Jump to content

Talk:List of interactive geometry software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GeoGebra listed as free

[edit]

As far as I am aware it's free for non-commercial use but not necessarily for commercial one.

License seems to be quite complicated (?). Look at wikipedia article on GeoGebra, section License: "Non-commercial freeware; portions under GPL, CC-BY-NC-SA" So listing this as just GPL is inconsistant.

From GeoGebra site: "You are free to copy, distribute and transmit GeoGebra for non-commercial purposes. Non-commercial use is subject to the terms of our GeoGebra Non-Commercial License Agreement." "Any use of GeoGebra for a commercial purpose is subject to and requires a special license. If you intend to use GeoGebra for a commercial purpose, please contact office@geogebra.org to arrange a License and Collaboration Agreement with us."

https://stage.geogebra.org/license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoGebra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.135 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assignments in GeoGebra

[edit]

I was not able to find assignments in geogebra --- so I will write "NO". I also suspect that most of the programs which with "Yes" for assignments do not have them. --Tosha (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

simple question

[edit]

I'm very new here, but just wondering if Maya would fit in this article?Pdecalculus (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite/overhaul

[edit]

Imho ist the article in a really sad state and needs more or less a total overhaul/rewrite. A few points worth mentioning for that:

  • The article needs an accessible introduction, that gives the layman an idea, what interactive/dynamic geometry is about.
  • Special technical aspect like discontinuity/determination vs continuity are optional but not really required for the article. But if mentionen it should be in some subsection.
  • Extensive software comparisons and program lists have no place in the article. If they should be preserved they should get their own lemma. In the introductionary article only the most important/most typical programs should be mentioned.

Comments ? If nobody is currently working on the article and could do the changes, but i don't want to interrupt the ongoing work of somebody else or trigger an edit war. --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Geo

[edit]

I am the author of DrGeo, I can read Dr.Geo is categorized as a very basic ruler-compass software. I suggest a deeper look when reporting about software, or it may be better to not report at all. DrGeo includes advanced features like macro-construction, embedded script, and programmaticaly defined interactive drawing. None of these features are basic ones. Oh by the way the software is translated in more than 20 languages.

For a deeper understanding look at the documentation http://www.ofset.org/articles/80 and for example the section on advanced features http://documentation.ofset.org/drgeo/fr/drgenius_49.html

So please if a deeper more acurate review is not possible, just remove this unfair commment on Dr. Geo.

And, oh by the way, I think the reference is Cabri not GSP, at least historicaly.

ok (sorry) it was just my feeling after playing with Dr.Geo for an hour, anybody could correct it after all Tosha 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cabri 3D

[edit]

I was looking around on the internet when I found a program called Cabri 3D. There already seems to be some sort of Cabri software written about but I think this is a different thing. I don't know much about Cabri and what it is but I started playing around with it and it seems quite good. I think that an article should be created about the software. It seems to be an Interactive geometry software so I thought that it should be mentioned. --Leon2323 

20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Continuity Problem" description is incorrect

[edit]

(Disclosure: I am the author of The Geometer's Sketchpad.)

The description of the so-called "continuity problem" here is not accurate. Current and all versions of Sketchpad and Cabri both behave identically with respect to the posed construction. Cinderella behaves differently. The idea there was a "continuity problem" in Dynamic Geometry was introduced by the authors of Cinderella, as a critique of Sketchpad and Cabri. It has since been proved (by Thomas Gawlick, independent of any corporate affiliation) that the "continuity" that Cinderella offers comes at the cost of sacrificing the "mathematical determinism" that Cabri and Sketchpad both offer. Continuity AND determinism are both reasonable prerequisites for a robust mathematical formalism, with determinism perhaps carrying the day. (We can imagine geometric arguments that do not require continuity--Euclid never used it, for example--but domains that fail to behave deterministically can only be argued about probabilistically). Thus we might well change the discussion to talk about the "mathematical determinism problem" and list the packages that suffer it, but for most users, that claim (like the current claim about continuity) winds up being more of a marketing pitch than an essential issue about functionality and usability.

-Nicholas Jackiw, KCP Technologies 68.255.79.156 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that this list is not the appropriate place to discuss all the deeper problems. Actually, it is difficult to discuss the mathematical and educational choices made in some software in a research article of several pages, and it is even more difficult to summarize that in a few lines. Maybe the problems should be mentioned and not discussed. Instead, references to research work could be included. By the way, it was not Gawlick who proved this theorem, but this was already proved in my dissertation by myself. Disclosure: I am one of the authors of Cinderella. Ulrich Kortenkamp --193.197.80.3 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ulrich, your 1999 thesis indeed contains the assertion that the angular bisector cannot behave continuously AND deterministically when performing a full turn. But as far as I can see, there is no proof of this theorem. So I guess it's fair to say that the theorem was discovered independently by myself (in early 1999, exploring configurations with Cabri, DynaGeo and Cinderella, unaware of your thesis - when was ist published?) and proven formally for the first time. My proof uses topological methods (vector bundles on the 1-sphere) and was first published in March 2000, if I remember correctly. Later, another topological proof was given by Bernard Genevè in his 2004 thesis with J.-M. Laborde.

Thomas Gawlick, Leibniz University, Hanover, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.236.104 (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

I think to make a table out of this, you are wellcome to add characteristics here what I think to include --Tosha 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language, Macros, Java-applet, Animation, Locus, Continuous/Deterministic, Assignments, Measurement/Calculations, Platform, Proofs, Extra,...?

Free software, scriptability (both internal and external), SVG support... Shinobu 13:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.a.R. -- can trisect an angle

[edit]

Beginning several versions ago, C.a.R. could perform dynamic computations; here's the process (for example) to trisect an angle:

  • use the angle measurement tool (a) to mark the angle you want trisected.
  • C.a.R. will assign that angle a name such as 'a1', and you may use the edit tool (e) to change its name. In the next step, I'll assume the angle is named 'a1'.
  • use the angle construction tool (.) to create an angle; specify its size as '(a1)/3'.

I've removed the claim in the article that C.a.R. can't trisect an angle. --Heath 128.173.105.144 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.a.R.: unfriendly...

[edit]

What is meant with "unfriendly measurements"?

As for the loci, my geometry is a bit rusty, but is this different from the traces that C.a.R. does support properly? Shinobu 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disorderly, biased article

[edit]

Disorderly, because it's very hard to compare the programs using the current layout.

Biased, because they're all compared to one program which is used as a kind of golden standard. Imagine an article on different operating systems written entirely from a Windows perspective.

Both of these problems could be solved by transitioning to a table, as mentioned in one of the topics above. Shinobu 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone should start a table here, in Talk? I had to compare ig software, and would have added info to wikipedia, if only there was some framework...66.30.117.127 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, I have started a table, please feel free to complete it.

GSP

[edit]

I don't know if it's particularly appropriate to continously compare everything else to GSP even if GSP is the defacto standard Nil Einne 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the US (or the english speaking world) it is hardly anyway. In Europe early on other programs were much more common (cabri, euklid) and recently geogebra or geonext.--84.174.207.189 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the Geometric Supposer in history, which was developed in the early to mid-1980s. It was first used in 1983. See the book The Geometric Supposer: What is it a Case of? (1993) by Schwartz, Yerushalmy and Wilson. Wouldn't this pre-date Cabri and Sketchpad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.16.216 (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly to this page, Sketchpad dates from 1963, and Sutherland's Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system was published in 1964. Helder (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

[edit]

This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most instances Unix or Posix should be indicated, not Linux or GNU/Linux. Linux is one of several Unix-like operating systems. Posix is the industry standard for Unix-like operating systems. GNU is irrelevant as it is not an operating system, which is why it is called GNU. Unix and Posix are both more inclusive terms than Linux, and it is usually the case that programs written to run on one Posix compliant platform are easily ported to another with only minor reconfiguration and recompilation. Non-compliant Unix platforms are somewhat more difficult in proportion to the plenitude and seriousness of their noncompliance, but generally still fall in the "easy" category. When specific platform designations are footnoted they should not be edited into "equivalent" but more "correct" terms, because there are subtle differences between the terms that may in fact be operational. Dlw20070716 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration, please!

[edit]

This article really could use a picture or two! --193.166.137.75 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When? 1986 of course.

[edit]

Someone added an idiotic edit to the following sentence: "This was soon when? followed by Cabri in 1986 and The Geometer's Sketchpad." Please read to the end of the sentence before deciding that editing is necessary. Dlw20070716 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gutting the "pluses" and "minuses".

[edit]

I appreciate that people have put a lot of effort into reviewing these programs, but characterizing features of the software as "pluses" and "minuses" (and "minor pluses") is POV. Moreover, statements like "Minus: You can not fool around, you have to understand what you are doing in order to do anything." are completely unencyclopedic.

I'm removing the in-article reviews of the programs; but external reviews should be made available as links. -- Heath 128.173.42.61 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Browser-based 3D drawing program for the listing?

[edit]

I have developed a free 3d drawing program and wonder if this suits the listing as well? You can find it at www.matheretter.de/formulas/geometry/geoservant/ "Geoservant 3D". Could it be added to the list? Matheretter (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of interactive geometry software. 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:

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) 02:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of interactive geometry software. 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:

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) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_interactive_geometry_software&oldid=1207739984"