Talk:4 Sine Pi over 10 by Cosine Pi over 5

About Proof 2
I saw a proof under "4" in the Proven Results category and thought it was a very nice and concise proof. I discovered that if simpler tactics were used, it would take a lot longer, but this other proof's purpose is to show that it can be approached through a verification and an identification. Oftentimes, mathematics classes ask for verification proofs. As well as that, this is my first contribution, and I wanted to start with something of my own.

I mentioned in the revision history that it is original work and based off of another proof of a different statement that I had written prior. That was a proof that $\cos \dfrac \pi 5 = \dfrac { 1 + \sqrt 5 } 4$; remnants of that old (unpublished and trivial) proof are still visible in this one, in the form of $\dfrac { 1 + \sqrt 5 } 4$ seen in the final section.

LegendoftheGoldenAges 06:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A true labour of love. I will need to refactor this so it is in our usual format.


 * If you want to post up that "old unpublished and trivial proof" then feel free. We do not discriminate between "trivial" and "profound" -- all proofs are welcome, as we have found that a wide variety of approaches and techniques helps better to lend an appreciation for the true nature of the interlinking of the various mathematical fields, and help one grok the subject in a holistic manner. --prime mover (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2018 (EDT)


 * Great idea, I shall when I next have time. LegendoftheGoldenAges 08:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't worry too much about timestamps. Just click on the "Your signature with timestamp" button at the top of the edit pane (it looks like a squiggle). This puts  on the page at the position of the cursor, which is then translated into the timestamp automatically when you save the page. No need either to generate it or to edit it by hand. --prime mover (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2018 (EDT)


 * Thanks for the advice. By the way, what do I do about the explain tag on the page for Proof 2? --LegendoftheGoldenAges (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2018 (EDT)


 * We don't really do "notes" (we used to when we started, but we prefer everything on a page to have a specific purpose). So either that section has a specific purpose, in which case the information it contains needs to be included in the relevant part of the proof at the point at which it is used, or it does not have a specific purpose and is just discursive, in which case it goes on the page it is relevant to, and an "Also see" section is presented, where the information presented in this section actually belongs. If neither of these applies, then it is clutter and needs to be deleted. --prime mover (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2018 (EDT)