1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Construction of a pentagon using only the grid system

  1. Jul 9, 2016 #1
    I have found a way to construct a pentagon using only the grid system. The internal angles are all within 99% accuracy and all the angles to the 3rd decimal add up exactly to 540 degrees. This is without the use of a compass and bearing in mind that the internal lines intersect at the ration of phi, it is theoretically impossible to construct a perfect pentagon. Is this "discovery" of any value or consequence?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 9, 2016 #2
    If we are talking about the same thing, I think this is something I tried to do as well. I started with the rules for a compass and straight-edge construction of a pentagon. Then I put the apex on the y-axis and the two adjacent vertices on the x. Then I 'translated' the construction rules into triangles, and then I just went to town pythagorean style. My goal was to do it without using trig. Is this something like what you did?
  4. Jul 9, 2016 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread moved to General Math.
  5. Jul 9, 2016 #4
    Not really. It's a neat curiosity though. Maybe you'll even get it published in a journal on Euclidean geometry. But these kinds of constructions (especially approximate ones) haven't been important to mainstream mathematics for decades.
  6. Jul 9, 2016 #5
  7. Jul 9, 2016 #6
    Internal angles of any 5 edged polygons (pentagons as well as any iregular 5 edged shape) will always add up to precisely 540 degrees.

  8. Jul 10, 2016 #7
    Terribly sorry to mention it, but this thread is not about constructing a pentagon using a straight edge and compass. It is (I think) about identifying the Cartesian coordinates which would lie on a circle, and would correspond to the vertices of a regular pentagon without the use of trig.

    Of course, for all I know, it could be ridiculously simply to do what I described and Scotti G might be talking about something completely different. But the OP has not checked in since posting, so no clarification on that score yet.
  9. Jul 12, 2016 #8
    Yes my goal was to construct a pentagon without trig or the use of a compass. What was the accuracy of you angles with your construction? If you say you
    started with the rules for a compass and straight-edge construction of a pentagon then you "tried" it without trig but not without a compass.
    On a different subject I think my "discovery" could very well be used in nature to construct pentagonal structures such as starfish or flowers as the construction using only a grid system is far more plausible than the use of trig or a compass at atomic level.
  10. Jul 13, 2016 #9
    I didn't really get that far. And now I'm confused by what you mean by 'without a compass.' Any chance you could share what you did? At least describe it in more detail?
  11. Jul 14, 2016 #10
    I simply used only the grid system. No trig. no compass. no protractor. " I started with the rules for a compass and straight-edge construction of a pentagon" - you. I started only with the grid and my pip. It took 14 years of persistence but the construction only has 7 lines and you have a pentagon with all the angles within 99% accuracy, to be precise the lowest accurate angle shared by 2 angles is 99.39%. I don't believe a more accurate pentagon could be constructed using only the x and y axis.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted