Talk:Golden rectangle
WikiProject Mathematics  (Rated Startclass, Lowimportance)  


Contents
Squaring[edit]
What does "squaring a rectangle" mean? I mean, a squares sides aspect ratio is 1:1?  JeLuF 20:56 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
 Same questionit's been a long time since geometry classwhat does it mean to "square a rectangle"? older≠wiser 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 It means cutting it into pieces that reassemble into a square, such that the area of the original figure is known from the side length of the constructed square; like squaring the circle, it's pretty much impossible for irrational areas, I think. Dicklyon 06:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Strech out request[edit]
This article is too short. Please expand it.
Seriously, it's really dense and condensed. Could someone expand it, maybe offer some history on it, etcetera? From what I remember, the Greeks were the ones who thought it was the most aesthetically pleasing rectangle. Maybe adding that?
 the golden ratio article pretty much covers all that. This article seems pointless, but borrow material from the other if you like. Dicklyon 06:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Two ugly figures[edit]
If someone is ambitious, replacing two ugly colorincompatible images with one good one would be a worthwhile project. Dicklyon 06:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research[edit]
This sentence is original research: "Since the publication of Luca Pacioli's Divina Proportione in 1509,[1] many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the form of the golden rectangle, which has been considered aesthetically pleasing."
It asserts that the use of the Golden ratio is due to Pacioli's publication. That is only your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 Your comment said "NPOV". Thanks for explaining that you meant "OR"; I will endeavor to provide a rewrite in the verifiable terms of a scholar instead of my own. Note that I did not say "due to", however; I simply refer to the TIME of of Pacioli's publication. But Livio goes into more detail about why... Dicklyon 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 By the way, when you say "was the first piblication to describe the pleasant aesthetics related to this ratio" you are endorsing the idea that pleasant aesthetics are a priori related to golden ratio, and that Pacioli just described what was there. A more plausible explanation is that his publication created the association between aesthetics and the golden ratio. Perhaps we can find a more neutral way to say it that doesn't push either of these two POVs. Dicklyon 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 The part about "more plausible" is indeed my opinion. I restate it in contrast to your opinion in case other editors need to understand the issue on this article. Dicklyon 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 On the contrary, it is hard to understand how articles evolve when the opinions of the editors are hidden. Better to be out front about beliefs so that neutral positions can be negotiated. Dicklyon 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 Probably we need a little history section, to cover the origin of the golden rect in Euclid (was it in there? I think so but not sure), and its popularization by Pacioli. The paragraph now has become too long and strained for the lead. If we put a brief statement in the lead and clarify in a history section, it will work better. Anyone want to take that on? Dicklyon 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 The first picture on the front page is irrelevant. If you draw ANY rectangle, take the short side as B, the long edge as A, and use B to define a square inside the rectangle, then you will get the exact same forumla regardless of the ratio. While it is true that in this particular example, ab x b is a golden rectangle, it is misleading and seems to suggest that any time a square is drawn inside a rectangle, that the leftover will be a golden rectangle. Either needs rewording or new picture. ozort
 I added "For any such rectangle, " to the first picture's caption. Does that help? Vaughan Pratt 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Minneapolis MC[edit]
Who is Emily G? What is the People's Collective? Why does an MC rate inclusion in this article? Original edit could be deemed vandalism. I left in the Minneapolis part, but that could use a citation, given the context. stephan.com 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 I took it out. Also reverted a bunch of random small stuff, returning the curve color to red instead of yellow, which is what it is if you look carefully. Dicklyon 04:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 Is there a good reason why you've replaced the SVG version of the Golden Ration Constuction diagram with the PNG version? If so, could the SVG version be changed so as to make this problem go away. SVGs are highly preferable! Joelholdsworth 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 Sorry, I missed that among the random small mostlyvandalism edits I reverted. I'll fix. Dicklyon 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 Is there a good reason why you've replaced the SVG version of the Golden Ration Constuction diagram with the PNG version? If so, could the SVG version be changed so as to make this problem go away. SVGs are highly preferable! Joelholdsworth 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Aspect Ratios[edit]
Anybody have any input on the aspect ratios of visual media in light of the subject? I only bring it up because the nowpopular 9:16 HDTV widescreen format is finally gaining traction, and it's reasonably close to the golden ratio, albeit a compromise between 3:4 TV/computer monitors, and film. Happy accident? O0drogue0o (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 Much has been said about that; little with any basis in fact. 16/9 = 1.777 is not closer than 3:2 = 1.5; if someone had wanted to use phi, they could have done so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 http://ae.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=10&l2=87 ASUS computer manufacturer, lists at least 12 of his monitors on this page with "with the 16:10 golden ratio for widescreens". Seems to me that they *did* use an approximation. I very much think ASUS is a notable enough manufacturer, so if they list their monitors as "golden ratio", the intent is to approximate it. If it's not good enough for you, Google "16:10" "golden ratio" and a gazillion pages describe it that way, find one which you think is notable and stick it in. 201.251.7.15 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 Generally a marketing blurb is a not a reliable source. Yes, 16:10 is closer than 16:9, but where's the evidence that it's done this way to approximate a golden rectangle? Or for the assertion that it's "very close" to the golden ratio. It's off by more than 1%; just an early integerratio approximant of the golden ratio. Lacking any reliable source for a connection, I'd hold off claiming one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Technique explanation request[edit]
The technique of drawing a golden rectangle shown in the article is great however can anyone explain the geometrical proof of this technique is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.25.86 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 April 2010
 The radius of the circle is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle with sides 1 and ½ units. Applying Pythagoras shows the radius is sqrt(5)/2; adding the radius to ½ gives φ, so it is a golden rectangle. I suppose there should be a brief statement of this in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Contribution of Adolf Zeising to the Modern Use in Aesthetics[edit]
Rather than repeating discussion, please see Talk:Golden_Ratio — the same thoughts apply here. Matthew Miller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC).
ϕ[edit]
Adding 1:φ to the lead was reverted. Rather than start an "edit war", perhaps it should be noted that 1:φ is an exact number, whereas decimal: 1.618... is an irrational number. This should be stated, or at least implied in the lead. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 I don't know about that typography, but it was malformed to have it in a parenthetical outside the sentence that it was supposed to be in. I reverted to get behind that and several other poor edits. Since the Greek phi is not introduced yet in the lead, and the exact value is, I don't really see the point point of it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 The article makes no mention of the relationship of to the irrational 6.1214..., in the lead or otherwise. And the graphics include as an identity without relating to , which as you know is fundamental to an understanding of the ratio and its irrational expression. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)  Btw, which "several other poor edits" are you referring to?
 My revert actually encompassed only two edits; the other was this. What is this 6.1214... that you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 Ok, you got me on that one. lol That number must have come from some memory dump, or something. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 My revert actually encompassed only two edits; the other was this. What is this 6.1214... that you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 The article makes no mention of the relationship of to the irrational 6.1214..., in the lead or otherwise. And the graphics include as an identity without relating to , which as you know is fundamental to an understanding of the ratio and its irrational expression. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)  Btw, which "several other poor edits" are you referring to?
Applications[edit]
There are countless examples in art, architecture, design, engineering, etc. The two examples listed seem arbitrary; thus unduly emphasized. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Fundamentals[edit]
Sorry, but the lead needed fundamental information, which I added; revert this "malformed" addition if required. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)