Talk:Dynamic rectangle

When static is dynamic

Based on the fact that the hemiolion is 2:3 and the double square is 1:sqrt(4), I was about to add the following paragraph:

Some dynamic rectangles are also static, as they can also be produced by geometric means. For instance the 1:2 rectangle can be constructed both by proyecting the diagonal of the root-3 rectangle and by proyecting the side of a square 180°. The 2:3 rectangle can be constructed by proyecting the middle point of a side of a square 180°.

Then, it hit me, the 1:3 rectangle is 1:root-9, the 1:4 rectangle is 1:root-16, the 1:5 is 1:root-25 and so on. So, the statement I was about to add is false, and the square, the double square and the hemiolion, 3 of the Wersing orthogons are not really dynamic. And the dynamic rectangles might have to be redifined to exclude the static ones.--20-dude (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Now that we have this new article motivated by "Die Orthogone", slightly more general than the set of root rectangles, let's put them all together here. There's not enough content for two articles with so much overlap. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. On another topic, I've been experimenting with the autoCAD to understand where do each "orthogon" come from. What's the criteria for stuff that doesn't come from a book but can be easily proven with math??--20-dude (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. It may be OK for illustrations, but not for assertions in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asking precisely because of WP:NOR. Because math proves itself as soap cleans it self, haha.--20-dude (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)