Talk:Straightedge and compass construction

message: And I quote from the first subsection "compass and straightedge tools", first bullet point:
 Circles can only be drawn starting from two given points: the centre and a point on the circle. The compass may or may not collapse when it's not drawing a circle.
I think these two sentences are contradictory.  The first seems to imply a collapsing compass, as you must pre-define the radius and center point in order to draw the circle there. If a rigid compass were permissible then you need only a center point in order to draw a circle whose radius youve already defined with the compass.
:You could fix it however you like, possibly best to point to Compass equivalence theorem, they're completely equivalent. Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction to the compass... a contradiction? 

message: At some time in the past I Heard the commentators for professional wrestling refer to the ring in which activity takes place as the "squared circle".  This is an excellent example of pseudo-science in the service of pseudo-sport. Eclecticology
We need more on doubling the cube and angle trisection. The Anome
Thanks, Pierre! The Anome
Mathematicians are notoriously incompetent historians.  Gauss NEVER gave a proof of the necessity of the constructibility of the regular n-gon.  WANTZEL proved this in 1837.  If you read otherwise, it's because mathematicians are sloppy historians. Revolver
:Or is it the historians who are sloppy, notoriously incompetent mathematicians?  ;-)
:—Herbee 18:43, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
::No, the people doing the history are mathematicians specialising in history of math, not the other way around. (True for most sciences...you have to have some understanding of the material.) Revolver 13:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely the fault of mathematicians here. Some VERY famous names aided and abetted this myth, without checking into it themselves. You'd think being math people, they would question things. Revolver 13:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: MERGE: This needs to be merged with Constructible number and all the other articles on specific impossibility proofs. These overlap a lot, yet none of them should try to cover every topic. Revolver 13:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's room for a lot of reorganization here. Some pages should be merged; some new ones should be split off. I just ran into a problem with Regular polytope; somebody got carried away with the difference between real and ideal construction. That's a whole subject in itself; but it's not math. John Reid 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: The regular polygon with the largest number of sides that was ever actually drawn with a ruler and compass had 1,024 sides. It was drawn by graduate student Mr. Sam Bronstein at the University of Kentucky in 1963, a feat that took him 33 days and a sheet of paper 9 meters square.
Is it really as imprtant to be here? Tosha 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it might go to Polygon. John Reid 23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: largest regular polygon

message: A ruler is commonly understood to be marked; this type of construction specifically forbids markings. John Reid 19:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say most people commonly think of a ruler as being a "marked" one (technically called a "measure"). However a ruler can also be unmarked.  See ruler) for a fuller discussion of all this. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Being a quibbler by nature, I cannot resist pointing out that the "unambiguous umarkedness" of the straightedge may not be straightforward: . LambiamTalk 05:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The verb "rule" is sometimes synonymous with "measure" or "judge". Therefore, I suggest that all wording in this article be changed to "straightedge" instead of "ruler". SharkD (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ruler" or "Straightedge" 

message: :Does it actually matter if a ruler is marked or not. It is a trivial matter to produce a marked straight edge from an un marked straight edge and a compass. Step 1: draw a small circle, call the radius of the circle your unit. Next draw a straight line with the ruler, pick some point on the line to be zero, using the compass set to the unit radius mark off one unit from zero. Move the point of the compass to the first unit, mark of the second unit, .... The same procedure can be repeated for any straight edge in the diagram, effectivly giving the same construction possible as with a marked streight edge and compass. --Salix alba (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Doubling the cube for a "ruler (straightedge with two marks)" and compass construction which cannot be simulated by a "ruler and compass" construction.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can indeed create a Cartesian grid (as described in the article) with equally spaced out points along the axes.  However, although it may look like you've effectively constructed a replacement for a  marked straightedge, the point is that you are still only allowed certain operations with your straightedge and compass.  So you are still restricted as to how you can use elements of this "grid" and you will not be able to double the cube, etc.  Now if you were to actually violate the rules for a Euclidean construction somehow, you can double the cube.  For example, see the particular example Arthur gave.  In that example, one creates a point of intersection between two lines by measuring along a marked straightedge, which is disallowed under the normal rules.  --C S (Talk) 09:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the biggest issues I have with a marked ruler - beyond the fact that it is capable of extending constructibilty - is the simple fact that it introduces measure, a metric, into the plane.  This turns geometry from something more abstract and geometric, to something more algebraic. 134.204.1.226 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move, by a 13:7 margin. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it actually matter if a ruler is marked or not? 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Weak Support See discussion. Septentrionalis 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd hate you to think I was criticizing your vote; I'm not. But you do suggest that a ruler marked in constructible ratios could not be employed to perform impossible constructions; it's my understanding that it can indeed. Any marked ruler -- even one with but two arbitrary marks -- is sufficient. John Reid 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I must not have expressed myself clearly enough. An infinite ruler with two marks on it only provides a single unit of length which can be used anywhere in a construction. As we are only interested in ratios, this cannot allow any new constructions (any construction with compass and straightedge can start with the creation of an arbitrary distance using the compass). Likewise, no new constructions are possible using a ruler with any number of marks on it as long as the ratio of any two distances between marks is constructible using compass and straightedge (i.e. any ratio must be a solution to a quadratic equation). A ruler would only permit new constructions if a ratio of distances between marks is not constructible (for example, a ruler with three marks at 0, 1 and \pi\;). Would you agree with this view of the situation? Elroch 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a matter of being able to construct the length between the marked segments; it's the fact that you can construct it in an unconstructable position.  Have a look at Archimedes' trisection of the angle.  The key step is to produce a line segment which a) passes through a given point on a circle, and b) has a length of 1 between the other intersection with the circle and the intersection with an extended diameter.  You can easily do this by sliding around a marked ruler whose marking has length 1, but it's impossible otherwise (since it trisects the angle, for one).  Another way to look at it is: no particular distance is unconstructable, because the plane doesn't have a preferred coordinate system.  Only once you draw your first circle do you establish a metric.  So if you have any marked ruler you can trivially make the marking a constructible length by making it the unit distance in your coordinates. Ryan Reich 16:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I was assuming neusis was not a permitted construction (it is far less direct than normal compass and straightedge constructions), but including it leads to an important superset of the compass and straightedge constructions. In light of this, I change my vote back to "Support". Elroch 17:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, neusis is not a permitted construction, but I understand what you mean.  Anyway, glad I could help. Ryan Reich 18:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Dummit and Foote, Abstract Algebra, 2nd edition, refers to it as Straightedge and Compass.  Plus the book is really thick. Ryan Reich 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How many does it return for compass and straightedge constrution? Kevin Baastalk 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woa, never mind, i did it and it's only 5 digits.  weird. Kevin Baastalk 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: Whatever the outcome be, IMO it would be bad idea to chase each and every reference in wikipedia articles and replace by one and the same. This would be imposing a POV bias unto the readers, since in real world both terms are used interchangeably. `'mikka (t) 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the recommendation, although I don't see it as a PoV issue. If we leave this alone, eventually the inward links should divide in proportion to all editor's feelings. This is the wiki process at work. Septentrionalis 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequnces

message: It's important that we sign our own comments, but I don't think it's appropriate for us to take credit for public references in this section. John Reid 04:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry, I missed this comment earlier.  I think we should at least annotate the refs though so it's easy to see at a glance what the ref's position is.  --C S (Talk) 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: John, I would prefer if we only added book references, preferably well-known textbooks and the like.  I don't believe getting a cross section of Google hits will be nearly as helpful or representative of what may be considered "authoritative" usage.   --C S (Talk) 04:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Annotate if you like, but Mathworld and AMM are pretty authoritative. Septentrionalis 04:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) Are we now to take this as endorsement by AMM?  Or are you going to go through all AMM articles and see if one usage is preferred?  A simple JSTOR search shows the Monthly lets authors use whatever term they like. --C S (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not endorsement by AMM; but an AMM article is a credible source, just like somebody's algebra textbook. Septentrionalis 17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See my response right above; the Monthly definitely is not endorsing a particular terminology.  What if someone else decides to put another Monthly ref indicating "ruler and compass" is preferred?  Where will this end?  Anyway, I'm going to create a "books" subsection then.  I think there are several others besides me that would find a separate section useful.  --C S (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of List of terminology references 

message: At the end of the move discussion, Elroch wrote (in part): Hopefully...all redirects (of which a large number are needed) will be changed to being direct. By the way, I hope my slightly more formal section on the interpretation of geometric constructions as operations in the complex field is helpful. Further work needed includes removing some of the repetitions in other sections, and a description with a diagram (or alternatively a link) for the geometric construction for each arithmetic operation.
: I went around to all linking articles and fixed all links to point directly to Compass and straightedge. I'll take a look and check to see that all are still correct and all rds direct and single. 
: Before the move discussion, I'd intended to finish up my work with a rewrite of this article. Now that the page is "hot", there have been plenty of edits so I'll hold off on a comprehensive rewrite; it may not be necessary with many hands on the page. 
: One particular plan of mine for this field is to deal with Trisecting the angle. Like Doubling the cube and Squaring the circle, this is one of the 3 classic impossible constructions. I think either one article Impossible constructions? should stand for all or each should have its own page. I intend to slim down description of these subjects in the main article, in proportion. 
: I can provide good graphics for any construction if someone will kindly indicate what's required. Let's get together in a corner and thrash it out. John Reid 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref proof of impossibility - this article is probably a good enough place to refer in general to all three. 131.107.0.106 00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General improvement 

message: Currently the intro mentions that the proofs of impossibility of the famous classical constructions rely on Galois theory; even the Galois theory article makes this assertion.  However, the proofs just rely on basic field theory with no need of Galois groups, etc.  The current phrasing would even seem to take credit away from Pierre Wantzel, giving it to Galois.  I think a change is needed.  --C S (Talk) 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I fixed it.  Hopefully it is acceptable.  The page on Galois theory though now needs to be fixed.  --C S (Talk) 08:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galois theory? 

message: It might be worth mentioning that it _is possible to solve these problems to arbitrary accuracy (just not exactly). Simlply draw a cartesian grid of whatever scale is required (if you make it fine/big enough you can get any desired level of accuracy). Only mathematicians make a distiction between "as close as you like" and exact. --Pog 15:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, this is an article about a topic in mathematics, not about practical drafting methods. That should really be clear from the article. Secondly, it is true but rather a minor point that approximate constructions for squaring the circle, etc, exist: approximate constructions exist for every single point in the plane, since the constructible points are dense in the plane (I have added a statement to this effect). Hence adding this note would be like adding a note in the article Rational number to say that Pi could be approximated as accurately as one wished with a rational number. This is true, but also true of all other real numbers and that wouldn't be the right place for it. Elroch 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Approximate constructions

message: Shouldn't this be moved to the "Constructible Number" article, since they have little to do with compass and straightedge directly?
: Whether moved or not, the second sentence in the section on marked rulers is completely obtuse.  Someone who understands it in detail should just yank this particular sentence and rewrite it wherever it belongs.  "This would permit them, for example, to take a line segment, two lines (or circles), and a point; and then draw a line which passes through the given point and intersects both lines, and such that the distance between the points of intersection equals the given segment." Between which points of intersection -- all three?  How does a distance "equal" a segment?  Can we stop jamming "for example" appositives everywhere they are grammatically legal? (140.232.0.70 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extended constructions" section 

message: Shouldn't this define what is meant by an angle of finite order or link to a definition?  
--OinkOink 13:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Constructible Angles" section 

message: A further generalisation of this theorem (due to K. Venkatachala Iyengar) gives constructions using only a ruler given a point and five distinct points equidistant from it.
This is false - for example, given (0,0), (0,1), (0,-1), (1,0), (-1,0), and (1/√2,1/√2), the points that can be constructed with only a straightedge have coordinates in Q[√2].  Even supposing specific special points (x1,y1), ..., (x6,y6) (rather than arbitrary points), all points constructible with only a straightedge would have coordinates in Q[x1,y1,...,x6,y6], which cannot capture the closure of Q under square roots (which is what ruler and compass can construct).
I suspect that this false generalisation is due to a misinterpretation of another result - given those 6 points, one can construct arbitrarily many points of the circle given by those 5 equidistant points, as well as its center.  If one actually had the circle and its center, that would be enough, but having arbitrarily many points on it isn't.
David.applegate 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructing with only ruler or only compass 

message: The brief plug to Mathematics of paper folding under impossible constructions is poorly worded.  It needs to be brought up to the level normally present on Wikipedia.  --Whiteknox 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origami 

message: :Obsessed as he was with a belief that gravity was known to the ancients, Isaac Newton used a compass and straightedge construction to illustrate his theory of gravitation, rather than the fluxions he had invented (differential equations), which would have been more natural. He chose this more awkward method so as to demonstrate that the theory would have been accessible to the ancient pythagorans, unaware that Archimedes had infact known of greatly more advanced analytical geometric methods.
Unsourced; and largely false. Archimedes' more "advanced analytical method" was the Method of exhaustion, which Newton knew about, and used; it's in Euclid. Newton published his results with Euclidean proofs because these proofs were, and were understood to be, rigorous; Newton's fluxions were not, and would become so for another two centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my long-lost undergraduate days, I came across a sourcebook with an interesting letter from Newton in which he defined what we now know as the derivative with *exactly* the "modern" notion of a limit (given verbally, but precisely).  It's bizarre that this took centuries to be rediscovered.--OinkOink 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newton

message: Do you think that the article is ready to become a featured article? Tomer T 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: These two section appear to have almost identical content. Should they be merged? --Salix alba (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that they should be merged. Compass and straightedge constructions as complex arithmetic seems a touch more understandable to me, BTW. Root4(one) 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections on ''Constructible points and lengths'' and ''Compass and straightedge constructions as complex arithmetic'' 

message: IMO, this article spends most of its time reviewing (a) what can't be done and (b) complicated proofs of this and complicated proofs of some thinghs that can be done. It appears to lack almost completey a review of what can be done and of how to do (some) of these constructions. I was tempted to add the following (next para) but thought I'd put it here for comment first.
"An example of a simple achievable construction is to divide a line into two sections of ratio 1 : N (integer). First construct perpendicular lines at each end of the target line, next construct, with the compass, one target line length 'down' on the 'left' and N target line lengths 'up' on the 'right'. Join the two resultant points for a 1:N intersection."
-- SGBailey (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Tone 

message: "Infinite in length and only having one side." Isn't that physically impossible? 207.62.186.233 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About the definition of "straightedge"

message: The fourth paragraph of the introductory section reads as follows:
"The most famous ruler-and-compass problems have been proven impossible in several cases by Pierre Wantzel, using the mathematical theory of fields. In spite of these impossibility proofs, some mathematical novices persist in trying to solve these problems. Many of them fail to understand that many of these problems are trivially solvable provided that other geometric transformations are allowed: for example, doubling the cube is possible using geometric constructions, but not possible using ruler and compass alone.."
Regarding the end of this last sentence: If an example is offered, it should be given, not withheld.  Doubling the cube is "possible" using what geometric constructions?Daqu (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you see how the text "doubling the cube" in that sentence appears in blue, perhaps with an underline?  That means that you can click on it, and read in detail about the problem of doubling the cube.  In that article there is a section titled "Solutions" that answers your question.  —Dominus (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information-free example 

message: The discussion on moving the article seems to have stalled a while ago with no decision. As a purely practical matter, it's usually much easier to make a link to the article when the article name is singular.--RDBury (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving name debate 

message: Moved this here from the article:
:Suppose an algorithm that gives you a point as a result. The point will always be given by intersection of two lines (or line and circle or two circles. See previous elemental operations), but there are infinite points in a classical euclidean space. 
:Regardless of the algorithm we use, we can only perform a finite number of steps. Therefore, no matter what algorithm we use to determine them, there will always be points that we cannot mark by crossing of two lines (same holds if we mark the point as intersection of a line and a circle, or of two circles)
This sounds nonsensical to me. A finite (but unbounded) number of operations can certainly produce an infinite number of possible points. All rational points on the plane can be constructed, even though there are infinitely many of them. The real impossibility proof is that the number of constructible points is countably infinite but there are uncountably infinitely many reals. If anyone wants  to write it up, go for it. Arvindn (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect proof 

message: Is it mentioned anywhere how to construct 60 degree angles? It is one of the simpler constructions. SharkD  Talk  04:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 degree angles 

message: thumbnail doesn't seem to animate, tho the gif itself does. --Arkelweis (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trisecting a segment with ruler and compass. 

message: I would like to call into question the value of this section. First, the paper referred to is now 14 years old ... not particularly recent in my mind, so I find the section title a bit misleading. The section has been in the article since Sept. 2002, with no change in content (but there have been minor changes in how the reference is given). The single sentence is pure hype and does not add anything to the article. On the basis of Wikipedia:Notability I would say that the section should be struck. In support of this I note that according to Math Reviews, the paper that this section references has never been cited by any other mathematical article. As a Wikipedia editor I should not be commenting on the quality of referenced sources, but as a working mathematician I feel the need to point out that there are professional standards for published mathematical works and the paper being talked about fails to meet those standards in many ways. The fact that the author of the paper is also a founding editor of the journal in which this paper appears may explain how it got published in the first place. Comments? Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent (?) Results 

message: Is there any analogous model where instead of limiting the compass and straightedge constructions to a single 2D plane, that we instead use them on a number of intersecting 2D planes in 3 dimensional space?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 05:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Replacing circles with spheres so you look at points where lines or spheres intersect is the obvious extension. However you still don't get anything beyond doing square roots. Dmcq (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three dimensions? 

message: An alternate method for constructing polygons is by taking any two sides of a right-angle triangle as radii of a circle & its sectors,some of the results will be apeiroga,but most give good results.AptitudeDesign (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  polygons 

message: Unless I missed something, the article currently contains no history prior to Gauss, except a brief mention that a proposition of Euclid's implies that it doesn't matter whether a compass is collapsible, a brief statement that the requirements can be expressed in terms of Euclid's first three postulates, and the dubious statement
:The following three construction problems, whose origins date from Greek antiquity, were considered impossible in the sense that they could not be solved using only the compass and straightedge.
(I thought they kept trying rather than assuming impossibility--is that not right? The above assertion needs a citation.)
I think it would be worthwhile to have a history section that answers:
*Did the ancient Greeks come up with the requirements of a straightedge and compass construction? In what context?
*What lengths, angles, and figures could they construct? (E.g., could they do the regular pentagon? Did they think that all regular polygons ought to be constructible?)
*What did they say about squaring the circle, doubling the cube, and trisecting the general angle? Did they think that these could be solved? Which trisectible angles did they know how to trisect? 
*How much of the above shows up in Euclid, and where?
Loraof (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source and got a good start on a history section, but it needs to be beefed up with more material and more sources. Loraof (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs history section 

message: Could we make a section with much used constructions, so that readers have some directory linking to much used (but not bascic) constructions, I know the list should not be to long or maybe a seperate page for a longer list. but on this page a list refering to "midpoint of segment", "angle bisector" , "mirror point in line" and maybe 7 more is in order.WillemienH (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section " much used  constructions" (name open for discussion)  

message: I did like the link to  [www.euclidea.xyz/game] Euclidea an online compass and straightedge construction game that was added 18 march 2016, but was removed soon after with as reason (revert - rm promotional link; this is not a web directory)
I did like the link and would like it reinstated, because it is related , I like  it (but that is personal and is not within the scope of  Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY.
Also I would like to add a link to  but that would have I guess the same result. WillemienH (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to be add anything to the topic, it is just a nice game. Unfortunately I agree it comes under not a directory. Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking  to euclidea 

message: Euclid seems to have had a broader view of what a "construction" is than this. For example, proposition 3.1 constructs the center of a circle from the circle. That can't be done with the basic constructions because there are no intersections to make a point from and no points to make a line or circle from. However, Euclid does it by drawing a chord through the circle at random, relying on the fact that the construction works no matter which chord one draws. Perhaps the definition of construction has changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrperson59 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are certainly problems with Euclid's "proof" in III.1, I don't see where your objection is coming from. The circle has to be given (determined) in some manner, and Euclid does this by talking about the circle through the three points, . Yes, that choice is arbitrary, but it is not part of the construction, rather it is part of the given. There is no aspect of the construction that uses random elements. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: The other possibility is that the circle is determined by a center and a radius - but in that case one already has the center and so here is no need to construct it. Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Constructions 

message: No move was done after the discussion at #Bad move where it seems 'Straightedge and compass construction' is more common. Also the version without hyphens seems more common but seems to occur about a third of the time. Any objections to a move now? Prefer hyphens? Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd favor the move to "Straightedge and compass construction" (no hyphens). In analogy with the technically incorrect, but still common, ruler and compass construction, there are no hyphens and putting compass first is somehow jarring. I believe that this is a case where the rules of grammar are being ignored in favor of common practice, and we should follow suit. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to 'Straightedge and compass construction' 

message: The History section doesn't explain the origins of the compass and straightedge restriction, nor does it distinguish between eras in which the restriction was considered absolute and eras where constructions using other tools were considered legitimate but less aesthetic, less fundamental or otherwise second class. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please disregard my entry as it isn't relevant to the matter at hand. My bad - I'll stick with conventional contributions in the future. GAWiens (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  From whence the restriction? 

message: Article could use some cleanup, many external links have gone bad. I'd do it myself but I'm not a member so I don't know how to mark them and I don't want to start removing unsourced material if it can just be redirected to a different source. 2601:14F:8000:B3B0:0:0:0:5733 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad external links