Posts: 21,382

Threads: 0

Joined: Nov 2002

I found the discussion in Wikipedia to be nebulous to say the least. There is a simple way to do this. I discovered it about 15 years ago from a source that I cannot remember, so I decided to post it here.

I have used this method several times and found it to be on the nose. Give it a try and happy fourth of July!

Rip to width. Plane to thickness. Cut to length. Join.

Posts: 1,879

Threads: 0

Joined: Jan 2008

Location: Irving, Tx

Now that is interesting! Will I be able to remember it, who knows?

"I tried being reasonable..........I didn't like it." Clint Eastwood

Posts: 21,382

Threads: 0

Joined: Nov 2002

(07-04-2019, 04:34 PM)Bill Holt Wrote: Now that is interesting! Will I be able to remember it, who knows?

Print it and save it along with your other woodworking documents. Or, I think you can copy that image to a Pic file subdirectory. The text is all part of the image.

Rip to width. Plane to thickness. Cut to length. Join.

Posts: 1,196

Threads: 0

Joined: Aug 2009

Location: Manassas, VA

07-04-2019, 06:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2019, 06:31 PM by FS7.)
Re: Trisecting Any Angle by Edwin Hackleman (I found the discussi...)
It is not possible to trisect an arbitrary angle with a compass and a straightedge. This was proven in 1837.

I'm honestly surprised this stuff still shows up.

ETA: I think this would technically be allowed since it involves a ruler and not a simple straightedge.

Posts: 21,382

Threads: 0

Joined: Nov 2002

(07-04-2019, 06:24 PM)FS7 Wrote: It is not possible to trisect an arbitrary angle with a compass and a straightedge. This was proven in 1837. I'm honestly surprised this stuff still shows up. ETA: I think this would technically be allowed since it involves a ruler and not a simple straightedge.

That's wrong. No ruler is required. The compass that was used to draw the circle can measure the length, BC, along the straight edge. Think about it.

Rip to width. Plane to thickness. Cut to length. Join.

Posts: 640

Threads: 0

Joined: Aug 2011

07-04-2019, 07:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2019, 07:47 PM by bhh.)
Re: RE: Trisecting Any Angle by FS7 (It is not possible t...)
(07-04-2019, 06:24 PM)FS7 Wrote: It is not possible to trisect an arbitrary angle with a compass and a straightedge. This was proven in 1837.

I'm honestly surprised this stuff still shows up.

ETA: I think this would technically be allowed since it involves a ruler and not a simple straightedge.

In one of my last graduate classes in abstract math, we were studying a branch called "Galois Theory" named after a Frenchman who penned down the foundations prior to losing his life in a duel the next day (apparently a much better mathematician than marksman). After a week or so of this esoteric study the professor announced "and that's why you cannot trisect an angle with straightedge and compass." For years, math quacks had been publishing "proofs"to the contrary. All us students just kind of stared at each other because it did not seem to have any direct relevance. Prof spent the next 20 minutes explaining why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

Posts: 21,382

Threads: 0

Joined: Nov 2002

(07-04-2019, 07:05 PM)bhh Wrote: In one of my last graduate classes in abstract math, we were studying a branch called "Galois Theory" named after a Frenchman who penned down the foundations prior to losing his life in a duel the next day (apparently a much better mathematician than marksman). After a week or so of this esoteric study the professor announced "and that's why you cannot trisect an angle with straightedge and compass." For years, math quacks had been publishing "proofs"to the contrary. All us students just kind of stared at each other because it did not seem to have any direct relevance. Prof spent the next 20 minutes explaining why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

Pierre Wanztel was wrong. Not everything published in 1837 was correct.

We also learned years ago that 22/7 was a good approximation for the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (

pi ). In fact 355/113 supplies an easy to remember estimation for

pi that is about a million times more accurate -- that much less error.

Rip to width. Plane to thickness. Cut to length. Join.

Posts: 12,815

Threads: 4

Joined: Jun 2007

Location: New Jersey

Wow, all of this is completely over my head.....

Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

Non impediti ratione cogitationis

Posts: 11,168

Threads: 0

Joined: Jun 2004

Location: Texas

Math is not perfect. Try and divide a 7" bar into 3 equal sections mathematically and you can't. You get an infinite number and we all know there IS an exact measure for each 3 sections. The best we can do is measure to the tiniest quantum.

Dividing a 6" bar is quite different.

"There are no strangers- only friends I haven't met.

Posts: 3,923

Threads: 0

Joined: Apr 2002

I just tested it in a CAD program. It was good to 6 places right of the decimal. I expect it's close enough for woodworking.