Talk:Tangram/Archive 1

Archive 1

Materials

Traditonal tangrams were made from stone, bone, clay or other easy to get materials. Nowadays they can be made from plastic, wood or other modern materials.

I know I'm being a bit pedantic here...but how exactly is wood a 'hard(not easy)-to-get', 'modern' material? It seems to me that there's a large possibility that traditional tangrams were made of wood, not that I really know anything about it.

Jerch 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Pieces: Choice of scale for the sizes

Is there any particular significance to the scale chosen for these sizes (i.e. shortest length ${\sqrt {1/2}}$, longest length 2) ? Does anyone have any objection to multiplying all of the sizes in this section by ${\sqrt {2}}$ ? Doing so has two slight advantages over any other set of powers of ${\sqrt {2}}$ that one might choose: (i) A size of ‘1’ would refer to a length of some significance (namely the smallest length); it's nicer for the smallest length to be 1 rather than ${\sqrt {1/2}}$; (ii) slightly fewer radicals would be needed to express the lengths (because the square becomes 1×1 while all other shape lengths have one integer and one multiple of ${\sqrt {2}}$); (iii) it's easier to see the ratio between ${\sqrt {2}}$ and $2{\sqrt {2}}$ than between ${\sqrt {1/2}}$ and ${\sqrt {2}}$.

The only argument I can think of in support of the status quo rather than the above proposal is that it's nice for the square arrangement (depicted in three places in the article) to have a dimention of 2×2 rather than $2{\sqrt {2}}\times 2{\sqrt {2}}$. (This argument is slightly offset by the fact that the rectangle depicted in the article would have a nicer dimension of 2×4 under the proposal rather than ${\sqrt {2}}\times 2{\sqrt {2}}$ with the existing sizes.)

Lengths are more significant than area in the solution of tangram puzzles, but fwiw an area of 1 is assigned to the largest shapes with the existing sizes, and would be assigned to the most common area (the square, the medium-sized triangle and the parallelogram) under the proposal. I particularly like that the square would get an area of 1 under the proposal. However, as I say, I don't consider area to be as important as lengths for assigning “nice” numbers.

[A related proposal would be to assign 1 to the longest length, namely the hypotenuse of the large triangles. This has a nice side benefit that the total area of the set would be 1. However, I think these benefits are outweighed by the fact that humans prefer working with multiples rather than fractions; i.e. are more comfortable with $2{\sqrt {2}}$ than with ${\frac {1}{2{\sqrt {2}}}}$.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the most important is to at least state what the scale is, rather then let the reader guess. Once this is done, it is all of secondary importance.

Personnaly, I would choose for the whole square to be of sides of length 2, as it is the natural mathematical unit length. Further more, this is an encyclopedia, and people reading it are not stupid, and even if they are, we have to favor acurateness, rather than dumbing down the problem. What I'm saying is that writing ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}$ shouldn't really bother anyone. Even though it is true people prefer roots on the numerator rather then the denominator, ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}$ is a standard mathematical number that everyone can and should be able to work with. I'll be making both these changes now. If you don't like it that much, feel free to revert though, I don't care that much...131.113.69.36 (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclear section

Napoleon was said to have owned a Tangram set and Chinese problem and solution books while he was imprisoned on the island of St. Helena although this has been contested by Ronald C. Read. Photos are shown in "The Tangram Book" by Jerry Slocum.

I don't follow this at all. Who said Napoleon had a tangram set and books? What part of it has been contested by Read? Photos of what are shown in that book? DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Acronym

Tangram is also the name of a new incarnation of Total Information Awareness.

---

See: Terrorist Profiling, Version 2.0 By Shane Harris, National Journal © National Journal Group Inc. Friday, Oct. 20, 2006

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/1020nj3.htm

The government's top intelligence agency is building a computerized system to search very large stores of information for patterns of activity that look like terrorist planning. The system, which is run by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is in the early research phases and is being tested, in part, with government intelligence that may contain information on U.S. citizens and other people inside the country.

It encompasses existing profiling and detection systems, including those that create "suspicion scores" for suspected terrorists by analyzing very large databases of government intelligence, as well as records of individuals' private communications, financial transactions, and other everyday activities.

The details of the program, called Tangram, are contained in an unclassified document that National Journal obtained from a government contracting Web site. The document, called a "proposer's information packet," is a technical description of Tangram written for potential contractors who would help design and test the system. The document was written by officials in the research-and-development section of the national intelligence office. A tangram is an old Chinese puzzle that takes seven geometric shapes -- five triangles, a square, and a parallelogram -- and rearranges them into different pictures. -- 1:34, 31 October 2006 User:Fluffbrain

No relevance to the topic within the article. Inclusion is unnecessary. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty of Tangrams?

I always see tangram sets or online tangram puzzles have varying 'difficulties' on their puzzles. How is the difficulty of a tangram determined? I'm assuming it's not arbitrary, given that this is a math puzzle. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 169.231.111.70 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tangram/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RDBury (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the nomination is premature since there are some issues that are easy to spot. First, many of the sources are self-published websites; more reliable sources should be found for GA status. Second, the article should be checked more thoroughly for factual accuracy; I found an obvious error in one of the captions and the statements about tangrams being used in a Chinese proof of the Pythagorean theorem seem like OR synthesis. (The special case applicable here can be proved with a very simple dissection of four pieces, so it's hard to imagine that the Chinese would prefer one with seven pieces instead.) I appreciate User:S8333631's efforts to improve the article but more work is still needed.

I'll try to remove all the self-published sources. The bit about the pythagorean theorem is presented as an unproven theory, which it is, but is definitely a viewpoint; That statement is sourced to a book by a well-known expert. Secondly, which caption did you say had the factual inaccuracy? I'll remove it if I see it. By the way, sorry about the late response, I don't entirely understand this system yet. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 17:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, sources done, and I've rephrased the pythagoras bit slightly. I still can't find the caption problem, though... ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm setting the GA status to On Hold. Overall the article is well referenced and well written but there are some issues that should be resolved:

1. As mentioned above, the whole Pythagorean theorem connection seems very speculative and I'd suggest removing it from the article altogether unless there is a reliable source can be found that makes a definitive statement about the connection.
2. More generally, the Origins and Etymology sections have several sentences that use the words "could be", "some suggest" or similar phrases. Mere hypotheses are not encyclopedic and should not be included in the article. It is apparent that the history is uncertain before the early 1800's so I'd say state just that and carry on with the history from the 1800's forward.
3. I didn't find any readability problems but I did tag the Trivia section as an MOS issue.
4. There are still some questionable sources used. Specifically archimedes-lab.org, newsfinder.org, and cff.helm.lu appear to be either self-published or user written sites.

I've fixed some simple issues myself and made some other changes.--RDBury (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I got rid of the trivia section, it was fairly crufty, and got rid of all the speculative stuff. The one thing I disagree with you on, though, is the thing about archimedes-lab. Per [1], they seem to have high enough editorial standards for use as a ref. I'm dealing with the other self-published sources, too. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) ...and done. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated the status to 2nd opinion requested. I've probably done too much on it to remain unbiased and the last outstanding issues (e.g. arc-lab) should probably be decided by a third person.--RDBury (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: RDBury (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion by Nsk92

I had a quick look at the article and my impression is that it is quite far from satisfying the GA standards in its present form. If I were reviewing it from scratch, I would have gone with a straight "fail" rather than "hold".

• In terms of breadth of coverage there appear to be significant omissions (and I would have failed the nomination on that basis alone).
  • In particular, as a quick googlescholar search shows (e.g. this one[2]), it looks like tangrams are and/or were widely used as an educational tool for teaching math and art to elementary school children (and maybe even pre-school, I am not sure, that does require further research). There would certainly need to be a section on that.
  • The History section deals only with two relatively brief periods, 1815-1820's and 1891-1920's. Is there really nothing else of importance to say on the matter? Did anything of interest happen after 1920s? I would suspect so...
  • Are there significant examples of uses of tangrams in art (other than children art education)? Again, I suspect so. Any significant tangram contests/championships etc? (Again, it seems that there are some, e.g. [3]). Popular computer games using tangrams? Any other example of significant use in popular culture?
• The writing is choppy and awkward in a several places. E.g. "very fashionable indeed", "The number is finite, however", plus a bit of an overuse of "It", particularly in the lede. The entire "Paradoxes" section is written in a fairly cryptic way; in particular, it needs to be made clear that the tangram paradoxes are based on optical illusion. I think this section really needs a good image to illustrate what is being meant by a tangram paradox, but the image currently included in the section does not do a good job in this regard.

I have not looked into the issue of sourcing raised in the review above, but it seems to me that the breadth of coverage issues alone require considerable extra research and extra work to resolve. Therefore I would just go with a straight "fail" for the current nomination and wait for a re-nomination after the breadth of coverage issues are addressed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since no improvements or further comments occurred for over a week since my last post, I am closing this nomination as "failed". The nominator and other users are certainly welcome to renominate again, once the issues raised above have been addressed. Nsk92 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Name

The word "tangram" is built from TANG + GRAM.

According to the Chinese version of the entry, the origin of this word is uncertain. Three possible origins are found on the page:

(A) A derivative of the archaic word 'trangram', which means puzzle.

(B) A portmanteau of 'TANG' and 'GRAM', as mentioned in the article.

(C) A portmanteau of 'TANKA ' and 'GRAM'.

If the origin really is uncertain, then the English version needs to be edited. If not, then the Chinese version.

Jerch 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the pieces are called tans, wouldn't tan + gram be the obvious derivation?

But whatever way we have it requires a reliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be the case, but without proof there's the possibility of a sort of back-formation, i.e. that they (the shapes) began to be called tans only after the word tangram had been in use for some time. /Ninly (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding tangrams of which there is no mirror image - why not call them 'Vampire Tangrams' in reference to the legend that Vampires have no reflection? - Danfox Davies 22:43 BST 1 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.240.10 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

EL links removed

I've removed the following links from the External links section and I'm bringing them up for discussion here rather than participate in edit warring.

• Super Tangrams

Uses popups and promotes various products on Amazon.com. Also does not display properly except on high res. monitors.

• Matter tangrams

Mostly ads with the game confined to a small rectangle.

• Fetch Fido's tangrams

Not as many ads but enough to qualify as a span site.

• Tangram online

Not actually tangrams (only 5 pieces)

• 38 Tangram games online

Popups and promotes travel site mallorcaweb.net

--RDBury (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with these removals. The Java applet at http://pecesjocdetangr.sourceforge.net/ didn't work for me either but maybe that's just my browser configuration. The other three remaining links look ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! the applet http://pecesjocdetangr.sourceforge.net/ work fine! And is very good: please don't remove this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.79.168 (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looked and it adds absolutely nothing and should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just tried from the article and I see what happened, the article refers direct to to http://pecesjocdetangr.sourceforge.net/applet/appletpeces.html which is I agree about the best working of the ones there. The above top level link refers to it. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. This applet is the best there is on the web: It has the best collection of tangram shapes. And also other tangrams found on any other site. And it is much better to the PBS Kids game. Thanks Dmcq! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.44.173 (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting as a consensus here is restore the sourceforge link but not the others and I'll go ahead and to that. I'm not trying to be a stickler on the guidelines but there are dozens on on-line version of the game so adding links indiscriminately would soon get out of control.--RDBury (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the program is very good: I use it in school with children. "Popups"? No, I do not see popups with Firefox.

You may have popups disabled, but my setting is for 'display warning' and there was an ad when I clicked on it. We can't assume that everyone will have popups blocked since some websites require them to work, hence I though it would be prudent to add the note.--RDBury (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Danish book title

Quotes from article:

Many of these unusual and exquisite tangram sets made their way to Denmark. Danish interest in tangrams skyrocketed around 1818, when two books on the puzzle were published ... The second, "Der nye chinesisre Saadespil" (The new Chinese Puzzle Game) ...

No official Danish orthography existed in 1818, but having Danish as mother tongue I'm certain that the book title is wrong. My best guess is that it's a misreading of "Det nye chinesiske Gaadespil", caused by a poor reproduction or an unfamiliar fraktur typeface. In modern Danish spelling, it would be "Det nye kinesiske gådespil", and the English translation given is fine. "Gåde/gaade" today would be translated "riddle" rather than "puzzle", but in older Danish usage, it could mean both.

Now, the misreading may or may not come directly from the book cited as source in the article, but still, it's obviously (to a Dane) incorrect. I will for now change it into what I believe must be correct - but there may be a problem with the attribution.--Nø (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In further support, googling "chinesiske Gaadespil", one finds a couple of other Danish texts from the period (the diaries of Claus Pavels and a short story by Cornelia Levetzow), where the phrase clearly refers to tangram.--Nø (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Puzzles (Sphinx)

There were quite a number of Anchor Puzzles, of which the Tangram was only one. The Sphinx was quite different. Look at the Sphinx in the Anchor Archive

There needs to be a section in the main article on this, because as it stands, the passing reference is misleading.

Philbelb (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

History

I'm awfully confused by the history section of this puzzle. This section is split up in two parts, 1815-1820 and the beginning of the 20th century. In the first of these parts, it is mentioned that "the puzzle was originally popularized by The Eighth Book Of Tan". According to the picture next to this part of the article, this book is a creation of Sam Loyd's. The description of tangram's fictituous history corresponds to what I read in the article about Sam Loyd. However, Sam Loyd wasn't born until 1841, so it seems highly unlikely that he helped popularize the tangram puzzle around 1815. How certain are we that 1) he created the hoax, 2) he wrote the mentioned book?

If I were to wager a guess at this point, either Sam Loyd didn't create this hoax and it should be attributed to someone else on his wikipedia page, or (more likely) the hoax should be in the 1915 section of this article, rather than the 1815 section. Can anyone find out more about this and change the history section accordingly? At this point, it's just clear that something cannot be right. HSNie 18:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSNie (talk • contribs)

Three years later, and the problem still remains. The puzzle was "originally popularized" by a man decades before he was born! 2601:545:8202:4EA5:15DB:F2D7:A134:2DF5 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputed-inline

[4]

This can't be right. There is no Francis Waln article, and articles exist for all U.S. Congressmen. Robert Waln was a congressmen from Philadelphia who "engaged in mercantile pursuits and in East India and China trade".

122.150.71.249 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)