This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article quotes Aristotle "There is no royal road to geometry", but googling for the phrase in quotes provides many attributions to Euclid, not Aristotle.
Since the quote, however interesting, is not essential for explaining "Pons asinorum", the entire paragraph should be deleted.
Yes, it just shows how good Pappus proof is. If you look in Elementa http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI5.html it looks 'more' complicated. When Pappus mirrors the triangle it becomes so obvious. It should be rewritten by someone that can write English
Not quite. When we assert that triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB, we are also asserting that the vertices correspond in the given order (A to A, B to C, and C to B). 98.240.230.81 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some duplication of material between this article and Theorem on isosceles triangles. Perhaps a merge is in order but I think there is a distinction between the mathematics of the theorem and the Latin phrase and it's meaning in culture. The other article should have the mathematical material and this article should have the non-mathematical.--RDBury (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While reading this article a lengthy alliteration describing "separating daft from dalliers" or something of the sort struck me as particularly, needlessly, and un-tastefully pseudo-eloquent. Flowery, as it were, and tacky too. In a similar tone as this comment itself (but without my shameless deployment of sentence fragments). The ... aroma of the language was imprecise and not entirely good, like the smell of milk. (Which should not have much of one at all). I hope I've made my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.233.112 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should at least have a diagram of pons asinorum as done in Euclid. That is integral to the original meaning. It is not enough to point to another article which treats it as a mathematical proposition and solves it using a later method. In fact I think probably the whole original proof is notable in itself and not particularly for the final result. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm planning to add a proof or two to the other article and it would be pointless to duplicate them here. Everything by Euclid has been hashed and rehashed for two millennia so there is a huge amount of material to sort through.--RDBury (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above under Content fork. Neither article is so stubby that it's a candidate for a merge because of article length. --RDBury (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that article length isn't a good reason for a merge in this case, but content is (both are on the same theorem). For this reason I have carried out the proposed merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Pons asinorum. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I’m not sure whether the pronunciation given for in Latin for the Latin term was supposed to be a narrow or a broad transcription. The transcription used /ʊ/ for short-u but /i/ for short-i. It didn’t specify if it was the Ecclesiastical pronunciation or classical pronunciation either. I regularized the transcription to a narrow classical transcription, but if a different change is needed, please comment.Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My memories of the details of Latin pronounciation are shaky. Does the narrow classical transcription really end in a nasalized vowel rather than a consonant? So that (although Latin does not have such endings) -um, -un, and -ung would all be indistinguishable? No touching of closed lips (m), front of tongue to palette (n), nor back of tongue to palette (ng), just an open mouth? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The English name seems strange. If it means that people who can't grasp the proof are asses, and the proof is a bridge to the harder stuff, then how can it be a "bridge of asses" if asses can't "cross" it? Perhaps there's a subtlety in "Pons asinorum" which is lost in translation. Can any Latin experts comment? KevinBTheobald (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Nobody31415 just added a peacock tag. Does anyone know what part of the article "promotes [what] subject in a subjective manner"? I don't see the problem. McYeee (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
