Talk:Hypotenuse

Article creation

I created this article for clarity. Previously it was redirecting to the triangle article, which resulted in having to search again for the word 'hypotenuse'. I also created an illustration and released it public domain.
BlackWolf 15:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Way to Find the Length of the Hypotenuse

Let's say you had a right triangle, with the length of the second-longest side being 10 m. The angle of the hypotenuse is 30 degrees. Is there any way, maybe a formula, which could calculate the length of the hypotenuse with this information? -- Darx21 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the sine rule to find the length of the side. This is as follows:

- Sin (Angle) = Length of side opposite to angle / Length of Hypotenuse
     - Length of hypotenuse = Length of opposite side / Sin (angle)
- Cos (Angle) = Length of side adjacent to angle / Length of Hypotenuse
- Tan (Angle) = Length of side opposite to angle / Length of side adjacent to angle

(You'll probably need a calculator to work these out for less useful numbers than 30º).

If you're finding it for 30º, the sine of this angle is 0.5, and the cosine of it is (sqrt(3)/2). Depending on which way round the angles and sides are, the length of the hypotenuse will be either 20m or 20/sqrt(3) ~ 11.547m.

Hope this helps. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional content

I devised a simple method for estimating the length of an hypotenuse when the lengths of the two legs are known WITHOUT the use of a calculator to do the squares and square roots required when using the Pythagorean Theorem. You can view a short YouTube explanation of this method at .....

           https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=E6D-ZWX4w2s

Please let me know if you agree this would be a good and appropriate addition to this page.

Thanks, in advance, for your consideration.......tom Thomasjjsullivan (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Hi Thomas,  I see this not from last year, but no content Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be based on verifiable sources, that is independently published, verifiable and reliable sources, and not personal research. This information that you describe sounds like personal research. Youtube is not considered a reliable source because most of the content is user generated. Please see Wikipedia:reliable sources and Wikipedia:no original research for more in-depth info about constitutes original research and reliable sources.

Anyway, the youtube link appears to be nonfunctional. I checked the history log for the article and see that there were no updates made so perhaps it's a moot point now. But still for the record, please don't add original research to Wikipedia articles. Curdigirl (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article difficult to read

This article has several issues that need to be addressed.

It seems to consist largely of original research.
It is extremely technical. There's a lengthy explanation of the etymology of the word and some pretty "mathy" stuff (ok I made up that word) that I admit to being confused by. I'm sure it can be improved.
This article needs someone familiar with Mathematics to expand it and make it more accessible to an encyclopedic audience.

I've done some minor CE and flagged the article according to my notes. Curdigirl (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article. I am not sure it can be improved much. I might suggest the following revision to the introduction:

In geometry, a hypotenuse is the longest side of a right-angled triangle. This is always the side opposite the right angle. The length of the hypotenuse can be found using the famous Pythagorean theorem.

It's shorter, quite short for most introductions, but it removes information better suited for other pages.

Fantasticawesome (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling out this info to save here - there were several citations bundled into 1 reference template.

E.g. Z. Lochner, Tractätlein, darinnen etliche schöne Exempel, auss der Geometria, etc., Nuremberg (1583), p. 64: "Qudarir den lengern Cathetum, als 24. und sein basis als 7. wirdt 576. unnd 49. addir die 2. Quadrat/ wirdt 625. unnd ist das Quadrat der Hypotenusa [...]"

Can we get some more modern references? Curdigirl (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reaction paper about the movie "i am mother"

reaction paper about the movie "i am mother" Jetherdonmanrique (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]