Talk:Length of Tangent to Excircle

Never mind, forgot what I'd done.

-- Telliott99 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh I understand. I had somehow come to think that links didn't belong in the Theorem statement. I'll fix that.

Every single instance of every single concept needs to link to the page defining it. --prime mover (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So if I split out the last few lines into a new theorem (about the long tangent being equal to $s$), what would be a good name for the theorem(s)? Length of Tangent to Excircle is ambiguous. --Telliott99 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Length of Tangent to Excircle is not so much "ambiguous" as completely incorrect. The statement of the theorem seems to relate to the side of the triangle, not the "length" of any tangent. And we're not saying anything about the length of that side of the excircle because we know what it is already because it's the side of the triangle that we started with in the first place.

Suggest you call it Lengths of Tangents to Excircle because what we do is obtain the lengths all six of the tangents to the excircle (on one side) from the three vertices of the original triangle. --Telliott99 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Call it Dandelin's Theorem/Corollary because there's a very short proof from Dandelin's Theorem.

Not that you have the authorisation to rename it anyway. --prime mover (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)