are clearly solutions, but the article claims a unique solution x=1). JackSchmidt (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Just an exercise in high-school math, and the solution is not even correct! And, even if one were to fix it, it still would not cut the mustard.  I mean, one can make up gazillion such exercises — why would they rate an article, unless there was some literature behind it to establish notability?  Turgidson (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aaaaargh! on a second look, I am kicking myself - this is dead simple and doesn't need trigonometry. The question is, can we construct a triangle with sides 1, φ, φ2 ? and the answer is, yes, we can make a triangle from any three lengths, provided only that the sum of the two shorter sides is greater than the third side, 1 + φ > φ2, the limiting case being 1 + φ = φ2 which gives φ = (1 + &radic;5 ) / 2. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So it's when &phi; < (1 + &radic;5 ) / 2 that there is a non-degenerate solution with &phi; &ge; 1. And if we allow &phi; < 1, then &phi;2 : &phi; : 1 = 1 : &psi; : &psi;2 with &psi; > 1, so we get the same shape as one we had with &phi; > 1. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Patent nonsense. The bottom-line conclusion of this article is that only the equilateral triangle is a solution to this equation.  Obviously false.  Now a question is whether some revision of the article could save it.  Should there be an article about triangles that solve this equation?  Maybe if some interesting result concerning such triangles were given, that would be the case.  But in it's present form, the article is worthless. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.