Talk:Hinge theorem

Edits

When I added a link to a website to this article, I was simply trying to cite my source. Please allow me to reintroduce the link to spp15.emagc.com. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds, I will reintroduce the link anyway. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. It's not obvious from such a bare reference, and neither am I convinced that this is a notable topic in mathematics. Intuitively, it follows from Euclid, but unless it is taught or otherwise referenced by the mathematical community, it doesn't belong here. It should at least be sourceable in Google Scholar or in geometrical textbooks. Rodhull andemu 01:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The web page which you tried to link to does not look to me like a reliable source, and I can't find anything there about the hinge theorem either. Am I missing something? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the tab labeled "FMA", then click on the image gallery. The hinge theorem is there, and more theorems are on the way. I think that this is a very credible source. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the credibility of this source. It seems very reliable. SquallBL (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that this is mentioned in some online geometry courses, but as a rather obvious corollary of the Law of sines. It therefore seems sensible to merge these two articles. Rodhull andemu 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I'm allowed to put the information about the other Hinge Theorem back up? 72.86.118.208 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, propose a new and separate page for this hinge theorem. Any other suggestions? SquallBL (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please hold your horses! Who is behind this website, how is information on the site verified, and where on the site is this theorem mentioned? The link to the "FMA" tab is here, and it says absolutely nothing. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found the rather terse statement. How does this qualify as a reliable source? Favonian (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe"? No thanks. Rodhull andemu 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fringe" in FMA indicates that they are on the frontier of the mathematical world. I have several other people who can vouch for this site if they are needed. SquallBL (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not good enough. If these people are "on the frontier of the mathematical world" there must be some indication who they are, and some reliable sources backing the claim. IMO it's just yet another blog. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It also means, per policy that we can't use this as a source until their theorems have been peer-reviewed by other mathematicians in other reliable sources. Since this "hinge theorem" seems to say nothing beyond "all two-dimensional images can be rotated around an arbitrary point in the plane, and may end up looking like other images", this is unbelievably trite and lacks any rigour that would make it worth anything. P.S. I have a theory about the brontosaurus. Rodhull andemu 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, part of the site is a blog, but the FMA has started their career on a small corner of this site. Getting one of their theorems on Wikipedia would be a great start. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely vouch for this article. I have reviewed it thoroughly, and it deserves its very own page. The information is most indubitably correct. 173.69.115.228 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Finally someone sees the value of this information and that it must be brought to the general public. I insist that it needs its own page. SquallBL (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think we were born yesterday? Please review WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SPA and WP:MEAT. Rodhull andemu 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This hinge theorem at least deserves a chance. Please allow me to make a page for it, at least temporarily. SquallBL (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to waste your time, "temporary" will mean "less than a minute", because it will be speedily deleted. Rodhull andemu 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Based on the evidence presented so far, such an article is bound to be nominated for deletion. Having a couple of anonymous editors vouch for a web site does not constitute reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned ugly. I will give up on the hinge theorem for now, but, someday, it will have its own page! SquallBL (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge theorem may not be worthy of its own page (at the moment), but the FMA surely is. This organization is very intriguing, and it deserves to be brought to the public's attention. SquallBL (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does SquallBL have clearance for an FMA page? 72.86.118.208 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one denies clearance, then I will go ahead and create this page. SquallBL (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this first. It's a self-published amateur website, unless it has been noticed by the mathematical community. Meanwhile, I look forward to your solution to the Riemann hypothesis. Rodhull andemu 23:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is 7x-27+-49. 72.86.118.208 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up on the hinge theorem (for now). I will wait until the FMA becomes more prestigious. SquallBL (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Newton proved the hinge theorem. Does that make it reliable? Squall BL

The FMA just released an expansion of the Hinge Theorem on spp15.emagc.com. Click on the "Daily Rabble" tab to see the more reliable info. This information is groundbreaking, and it may merit an article for the hinge theorem. Squall BL (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This makes perfect sense to me, no mathematics are al that necessary to understand it, just some pure common sense makes everything simple. I am just curious about who is behind everything. Is this theorem going through more thorough research at a university, and if so, who is leading the development of this theorem? Who even invented this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calub cruze (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FMA, which can be found at spp15.emagc.com, is responsible for this theorem. Wouldn't you agree that it needs its own page? SquallBL (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:FRINGE. This is getting to be disruptive. Rodhull andemu 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your time in resolving this matter. That article about fringe theories was finally a good reason for me to stop trying for this article. I will wait until the hinge theorem becomes more mainstream. However, I would like to introduce an article about the FMA. To be honest, I would just like to introduce my first article. SquallBL (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge Theorem Controversy

Everyone, please don't think any less of me because of my insistence in bringing the hinge theorem to Wikipedia. I just think that this deserves to be introduced to the encyclopedia. SquallBL (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]