Inscribing hexagon in circle

David Nebenzahl · 2009-05-20T01:07:58+00:00

Regarding that business up above about dividing a circle into 3 equal parts using a square, blah blah blah ... maybe I don't remember my geometry so well. Checked back in that table I mentioned in "Proven Shop Tips" for dividing a circle into n equal parts, and sure enough, the number to multiply the diameter of a circle by to divide into 6 equal parts is ... exactly 0.5.So anyone got the proof handy that a hexagon with sides of length s can be inscribed in a circle whose radius equals s? I have my old algebra and calculus books, but no geometry.

May 20, 2009 43 Replies

Rate this thread:

David Nebenzahl 17 years ago

On 5/21/2009 1:25 PM alexy spake thus:

Wrong. I asked for a proof, and that's exactly what I wanted. Didn't have to be a "2-column" proof[1], nor a particularly rigorous one, but I wanted a step-by-step proof, not just another redundant demonstration.

Please don't make assumptions like this. You're not a very good mind-reader.

[1] Having run across this term repeatedly while searching for geometry stuff on the web, it seems this has nothing whatever to do with formal mathematics, but is just the latest fashion for educator's preferred format for making schoolkids do geometry proofs.

Vote

-MIKE- 17 years ago

Although I wasn't referring to your projects, but to the topic of rulers, I have done several projects for which I don't remember using any measuing or marking, but just sort of free-handing it as you go. I think there ar many times when you need a thing, but have no parameters or requirement the size of any part of it.

There's a bit of freedom and catharsis in it.

Vote

-MIKE- 17 years ago

I can't tell is I "wooshed" you or you, me. :-)

Vote

alexy 17 years ago

I never disputed that. I stand by my conjecture that you did not want a formal proof.

Never heard of it.

An informal proof that is not rigorous is What I describe below.

Sounds like I was spot-on.

A formal proof would be relatively worthless in this situation, and is clearly not what you wanted, given your acceptance of non-rigorous informal proofs.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required