Talk:Circle is Bisected by Diameter/Proof 2

Technically speaking, it's the circle that needs to be proven to be bisected, not its circumference. All this proves is the circumference has been divided into two equal arcs by the diameter. It still remains to be shown that the circle itself is bisected. --prime mover (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2016 (EST)


 * You mean that to Euclid, the term 'circle' meant what we call 'disk'? Just say that 'A' and 'B' are arbitrary labels so that the segment contained by arc $BA$ is indistinguishable from that contained by arc $AB$.


 * The words as used in are defined in the page to which the blue link sends control. It is understood that there are multiply differently understood definitions for many terms in mathematics, and it is important that whenever a word is used that it be defined.  In, as I say, this is achieved by passing control from a page using the definition, via a link, to the page containing that definition.


 * In this case the page linked to is the one in which Euclid's definition is given.


 * I confess to not being particularly excited about this particular intricacy -- back in the day of Thales perhaps such details as the shapes of circles were deep mysteries, but my view is: Euclid's done and dusted, let's move on, these irritating trivia are not worth the electrons wasted on them -- I would rather do mathematics instead. It is up to you whether to continue to make sure that these details are covered in the level of detail you believe they require, but for me it's all a bit meh. --prime mover (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)


 * As it stands, proof 1 is a complete non sequitur and not even a proof sketch. So, if you want to call this site "proof wiki," I recommend doing something about it. Your call. --AuSmith (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2016 (EST)


 * We call this site what we want. --prime mover (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2016 (EST)


 * You have every right. I'm only making the point that when people visit your site, they will expect to see proofs (of which you have many already). I don't mean to make this personal. Why do you persist? Are you fond of errors?--AuSmith (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (EST)


 * People are seriously going to spend a lot of time worrying about the fact that a diameter may or may not divide a circle into two equal bits? Really? --prime mover (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2016 (EST)


 * More time than it will take you to fix it. Haven't you ever tried to read an erroneous proof from an authority and given it more time than it deserved? Ok, you're right. You have every freedom to proclaim non sequiturs and confuse people. You seem to want to, so I won't get in the way.--AuSmith (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2016 (EST)