Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: TO DIVIDE AN ANGLE IN ANY NUMBER OF EQUAL PARTS
Replies: 23   Last Post: Mar 4, 2013 4:05 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 shyamal kumar das Posts: 54 From: kolkata west bengal india Registered: 7/21/10
Re: TO DIVIDE AN ANGLE IN ANY NUMBER OF EQUAL PARTS
Posted: Sep 3, 2010 10:19 AM

TO: Mr. Peter Scales
FSir,
While I thank you for your letter posted on sept 1, 2010 on the subject, I fail to understand whether the same is your concluding letter, saying: so,I reject your stupid method and, don?t disturb me further with your idiotic ideas.
I am extremely sorry for the mistake I made regarding 60 degree and 1 radian. My apology to you for that mistake.
In my previous letter posted on august,11 on the subject, I cited another example i.e, ?pai?. You have not enlightened me on that. Please do,if your time permits, to clear the misunderstanding regarding ?pai?= 22/7 or, 3.14 which is acceptably accurate, while, my method of dividing an angle after bisections for perfection which is not accepted.
If my method is 100% perfect, the question of improvement for accuracy would not arise, I would not have written and elaborated under a separate column : Certain constraints and its probable solutions. Not only that ,on page 2 of my New Theorem (proposed), in last paragraph under Remarks column , how to better the process to get acceptable accuracy. There, I wrote : ? Please note that more bisection, more accuracy , if required ?.
Surprisingly, you have made no remarks, neither on bisections prior to division, written in my original write-up, nor, on dividing 180 degree into five equal parts, mentioned in my letter posted on 11,Aug. I would like to know how much it is far from the acceptable accuracy. If required, the angle 22.5degree can further be bisected to get 11.25degree, before actual division into five equal parts.
I mentioned about practical inaccuracies as first constraint, because construction comes first where students make mistakes in drawing. However, my method is not only for acute angle it is also suitable for obtuse angle and reflex angle. To justify that , I took the case of 180 degree to be divided into five equal parts.
To conclude, I would humbly request you to go through and not to glance through all my letters and write-up once again with a positive frame of mind. I don?t want to be Saurav Ganguly andyou,my coach Mr. Chapel. Thanks and Regards. Shyamal Kumar Das. Sept. 2nd,2010
ROM: Shyamal Kumar Das