Equivalence of different ways of geometrical multiplicationGeometric notion of addition for the real projective lineConstruction of a regular pentagonConstruct circle tangent to two linesConstruct a circle with straight edge and compass with some given conditions.Finding tangents to a circle with a straightedgeInscribing square in circle in just seven compass-and-straightedge stepsfinding the center of a circle (elementary geometry)Construct a perpendicular to a given line from a given (external) point, using a compass only onceDoes this mean that one can construct the cube root of two in three dimensions?Geometric proof of equivalence between two constructs of ellipseApproximation of the quadratic formula with straightedge and compass

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?

Is thermodynamics only applicable to systems in equilibrium?

What does "rf" mean in "rfkill"?

What was the "glowing package" Pym was expecting?

Will a top journal at least read my introduction?

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

Confusion about capacitors

Does jamais mean always or never in this context?

In gnome-terminal only 2 out of 3 zoom keys work

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

Can a creature tell when it has been affected by a Divination wizard's Portent?

How can Republicans who favour free markets, consistently express anger when they don't like the outcome of that choice?

Confused by notation of atomic number Z and mass number A on periodic table of elements

How does a Swashbuckler rogue "fight with two weapons while safely darting away"?

How to back up a running remote server?

Electric guitar: why such heavy pots?

Why are the 2nd/3rd singular forms of present of « potere » irregular?

Why the difference in metal between 銀行 and お金?

Unexpected email from Yorkshire Bank

Any examples of headwear for races with animal ears?

What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?

Sci-fi novel series with instant travel between planets through gates. A river runs through the gates

Was it really necessary for the Lunar Module to have 2 stages?

What is the difference between `a[bc]d` (brackets) and `ab,cd` (braces)?



Equivalence of different ways of geometrical multiplication


Geometric notion of addition for the real projective lineConstruction of a regular pentagonConstruct circle tangent to two linesConstruct a circle with straight edge and compass with some given conditions.Finding tangents to a circle with a straightedgeInscribing square in circle in just seven compass-and-straightedge stepsfinding the center of a circle (elementary geometry)Construct a perpendicular to a given line from a given (external) point, using a compass only onceDoes this mean that one can construct the cube root of two in three dimensions?Geometric proof of equivalence between two constructs of ellipseApproximation of the quadratic formula with straightedge and compass













24












$begingroup$


There are at least five ways to multiply two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ given as integer points $A$ and $B$ on the number line by geometrical means. Two of them include counting, the others are purely geometric. I wonder (i) if there are other ways and (ii) how to deeply understand the interrelationship between the different methods (i.e. recipes).



Let $A,B$ be two integer points on the line $O1$:



enter image description here



Method 1



  1. Count how often the unit length $|O1|$ fits into $|OA|$. Let this number be $a$ (here $a = 3$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $B$.


  2. Let $C$ be the (other) intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $a-1$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 2



  1. Construct a rectangle with side lengths $|OA|$, $|OB|$.

enter image description here



  1. Count how often the unit square (with side length $|O1|$) fits into the rectangle. Let this number be $c$ (here $c=6$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $0$.


  2. Let $C$ be the intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $c$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 3



  1. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the points $1'$ and $B'$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw the line $1'A$.


  2. Construct the parallel to $1'A$ through $B'$.


  3. The intersection point of this parallel with the line $O1$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 4



  1. Construct the perpendicular line to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the point $1'$.


  3. Construct the circle through $1'$, $A$ and $B$.


  4. The intersection point of this circle with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 5



This method makes use of the parabola, i.e. goes beyond compass-ruler constructions.



  1. Construct the unit parabola $(x,y)$ with $y = x^2$.


  2. Construct $B'$.


  3. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $A$.


  4. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $B'$.


  5. Draw the line through the intersection points of these two lines with the parabola.


  6. The intersection point of this line with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here




For me it's something like a miracle that these five methods – seemingly very different (as recipes) and not obviously equivalent – yield the very same result (i.e. point) $A times B$.




Note that the different methods take different amounts $sigma$ of Euclidean space (to completely show all intermediate points and (semi-)circles involved, assuming that $a >b$):



  • Method 1: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 2: $sigma sim ab$


  • Method 3: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 4: $sigma sim a^2b^2$


  • Method 5: $sigma sim a^3b$


This is space complexity. Compare this to time complexity, i.e. the number $tau$ of essential construction steps that are needed:



  • Method 1: $tau sim a$


  • Method 2: $tau sim ab$


  • Method 3: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 4: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 5: $tau sim 1$


From this point of view method 3 would be the most efficient.




Once again:




I'm looking for other geometrical methods to multiply two numbers
given as points on the number line $O1$ (is there one using the
hyperbola?) and trying to understand better the "deeper" reasons why
they all yield the same result (i.e. point).





Those answers I managed to visualize I will add here:



Method 6 (due to Cia Pan)



enter image description here



Method 7 (due to celtschk)



enter image description here



Method 8 (due to Accumulation)



enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    IMVHO methods 1 and 2 do not count: when you use the word 'count', the method becomes arithmetical instead of geometrical.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 17:06






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CiaPan So methods that count don't count?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Mar 20 at 21:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When you say 'count it – let $n$ be the numer – do something $n$ times' you introduce some counter $n$ and some variable 'iteration number' running from 1 through $n$. In my feeling this goes beyond classic constructions and I would translate it into purely geometric actions. For example in Method 1: construct a chain of consecutive copies of the segment $O1$ along the line, until you reach $A$; at each constructed endpoint construct a copy of $OB$ perpendicular to the line; construct a chain of consecutive copies of... (to be continued)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (cont.) ...all those segments along the line; the final endpoint is the point sought. This way we iterate over some set of concrete objects (segments or their endpoints). We can say 'I proces this one, and now this one... And I processed all of them so here is the result.' as opposite to 'I do one construction, and the second one... And I remember I was to make five of them, so now I'm done.' which involves some criterion not visible in the drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to the Mohr–Mascheroni theorem (Wikipedia), any point classicaly constructible by a straightedge and a compass can also be constructed by a compass alone. Applying this would turn all points in your recent list to "circle". :)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 21 at 12:17















24












$begingroup$


There are at least five ways to multiply two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ given as integer points $A$ and $B$ on the number line by geometrical means. Two of them include counting, the others are purely geometric. I wonder (i) if there are other ways and (ii) how to deeply understand the interrelationship between the different methods (i.e. recipes).



Let $A,B$ be two integer points on the line $O1$:



enter image description here



Method 1



  1. Count how often the unit length $|O1|$ fits into $|OA|$. Let this number be $a$ (here $a = 3$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $B$.


  2. Let $C$ be the (other) intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $a-1$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 2



  1. Construct a rectangle with side lengths $|OA|$, $|OB|$.

enter image description here



  1. Count how often the unit square (with side length $|O1|$) fits into the rectangle. Let this number be $c$ (here $c=6$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $0$.


  2. Let $C$ be the intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $c$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 3



  1. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the points $1'$ and $B'$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw the line $1'A$.


  2. Construct the parallel to $1'A$ through $B'$.


  3. The intersection point of this parallel with the line $O1$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 4



  1. Construct the perpendicular line to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the point $1'$.


  3. Construct the circle through $1'$, $A$ and $B$.


  4. The intersection point of this circle with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 5



This method makes use of the parabola, i.e. goes beyond compass-ruler constructions.



  1. Construct the unit parabola $(x,y)$ with $y = x^2$.


  2. Construct $B'$.


  3. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $A$.


  4. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $B'$.


  5. Draw the line through the intersection points of these two lines with the parabola.


  6. The intersection point of this line with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here




For me it's something like a miracle that these five methods – seemingly very different (as recipes) and not obviously equivalent – yield the very same result (i.e. point) $A times B$.




Note that the different methods take different amounts $sigma$ of Euclidean space (to completely show all intermediate points and (semi-)circles involved, assuming that $a >b$):



  • Method 1: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 2: $sigma sim ab$


  • Method 3: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 4: $sigma sim a^2b^2$


  • Method 5: $sigma sim a^3b$


This is space complexity. Compare this to time complexity, i.e. the number $tau$ of essential construction steps that are needed:



  • Method 1: $tau sim a$


  • Method 2: $tau sim ab$


  • Method 3: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 4: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 5: $tau sim 1$


From this point of view method 3 would be the most efficient.




Once again:




I'm looking for other geometrical methods to multiply two numbers
given as points on the number line $O1$ (is there one using the
hyperbola?) and trying to understand better the "deeper" reasons why
they all yield the same result (i.e. point).





Those answers I managed to visualize I will add here:



Method 6 (due to Cia Pan)



enter image description here



Method 7 (due to celtschk)



enter image description here



Method 8 (due to Accumulation)



enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    IMVHO methods 1 and 2 do not count: when you use the word 'count', the method becomes arithmetical instead of geometrical.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 17:06






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CiaPan So methods that count don't count?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Mar 20 at 21:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When you say 'count it – let $n$ be the numer – do something $n$ times' you introduce some counter $n$ and some variable 'iteration number' running from 1 through $n$. In my feeling this goes beyond classic constructions and I would translate it into purely geometric actions. For example in Method 1: construct a chain of consecutive copies of the segment $O1$ along the line, until you reach $A$; at each constructed endpoint construct a copy of $OB$ perpendicular to the line; construct a chain of consecutive copies of... (to be continued)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (cont.) ...all those segments along the line; the final endpoint is the point sought. This way we iterate over some set of concrete objects (segments or their endpoints). We can say 'I proces this one, and now this one... And I processed all of them so here is the result.' as opposite to 'I do one construction, and the second one... And I remember I was to make five of them, so now I'm done.' which involves some criterion not visible in the drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to the Mohr–Mascheroni theorem (Wikipedia), any point classicaly constructible by a straightedge and a compass can also be constructed by a compass alone. Applying this would turn all points in your recent list to "circle". :)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 21 at 12:17













24












24








24


10



$begingroup$


There are at least five ways to multiply two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ given as integer points $A$ and $B$ on the number line by geometrical means. Two of them include counting, the others are purely geometric. I wonder (i) if there are other ways and (ii) how to deeply understand the interrelationship between the different methods (i.e. recipes).



Let $A,B$ be two integer points on the line $O1$:



enter image description here



Method 1



  1. Count how often the unit length $|O1|$ fits into $|OA|$. Let this number be $a$ (here $a = 3$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $B$.


  2. Let $C$ be the (other) intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $a-1$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 2



  1. Construct a rectangle with side lengths $|OA|$, $|OB|$.

enter image description here



  1. Count how often the unit square (with side length $|O1|$) fits into the rectangle. Let this number be $c$ (here $c=6$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $0$.


  2. Let $C$ be the intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $c$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 3



  1. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the points $1'$ and $B'$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw the line $1'A$.


  2. Construct the parallel to $1'A$ through $B'$.


  3. The intersection point of this parallel with the line $O1$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 4



  1. Construct the perpendicular line to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the point $1'$.


  3. Construct the circle through $1'$, $A$ and $B$.


  4. The intersection point of this circle with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 5



This method makes use of the parabola, i.e. goes beyond compass-ruler constructions.



  1. Construct the unit parabola $(x,y)$ with $y = x^2$.


  2. Construct $B'$.


  3. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $A$.


  4. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $B'$.


  5. Draw the line through the intersection points of these two lines with the parabola.


  6. The intersection point of this line with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here




For me it's something like a miracle that these five methods – seemingly very different (as recipes) and not obviously equivalent – yield the very same result (i.e. point) $A times B$.




Note that the different methods take different amounts $sigma$ of Euclidean space (to completely show all intermediate points and (semi-)circles involved, assuming that $a >b$):



  • Method 1: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 2: $sigma sim ab$


  • Method 3: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 4: $sigma sim a^2b^2$


  • Method 5: $sigma sim a^3b$


This is space complexity. Compare this to time complexity, i.e. the number $tau$ of essential construction steps that are needed:



  • Method 1: $tau sim a$


  • Method 2: $tau sim ab$


  • Method 3: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 4: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 5: $tau sim 1$


From this point of view method 3 would be the most efficient.




Once again:




I'm looking for other geometrical methods to multiply two numbers
given as points on the number line $O1$ (is there one using the
hyperbola?) and trying to understand better the "deeper" reasons why
they all yield the same result (i.e. point).





Those answers I managed to visualize I will add here:



Method 6 (due to Cia Pan)



enter image description here



Method 7 (due to celtschk)



enter image description here



Method 8 (due to Accumulation)



enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




There are at least five ways to multiply two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ given as integer points $A$ and $B$ on the number line by geometrical means. Two of them include counting, the others are purely geometric. I wonder (i) if there are other ways and (ii) how to deeply understand the interrelationship between the different methods (i.e. recipes).



Let $A,B$ be two integer points on the line $O1$:



enter image description here



Method 1



  1. Count how often the unit length $|O1|$ fits into $|OA|$. Let this number be $a$ (here $a = 3$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $B$.


  2. Let $C$ be the (other) intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|OB|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $a-1$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 2



  1. Construct a rectangle with side lengths $|OA|$, $|OB|$.

enter image description here



  1. Count how often the unit square (with side length $|O1|$) fits into the rectangle. Let this number be $c$ (here $c=6$).

enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $0$.


  2. Let $C$ be the intersection point of this circle with the line $O1$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw a circle with radius $|O1|$ around $C$.


  2. Do this $c$ times.


  3. The last intersection point $C$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 3



  1. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the points $1'$ and $B'$.


enter image description here



  1. Draw the line $1'A$.


  2. Construct the parallel to $1'A$ through $B'$.


  3. The intersection point of this parallel with the line $O1$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 4



  1. Construct the perpendicular line to $O1$ through $O$.


  2. Construct the point $1'$.


  3. Construct the circle through $1'$, $A$ and $B$.


  4. The intersection point of this circle with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here



Method 5



This method makes use of the parabola, i.e. goes beyond compass-ruler constructions.



  1. Construct the unit parabola $(x,y)$ with $y = x^2$.


  2. Construct $B'$.


  3. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $A$.


  4. Construct the line perpendicular to $O1$ through $B'$.


  5. Draw the line through the intersection points of these two lines with the parabola.


  6. The intersection point of this line with the line $O1'$ is the product $A times B$.


enter image description here




For me it's something like a miracle that these five methods – seemingly very different (as recipes) and not obviously equivalent – yield the very same result (i.e. point) $A times B$.




Note that the different methods take different amounts $sigma$ of Euclidean space (to completely show all intermediate points and (semi-)circles involved, assuming that $a >b$):



  • Method 1: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 2: $sigma sim ab$


  • Method 3: $sigma sim ab^2$


  • Method 4: $sigma sim a^2b^2$


  • Method 5: $sigma sim a^3b$


This is space complexity. Compare this to time complexity, i.e. the number $tau$ of essential construction steps that are needed:



  • Method 1: $tau sim a$


  • Method 2: $tau sim ab$


  • Method 3: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 4: $tau sim 1$


  • Method 5: $tau sim 1$


From this point of view method 3 would be the most efficient.




Once again:




I'm looking for other geometrical methods to multiply two numbers
given as points on the number line $O1$ (is there one using the
hyperbola?) and trying to understand better the "deeper" reasons why
they all yield the same result (i.e. point).





Those answers I managed to visualize I will add here:



Method 6 (due to Cia Pan)



enter image description here



Method 7 (due to celtschk)



enter image description here



Method 8 (due to Accumulation)



enter image description here







euclidean-geometry arithmetic conic-sections big-list geometric-construction






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 6 at 8:02







Hans-Peter Stricker

















asked Mar 20 at 16:42









Hans-Peter StrickerHans-Peter Stricker

6,83243997




6,83243997







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    IMVHO methods 1 and 2 do not count: when you use the word 'count', the method becomes arithmetical instead of geometrical.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 17:06






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CiaPan So methods that count don't count?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Mar 20 at 21:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When you say 'count it – let $n$ be the numer – do something $n$ times' you introduce some counter $n$ and some variable 'iteration number' running from 1 through $n$. In my feeling this goes beyond classic constructions and I would translate it into purely geometric actions. For example in Method 1: construct a chain of consecutive copies of the segment $O1$ along the line, until you reach $A$; at each constructed endpoint construct a copy of $OB$ perpendicular to the line; construct a chain of consecutive copies of... (to be continued)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (cont.) ...all those segments along the line; the final endpoint is the point sought. This way we iterate over some set of concrete objects (segments or their endpoints). We can say 'I proces this one, and now this one... And I processed all of them so here is the result.' as opposite to 'I do one construction, and the second one... And I remember I was to make five of them, so now I'm done.' which involves some criterion not visible in the drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to the Mohr–Mascheroni theorem (Wikipedia), any point classicaly constructible by a straightedge and a compass can also be constructed by a compass alone. Applying this would turn all points in your recent list to "circle". :)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 21 at 12:17












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    IMVHO methods 1 and 2 do not count: when you use the word 'count', the method becomes arithmetical instead of geometrical.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 17:06






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CiaPan So methods that count don't count?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Mar 20 at 21:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When you say 'count it – let $n$ be the numer – do something $n$ times' you introduce some counter $n$ and some variable 'iteration number' running from 1 through $n$. In my feeling this goes beyond classic constructions and I would translate it into purely geometric actions. For example in Method 1: construct a chain of consecutive copies of the segment $O1$ along the line, until you reach $A$; at each constructed endpoint construct a copy of $OB$ perpendicular to the line; construct a chain of consecutive copies of... (to be continued)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (cont.) ...all those segments along the line; the final endpoint is the point sought. This way we iterate over some set of concrete objects (segments or their endpoints). We can say 'I proces this one, and now this one... And I processed all of them so here is the result.' as opposite to 'I do one construction, and the second one... And I remember I was to make five of them, so now I'm done.' which involves some criterion not visible in the drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 20 at 23:38






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to the Mohr–Mascheroni theorem (Wikipedia), any point classicaly constructible by a straightedge and a compass can also be constructed by a compass alone. Applying this would turn all points in your recent list to "circle". :)
    $endgroup$
    – CiaPan
    Mar 21 at 12:17







3




3




$begingroup$
IMVHO methods 1 and 2 do not count: when you use the word 'count', the method becomes arithmetical instead of geometrical.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 17:06




$begingroup$
IMVHO methods 1 and 2 do not count: when you use the word 'count', the method becomes arithmetical instead of geometrical.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 17:06




2




2




$begingroup$
@CiaPan So methods that count don't count?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Mar 20 at 21:37




$begingroup$
@CiaPan So methods that count don't count?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Mar 20 at 21:37




1




1




$begingroup$
When you say 'count it – let $n$ be the numer – do something $n$ times' you introduce some counter $n$ and some variable 'iteration number' running from 1 through $n$. In my feeling this goes beyond classic constructions and I would translate it into purely geometric actions. For example in Method 1: construct a chain of consecutive copies of the segment $O1$ along the line, until you reach $A$; at each constructed endpoint construct a copy of $OB$ perpendicular to the line; construct a chain of consecutive copies of... (to be continued)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 23:38




$begingroup$
When you say 'count it – let $n$ be the numer – do something $n$ times' you introduce some counter $n$ and some variable 'iteration number' running from 1 through $n$. In my feeling this goes beyond classic constructions and I would translate it into purely geometric actions. For example in Method 1: construct a chain of consecutive copies of the segment $O1$ along the line, until you reach $A$; at each constructed endpoint construct a copy of $OB$ perpendicular to the line; construct a chain of consecutive copies of... (to be continued)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 23:38




1




1




$begingroup$
(cont.) ...all those segments along the line; the final endpoint is the point sought. This way we iterate over some set of concrete objects (segments or their endpoints). We can say 'I proces this one, and now this one... And I processed all of them so here is the result.' as opposite to 'I do one construction, and the second one... And I remember I was to make five of them, so now I'm done.' which involves some criterion not visible in the drawing.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 23:38




$begingroup$
(cont.) ...all those segments along the line; the final endpoint is the point sought. This way we iterate over some set of concrete objects (segments or their endpoints). We can say 'I proces this one, and now this one... And I processed all of them so here is the result.' as opposite to 'I do one construction, and the second one... And I remember I was to make five of them, so now I'm done.' which involves some criterion not visible in the drawing.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 23:38




2




2




$begingroup$
According to the Mohr–Mascheroni theorem (Wikipedia), any point classicaly constructible by a straightedge and a compass can also be constructed by a compass alone. Applying this would turn all points in your recent list to "circle". :)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 21 at 12:17




$begingroup$
According to the Mohr–Mascheroni theorem (Wikipedia), any point classicaly constructible by a straightedge and a compass can also be constructed by a compass alone. Applying this would turn all points in your recent list to "circle". :)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 21 at 12:17










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

  1. Construct the point $A'$ on the given line such that $O$ is a midpoint of the line segment $AA'$.

  2. Construct the perpendicular at $O$.

  3. Construct the semicircle on the diameter $A'B$.

  4. Find $H$ at the intersection of the semicircle and the perpendicular.
    $(OH)^2 = OA'cdot OB = OAcdot OB$.

  5. Draw line $1H$ and construct a perpendicular to it through $H$.

  6. Find point $K$ at the intersection of the last constructed line and the first given line. We have $(OH)^2 = 1cdot OK,$ hence $OK = OAcdot OB.$





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    4












    $begingroup$

    The following is quite similar to your method 3, but only requires you to draw parallels, not circles (see remark below).



    1. Draw an arbitrary line $g$ other than the number line through $O$. (The “number line” here is the line through $O$ and $1$).

    2. Select on $g$ an arbitrary point $P$ other than the origin.

    3. Draw a line through $1$ and $P$.

    4. Draw a parallel to that line through $A$. Call the intersection with $g$ $Q$.

    5. Draw a line through $P$ and $B$.

    6. Draw a parallel to that line through $Q$. The intersection with the number line is then $Atimes B$.

    Remark: In standard geometry (that is, construction with compass and ruler), you of course need to draw circles to construct the parallel. But one might instead consider using no compass, but a “parallels-ruler" (I have no idea what it is actually called; it's basically a ruler that has a built-in roll, allowing you to move the ruler without rotating, and thus to construct parallels).



    With only a parallels-ruler you cannot construct circles (so it's strictly weaker than compass and ruler), but as the construction above shows, you can multiply.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      1












      $begingroup$

      If you construct two similar triangles $X_1Y_1Z_1$ and $X_2Y_2Z_2$ such that $X_1Y_1=1$, $Y_1Z_1 = A$, and $X_2Y_2 = B$, then $Y_2Z_2=A*B$.



      Also, if you take any angle, mark $1$ and $A$ on one side, mark $B$ on another, draw a line from the $A$ point to the $B$ point, then construct a line parallel through that line through the $1$ point, it will intersect the other side a distance $frac B A$ from the vertex. And $A*B$ is of course equal to $A/(1/B)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        I added your construction to my big list.
        $endgroup$
        – Hans-Peter Stricker
        Mar 21 at 8:28










      • $begingroup$
        Isn't it the Method 3?
        $endgroup$
        – CiaPan
        Mar 21 at 12:28











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155691%2fequivalence-of-different-ways-of-geometrical-multiplication%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      1. Construct the point $A'$ on the given line such that $O$ is a midpoint of the line segment $AA'$.

      2. Construct the perpendicular at $O$.

      3. Construct the semicircle on the diameter $A'B$.

      4. Find $H$ at the intersection of the semicircle and the perpendicular.
        $(OH)^2 = OA'cdot OB = OAcdot OB$.

      5. Draw line $1H$ and construct a perpendicular to it through $H$.

      6. Find point $K$ at the intersection of the last constructed line and the first given line. We have $(OH)^2 = 1cdot OK,$ hence $OK = OAcdot OB.$





      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        6












        $begingroup$

        1. Construct the point $A'$ on the given line such that $O$ is a midpoint of the line segment $AA'$.

        2. Construct the perpendicular at $O$.

        3. Construct the semicircle on the diameter $A'B$.

        4. Find $H$ at the intersection of the semicircle and the perpendicular.
          $(OH)^2 = OA'cdot OB = OAcdot OB$.

        5. Draw line $1H$ and construct a perpendicular to it through $H$.

        6. Find point $K$ at the intersection of the last constructed line and the first given line. We have $(OH)^2 = 1cdot OK,$ hence $OK = OAcdot OB.$





        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          1. Construct the point $A'$ on the given line such that $O$ is a midpoint of the line segment $AA'$.

          2. Construct the perpendicular at $O$.

          3. Construct the semicircle on the diameter $A'B$.

          4. Find $H$ at the intersection of the semicircle and the perpendicular.
            $(OH)^2 = OA'cdot OB = OAcdot OB$.

          5. Draw line $1H$ and construct a perpendicular to it through $H$.

          6. Find point $K$ at the intersection of the last constructed line and the first given line. We have $(OH)^2 = 1cdot OK,$ hence $OK = OAcdot OB.$





          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          1. Construct the point $A'$ on the given line such that $O$ is a midpoint of the line segment $AA'$.

          2. Construct the perpendicular at $O$.

          3. Construct the semicircle on the diameter $A'B$.

          4. Find $H$ at the intersection of the semicircle and the perpendicular.
            $(OH)^2 = OA'cdot OB = OAcdot OB$.

          5. Draw line $1H$ and construct a perpendicular to it through $H$.

          6. Find point $K$ at the intersection of the last constructed line and the first given line. We have $(OH)^2 = 1cdot OK,$ hence $OK = OAcdot OB.$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 20 at 17:19









          CiaPanCiaPan

          10.4k11248




          10.4k11248





















              4












              $begingroup$

              The following is quite similar to your method 3, but only requires you to draw parallels, not circles (see remark below).



              1. Draw an arbitrary line $g$ other than the number line through $O$. (The “number line” here is the line through $O$ and $1$).

              2. Select on $g$ an arbitrary point $P$ other than the origin.

              3. Draw a line through $1$ and $P$.

              4. Draw a parallel to that line through $A$. Call the intersection with $g$ $Q$.

              5. Draw a line through $P$ and $B$.

              6. Draw a parallel to that line through $Q$. The intersection with the number line is then $Atimes B$.

              Remark: In standard geometry (that is, construction with compass and ruler), you of course need to draw circles to construct the parallel. But one might instead consider using no compass, but a “parallels-ruler" (I have no idea what it is actually called; it's basically a ruler that has a built-in roll, allowing you to move the ruler without rotating, and thus to construct parallels).



              With only a parallels-ruler you cannot construct circles (so it's strictly weaker than compass and ruler), but as the construction above shows, you can multiply.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                4












                $begingroup$

                The following is quite similar to your method 3, but only requires you to draw parallels, not circles (see remark below).



                1. Draw an arbitrary line $g$ other than the number line through $O$. (The “number line” here is the line through $O$ and $1$).

                2. Select on $g$ an arbitrary point $P$ other than the origin.

                3. Draw a line through $1$ and $P$.

                4. Draw a parallel to that line through $A$. Call the intersection with $g$ $Q$.

                5. Draw a line through $P$ and $B$.

                6. Draw a parallel to that line through $Q$. The intersection with the number line is then $Atimes B$.

                Remark: In standard geometry (that is, construction with compass and ruler), you of course need to draw circles to construct the parallel. But one might instead consider using no compass, but a “parallels-ruler" (I have no idea what it is actually called; it's basically a ruler that has a built-in roll, allowing you to move the ruler without rotating, and thus to construct parallels).



                With only a parallels-ruler you cannot construct circles (so it's strictly weaker than compass and ruler), but as the construction above shows, you can multiply.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  4












                  4








                  4





                  $begingroup$

                  The following is quite similar to your method 3, but only requires you to draw parallels, not circles (see remark below).



                  1. Draw an arbitrary line $g$ other than the number line through $O$. (The “number line” here is the line through $O$ and $1$).

                  2. Select on $g$ an arbitrary point $P$ other than the origin.

                  3. Draw a line through $1$ and $P$.

                  4. Draw a parallel to that line through $A$. Call the intersection with $g$ $Q$.

                  5. Draw a line through $P$ and $B$.

                  6. Draw a parallel to that line through $Q$. The intersection with the number line is then $Atimes B$.

                  Remark: In standard geometry (that is, construction with compass and ruler), you of course need to draw circles to construct the parallel. But one might instead consider using no compass, but a “parallels-ruler" (I have no idea what it is actually called; it's basically a ruler that has a built-in roll, allowing you to move the ruler without rotating, and thus to construct parallels).



                  With only a parallels-ruler you cannot construct circles (so it's strictly weaker than compass and ruler), but as the construction above shows, you can multiply.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  The following is quite similar to your method 3, but only requires you to draw parallels, not circles (see remark below).



                  1. Draw an arbitrary line $g$ other than the number line through $O$. (The “number line” here is the line through $O$ and $1$).

                  2. Select on $g$ an arbitrary point $P$ other than the origin.

                  3. Draw a line through $1$ and $P$.

                  4. Draw a parallel to that line through $A$. Call the intersection with $g$ $Q$.

                  5. Draw a line through $P$ and $B$.

                  6. Draw a parallel to that line through $Q$. The intersection with the number line is then $Atimes B$.

                  Remark: In standard geometry (that is, construction with compass and ruler), you of course need to draw circles to construct the parallel. But one might instead consider using no compass, but a “parallels-ruler" (I have no idea what it is actually called; it's basically a ruler that has a built-in roll, allowing you to move the ruler without rotating, and thus to construct parallels).



                  With only a parallels-ruler you cannot construct circles (so it's strictly weaker than compass and ruler), but as the construction above shows, you can multiply.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Mar 20 at 17:53

























                  answered Mar 20 at 17:41









                  celtschkceltschk

                  30.5k755102




                  30.5k755102





















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      If you construct two similar triangles $X_1Y_1Z_1$ and $X_2Y_2Z_2$ such that $X_1Y_1=1$, $Y_1Z_1 = A$, and $X_2Y_2 = B$, then $Y_2Z_2=A*B$.



                      Also, if you take any angle, mark $1$ and $A$ on one side, mark $B$ on another, draw a line from the $A$ point to the $B$ point, then construct a line parallel through that line through the $1$ point, it will intersect the other side a distance $frac B A$ from the vertex. And $A*B$ is of course equal to $A/(1/B)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        I added your construction to my big list.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hans-Peter Stricker
                        Mar 21 at 8:28










                      • $begingroup$
                        Isn't it the Method 3?
                        $endgroup$
                        – CiaPan
                        Mar 21 at 12:28















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      If you construct two similar triangles $X_1Y_1Z_1$ and $X_2Y_2Z_2$ such that $X_1Y_1=1$, $Y_1Z_1 = A$, and $X_2Y_2 = B$, then $Y_2Z_2=A*B$.



                      Also, if you take any angle, mark $1$ and $A$ on one side, mark $B$ on another, draw a line from the $A$ point to the $B$ point, then construct a line parallel through that line through the $1$ point, it will intersect the other side a distance $frac B A$ from the vertex. And $A*B$ is of course equal to $A/(1/B)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        I added your construction to my big list.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hans-Peter Stricker
                        Mar 21 at 8:28










                      • $begingroup$
                        Isn't it the Method 3?
                        $endgroup$
                        – CiaPan
                        Mar 21 at 12:28













                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      If you construct two similar triangles $X_1Y_1Z_1$ and $X_2Y_2Z_2$ such that $X_1Y_1=1$, $Y_1Z_1 = A$, and $X_2Y_2 = B$, then $Y_2Z_2=A*B$.



                      Also, if you take any angle, mark $1$ and $A$ on one side, mark $B$ on another, draw a line from the $A$ point to the $B$ point, then construct a line parallel through that line through the $1$ point, it will intersect the other side a distance $frac B A$ from the vertex. And $A*B$ is of course equal to $A/(1/B)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      If you construct two similar triangles $X_1Y_1Z_1$ and $X_2Y_2Z_2$ such that $X_1Y_1=1$, $Y_1Z_1 = A$, and $X_2Y_2 = B$, then $Y_2Z_2=A*B$.



                      Also, if you take any angle, mark $1$ and $A$ on one side, mark $B$ on another, draw a line from the $A$ point to the $B$ point, then construct a line parallel through that line through the $1$ point, it will intersect the other side a distance $frac B A$ from the vertex. And $A*B$ is of course equal to $A/(1/B)$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 20 at 21:59









                      AcccumulationAcccumulation

                      7,4612619




                      7,4612619











                      • $begingroup$
                        I added your construction to my big list.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hans-Peter Stricker
                        Mar 21 at 8:28










                      • $begingroup$
                        Isn't it the Method 3?
                        $endgroup$
                        – CiaPan
                        Mar 21 at 12:28
















                      • $begingroup$
                        I added your construction to my big list.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Hans-Peter Stricker
                        Mar 21 at 8:28










                      • $begingroup$
                        Isn't it the Method 3?
                        $endgroup$
                        – CiaPan
                        Mar 21 at 12:28















                      $begingroup$
                      I added your construction to my big list.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Hans-Peter Stricker
                      Mar 21 at 8:28




                      $begingroup$
                      I added your construction to my big list.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Hans-Peter Stricker
                      Mar 21 at 8:28












                      $begingroup$
                      Isn't it the Method 3?
                      $endgroup$
                      – CiaPan
                      Mar 21 at 12:28




                      $begingroup$
                      Isn't it the Method 3?
                      $endgroup$
                      – CiaPan
                      Mar 21 at 12:28

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3155691%2fequivalence-of-different-ways-of-geometrical-multiplication%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Masuk log Menu navigasi

                      Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                      Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области