Talk:Angle trisection

message: Little help here. I'm in +1. I found how to trisect angle with the Greek tools. Don't know what to do next. Need guidance. E-mail: [redacted].
Rahul2312160 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As the lead of Angle trisection says about the tools allowed by the Greeks: "With such tools, the task of angle trisection is generally impossible". This is a proven result and not just speculation. Either you are using tools they didn't allow (or using them in ways they didn't allow), or your method only works for some specific angles. If you post the method to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics then somebody will probably tell you what is wrong. This talk page is only intended for discussion about how to improve the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, PrimeHunter, I have posted to the Math reference desk- not looking to be published on a wikipedia page for O.R., just would like someone to refute my simple construction. Wcichello (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About trisection of an angle (0-180) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Angle trisection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104113041/http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm#curves to http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm#curves
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/trisect_limacon/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My understanding, is that certain angles can be constructed (directly or indirectly) and that these angles, where there are multiples of 3, are called trisections. Is this actually an accurate description? To me it appears to be multiple constructions of angles over eachother that could be constructed anyway, the 3-fold factor is incidental rather than intrinsic (albeit deliberate). 92.6.144.20 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some angles can be 'trisected' 

message: Could one rotate it about any point or just about where the legs intersect? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we assume the ruler have a width? Is it even relevant? 

message: I have read this several times, and do not understand this explanation.  Can someone put in more detail?  Jokem (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The more detail is already in the linked article Tomahawk (geometry) where it belongs. You did follow the link, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the link is even more confusing.  First, it talks about the apex of the angle, which is A.  To me, the apex is the top, right?  It looks like A is near the bottom.  OK...  Next it says the handle of the tomahawk is touching the apex - A.  It looks to me like the handle is the line crossing C D E.  What touches A does not look like a handle to me.  Would be better if it were animated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The apex is the point where the angle is measured. The tip of the handle is placed at that point, as the article says. The description of which pieces of the tomahawk have which names is clearly given in the "description" section of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomahawk