Though, I admitted there that my method is not 100% perfect, you have discarded it on the same ground i.e, chord length vs arc length. But ,on page 4 of my write-up,I wrote about certain constraints and its probable solutions. There ,I explained two things which are as follows : 1 )for better results and more accuracy, the given angle should be bisected once, twice, or more no of times before actual division of given angle. So , MORE BISECTION , MORE ACCCURACY. And /or 2 )again, for better results and more accuracy, the value of ?r? should be as small as possible. So, SMALLER THE VALUE OF ARC RADIUS ,BETTER THE ACCURACY. The above two points , I discussed thoroughly with illustration. These will definitely reduce the difference between the arc length and chord length. In the case of 180 degree, we will bisect once to get 90 degree ,twice to get 45 degree,thrice to get 22.5degree. now, we will take the value of r = 0.5 cm for five no equal parts. We will follow the same procedure as described on page 4 of my write-up in details. However, my intention is to develop an easy and simple method for the students to divide an angle along with the method to divide a straight line ,the later is known to them. So, my appeal to you, that, either you find out a better and more accurate method to divide an angle or, accept me. Again, for the sake of all students worldwide, please approve ny method which is very nearer to the accuracy. The value of ?pai? is accepted as 22/7 or 3.14 for calculation. It is the nearest value, but not accurate. I would like to draw another analogy for my argument ?s sake . The diabetic patients are taking insulin injection. When oral insulin will be developed and will come in the market , people will discard the injection. Likewise, accept me now, afterwards, reject me , when better and more accurate method will be developed or invented.