@ProducerofBS What on earth is a squaredge?? Anyway, whatever you said is utterly irrelevant to my statements; I used the term "trisector" with the definition given in the first sentence of the linked PDF.

@user21820 It's a spelling autocorrect; hastily corrected, incorrectly. As for "utterly irrelevant", I thought it relevant. It was just a bit of fun.

← 9 messages moved from CRUDE

@ProducerofBS What you stated (with "squaredge" replaced by "straightedge") is false, not fun.

And since it's all off-topic to CRUDE, you can continue here if you still wish to.

Unless you are trying to base your statement on the uncommon interpretation of "trisect an angle" as "trisect at least one angle"...

In which case it's no longer about mathematics but about linguistics.

@user21820 It was just a bit of fun. No biggy. Though it is a rigorous fact that any angle you can bisect with a ruler and straightedge can also be trisected. It follows from the inherent inaccuracy of drawing on paper. It's maths fun because its about probability and logic. But I can see its not fun for you.

@amWhy I would probably be more concerned with users disparaging other users first, rather than the disparaged user drawing attention to it.

@ProducerofBS My point is simply that what I said was in the specific context where "trisector" is exactly as defined in the PDF, and that PDF's definition of "trisect" has nothing to do with paper, because the term "straightedge and compass" has a specific abstract definition. Hence I am justified in saying that your statement is false. You would do well to instead say "can be approximately trisected" and nobody would disagree.

@user21820 Yes I get that; and I've previously read the pdf you keep pointing out. But I dispute that the word "horse" has nothing to do with horses.

@ProducerofBS I'm sure you would object to people calling you a horse based on some horse being called "Robert". Same thing here. When I use a term in a specific context, I deserve to be interpreted in that context. When you used the same word as me in your first comment, it was either false or irrelevant. Anyway there's no point going on and on about this. I hope you don't actually believe that trisection (as I mean it) is possible.

@user21820 I trust Wantzel's proof