Talk:Golden rectangle

message: What does "squaring a rectangle" mean? I mean, a squares sides aspect ratio is 1:1? -- JeLuF 20:56 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
:Same question--it's been a long time since geometry class--what does it mean to "square a rectangle"? older≠wiser 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Squaring

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strech out request 

message: If someone is ambitious, replacing two ugly color-incompatible images with one good one would be a worthwhile project. Dicklyon 06:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two ugly figures

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed that among the random small mostly-vandalism edits I reverted. I'll fix. Dicklyon 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minneapolis MC 

message: Anybody have any input on the aspect ratios of visual media in light of the subject?  I only bring it up because the now-popular 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 integer-ratio 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)
thread_title: Aspect Ratios

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technique explanation request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contribution of Adolf Zeising to the Modern Use in Aesthetics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The article makes no mention of the relationship of \varphi to the irrational 6.1214..., in the lead or otherwise. And the graphics include \varphi as an identity without relating to  1 : \tfrac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ϕ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fundamentals 

message: Perhaps a bit nit picky, but drawing a square with straight edge and compass is hardly a "simple step".  In fact I suspect it has more steps to it than the rest of the construction.
Gjxj (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   four simple steps 

message: There are practical applications for the inverse of φ being exactly φ - 1.  This should be mentioned in the article.  For example, this article Phi and its properties states "Phi is the only number in which adding one will yield its square and subtracting one will yield its inverse (Knott, 2011)."  Miqrogroove (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.618 and 2.618