troet.cafe ist Teil eines dezentralisierten sozialen Netzwerks, angetrieben von Mastodon.
Hallo im troet.cafe! Dies ist die derzeit größte deutschsprachige Mastodon Instanz zum tröten, neue Leute kennenlernen, sich auszutauschen und Spaß zu haben.

Verwaltet von:

Serverstatistik:

7 Tsd.
aktive Profile

Mehr erfahren

#geometry

24 Beiträge24 Beteiligte0 Beiträge heute

I have found an interesting geometric fact: suppose you have a hexagon of side 1 and duplicate and enlarge it by the golden ratio 𝜑; the distance from one vertex of the unit hexagon to a vertex of the bigger hexagon 60° apart is √2. Furthermore, if another hexagon reduced by 𝜑 is drawn inside, the distance from one vertex of the unit hexagon to a vertex of the smaller hexagon 120° apart is also √2 [first figure].
This boils down to the fact that a triangle of sides 1, √2, and 𝜑 has an angle of 60° opposite to side √2. That triangle is very remarkable as it contains the three more relevant algebraic geometric constants: √2, √3/2 (altitude to the bigger side) and 𝜑 [second figure]. Of course this can be also used to construct 𝜑 from a square and a triangle (I bet this is known). In the follow-up some artistic designs exploiting those facts.
#geometry #Mathematics #triangle #GoldenRatio

Here's a stupid #geometry / #astronomy question. Planetary orbits are ellipses (under the obvious simplifying assumptions) which are conic sections. So what's the cone? There are infinitely many cones that fit of course. But is there one that best explains? To put it another way, is there a neat geometric argument that an orbit should be an ellipse, that doesn't require too much physics? #mathematics