Talk:Morley's Trisector Theorem/Proof 2

I tidied up the proof as suggested. In addition to that I provided an alternate geometric proof for the part of the proof that uses trigonometry. Both the trigonometric and the geometric parts are included.

With the inclusion of the geometric part in the proof, the proof can be viewed as a complete geometrical proof.

I looked around the Internet to see if a similar proof, which is based on triangle similarities, exists, so that I could provide a reference to the proof. I could not find any. (May be I should refer to myself) Many of the proofs that I checked were incomplete. The proof that I provide is complete where all t's are crossed and i's are dotted. --Jhoshen1 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Still some stuff to be done, but good job. Incidentally, you should never need to use html tags on anywhere in any post ever. Just leave a line break. --prime mover (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you create a line break? A blank line creates a line break. However the spacing between the line is large. With at the end of the line, the spacing seams to be normal.--Jhoshen1 (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Normal" to you is "too bunched up" to me. We have developed a look-and-feel which spreads things out on the page more than perhaps people are used to. This includes: short simple sentences, line break between each (ProofWiki style line break, not br style line break) and two blank lines between sections. See Help:FAQ/Questions about contributions/Why the extra blank line? which discusses a related question. --prime mover (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My proof can be viewed as 3 sections A, B and C. For section B I have 2 proofs, one trigonometric, B1, and one geometric, B2. Both the trigonometric and the the geometric are interesting, so I would like to keep both of them. So I am not sure what to do. Should I create 2 separate pages for B1 and B2 and link these two into the page that consists of A and C?--Jhoshen1 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave it, someone will fix it up so as to bring it into standard style. --prime mover (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As I noted previously, I tried to find if there is a source for my proof. I could not find one.
 * So I assume that for now, I am the source of the proof.
 * Therefore I put myself as the source in the source section.
 * Because the proof is not trivial, I will be asking some friends to review it for correctness and clarity
 * I tried my best to conform to the house style; however, I am not sure that I have achieved a complete success.--Jhoshen1 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried my best to conform to the house style; however, I am not sure that I have achieved a complete success.--Jhoshen1 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)