I assume this is in reference to item 8 on http://us.metamath.org/mm_100.html . In case the rules of that game aren't clear, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection seems to cover it (especially the link to Straightedge and compass construction).
I assume the next step on that one would be formalizing straightedge and compass construction. Is this some subset of the Tarski axioms or is it more complicated than that? Not that I'm likely to change gears from trying to prove that the square root of two is irrational in iset.mm, but I suppose who knows what might eventually catch my fancy? On May 10, 2020 8:26:33 AM PDT, Dirk-Anton Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: >Here’s my form of trisecrting an angle, > >Notice the small little circles are related to the bisected circles. I >think on surface area. If this is untrue, please let me notice. It >seems untrue. If you know that a surface area circle combined to a >square differce from thesame circumference length differce from the >square. It might makes you doubt. What I’m saying is that the surface >area is important to those circles. > >[cid:[email protected]] > > >With friendly regards, > >Dirk-Anton Broersen > >Verzonden vanuit Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> >voor Windows 10 > > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "Metamath" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >an email to [email protected]. >To view this discussion on the web visit >https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/HE1P189MB0282DBD7B0FFCA703BADE34A83A00%40HE1P189MB0282.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/C68AE5A1-711A-43E7-9E14-B7098A9D097C%40panix.com.
