Good suggestion but I'd go one step further I think it's only fair that he used the ancient Greek's collapsing compass at least for the ancient constructions.
At 08:09 AM 8/23/2013, Joe Niederberger wrote: >J Crabtree says: >3) Explain the proofs and the mathematics are >fine, yet it is inevitable that errors will >accumulate for you (the student/reader) just as >they do for me (the expert/author). > >If you want to explain some mathematics, why not >give us your analysis of what errors occur, >their relative magnitudes and distributions, the >overall accumulation of such errors for each of >5 or so different pentagon constructions? > >Then you can set "acceptable" tolerances on the >resulting figures drawn according to the rules. > >Further explain what actions might be taken >outside the regimen of strict straightedge and >compass construction to improve upon the error limits explored above. > >We could then separate those "improvements" into >two categories - those that are so subtle they >may go unnoticed (cheating) and those that are quite explicit. > >Armed with your knowledge, go and promote a >"Pentagon Drawing Contest" TV show - where the >winner takes home $1,000,000 (Ausie). Have it >become the #1 watched show in Australia, and then move into the Merican market. > >Create a huge scandal when the cheaters are exposed... > >Make a movie about the scandal... > >And so on.. > > >Cheers, >Joe N