Talk:Inscribed angle

Shouldn't this be included here?

Shouldn't the property of angles in the same arc being of the same size be discussed on this page as it is on the French article[1]; or does it have its own page? fgh

I would agree and suggest someone translate the French article to replace this one, as the French article looks more comprehensive.--Waxsin (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The figure in the article is somewhat misleading since the sides of inscribed angle pass through the center of the circle. A number of points need to be included to clarify the concept of an inscribed angle. The inscribed angle and central angle are opposite to each other and on different sides of a common chord. The lack of the common chord tends to disorient the first-time viewer. Inscribed angles on opposite sides of a chord usually have different values but their sum equals 180°. One could also note that two inscribe angles on the same side of the chord have the same values. --Jbergquist (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facts about inscribed angles mentioned above are the topic of Book 4, Propositions 20-22 of Euclid's Elements. --Jbergquist (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for new subsection. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article inscribed angle theorem should not be merged into this one, since it is more specific. The theorem could be a subsection of this article. Willow (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel both articles are poorly written in not being general enough. For instance it wasn't until I read the Circle#Inscribed_angles article that it was clearly mentioned that angles intercepting the same arc are equal, yet this is never explicitly proved in either article. Please explain how the inscribed angle theorem article is more "specific" as I can hardly tell the two articles apart--Waxsin (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Willow that both articles should not be merged. The inscribed angle theorem is simpler, better to understand. The other article gives a step by step proof but with symbols that most people can't even pronounce. --Bleuprint (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No merging. The inscribed angle theorem article should be summarized and copied as a sub-section. 70.171.224.249 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why two proofs?

There are two subsections titled "proof", which on first glance seem to prove a similar theorem. Can somebody please explain the difference between these theorems? --Erel Segal (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it. 208.50.124.65 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inscribed angle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061030174939/http://www.mathopenref.com/arccentralangle.html to http://www.mathopenref.com/arccentralangle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]