I think you should mention that the method is not exact but can just approximate regular polygons with a relatively small number of edges. There are number of edges (e.g. 7) for which it is actually impossible to draw the polygon using only compass and straightedge ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_polygon ), so claiming that the method allows to exactly draw polygons with any number of sides is with no doubt a false statement.
It seems so simple. Unbelievable. So I did some calculations and recognized the metod as a BS. Doesn't work. Why should I use this incorrect method when I can youse simplier less incorrect incorrect method?
*This* *method* *is* *even* *NOT* *correct* ... Only the hexagon and dodecagon could have the correct angle. Here is a demonstration: upload.cc/i1/2020/11/26/SEsMwn.png There is no reason to draw the middle point and assume it as the center of the polygon. This error keeps increasing when drawing larger polygons. If you can bear this much error, why not just draw a circle and divide it with a protractor or even your bare eyes?
Thank you! I'm glad it's not just me seeing this. I may have gone a little overboard with my objection to a similar video here... ruclips.net/video/rt7qTvPYVXE/видео.html Interestingly, Khan Loo (above) also praised that other one.
When you know the side length of a regular polygon (pentagon or higher), any four of its vertices MUST fall on a construction of two identical circles centred at each other's edge, with the middle of three edges joining the two circles. An equilateral triangle can be drawn linking the two circles' centres and one of their intersections. As well, it seems like the distance between the centres of two consecutive orders of polygon, shrinks ever so slightly, less as the order gets higher. This is because the chord length approaches the arc length, and those who know circles, know the ratio of circumference to diameter is constant.
@@chisaomusician7752 I am definitely not talking about drawing parallel lines. How could you think the next step is a single bit correct... upload.cc/i1/2020/11/26/SEsMwn.png
I think you should mention that the method is not exact but can just approximate regular polygons with a relatively small number of edges. There are number of edges (e.g. 7) for which it is actually impossible to draw the polygon using only compass and straightedge ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_polygon ), so claiming that the method allows to exactly draw polygons with any number of sides is with no doubt a false statement.
Thank you so much for sharing this knowledge. I love it.
Great job
Keep it up
This is really helpful our prof in architecture didn't do a demo for us before giving assignment
Thank u po😊
Very helpful in making a Harry Potter Triwizard cup!
It seems so simple. Unbelievable. So I did some calculations and recognized the metod as a BS. Doesn't work. Why should I use this incorrect method when I can youse simplier less incorrect incorrect method?
Thank you very much
so waht site do u use for geometry?
btw the vids were helpful to me, thanks
What sets quare did he use the first time
My head is not in this
It helps me alot thanks 😊
I will subscribe
Thank you
Thanks
Great video(s). Should be taught in basic math courses.
ruclips.net/video/q0UlaGctcwM/видео.html for those calling this method incorrect.
*This* *method* *is* *even* *NOT* *correct* ... Only the hexagon and dodecagon could have the correct angle.
Here is a demonstration:
upload.cc/i1/2020/11/26/SEsMwn.png
There is no reason to draw the middle point and assume it as the center of the polygon. This error keeps increasing when drawing larger polygons.
If you can bear this much error, why not just draw a circle and divide it with a protractor or even your bare eyes?
That's right, not an accurate method!
Thank you! I'm glad it's not just me seeing this.
I may have gone a little overboard with my objection to a similar video here... ruclips.net/video/rt7qTvPYVXE/видео.html
Interestingly, Khan Loo (above) also praised that other one.
When you know the side length of a regular polygon (pentagon or higher), any four of its vertices MUST fall on a construction of two identical circles centred at each other's edge, with the middle of three edges joining the two circles.
An equilateral triangle can be drawn linking the two circles' centres and one of their intersections.
As well, it seems like the distance between the centres of two consecutive orders of polygon, shrinks ever so slightly, less as the order gets higher. This is because the chord length approaches the arc length, and those who know circles, know the ratio of circumference to diameter is constant.
Looks fine to me. Definitely all correct methods. It is a stretch to call it Thales Theorem, but that doesn't make the method incorrect..
@@chisaomusician7752 I am definitely not talking about drawing parallel lines. How could you think the next step is a single bit correct...
upload.cc/i1/2020/11/26/SEsMwn.png
💢💢