Golden Ratio using an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle

Posted by peter_d_sherman 6 days ago

Counter173Comment64OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by AceJohnny2 1 day ago

Edit: years of searches and minutes after I post this I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaasbfdJdJg thanks to using "continued fraction" in my search instead of "infinite series" X(

Original: Tangentially, for a few years I've been looking for a Youtube video, I think by Mathologer [1], that explained (geometrically?) how the Golden Ratio was the limit of the continued fraction 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(...))).

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

I know Mathologer had a conflict with his editor at one point that may have sown chaos on his channel.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/Mathologer

Comment by glkindlmann 1 day ago

I learned about this not from Mathologer, but Numberphile [1]. The second half of the video is the continued fraction derivation. I remember this being the first time I appreciated the sense in which the phi was the most irrational number, which otherwise seemed like just a click-bait-y idea. But you've found an earlier (9 years ago vs 7) Mathologer video on the same topic.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj8Sg8qnjOg

Comment by isolli 1 day ago

Complete tangent, but, for me, this is where AI shines. I've been able to find things I had been looking for for years. AI is good at understanding something "continued fraction" instead of "infinite series", especially if you provide a bit of context.

Comment by AceJohnny2 1 day ago

Absolutely. In fact my post above originally said "infinite series" instead of "continued fraction", but Googling again, Google AI did mention "continued fraction" in its summary, so I edited my post and tried searching on that which led me to the solution!

Comment by noah_buddy 1 day ago

100% agree. It’s great if you have a clear sense of what you’re looking for but maybe have muddled the actual terminology. You can find words, concepts, books, movies, etc, that you haven’t remembered the name of for years.

Comment by ColinWright 1 day ago

One of the talks I give has this in it. The talk includes Continued Fractions and how they can be used to create approximations. That the way to find 355/113 as an excellent approximation to pi, and other similarly excellent approximations.

I also talk about the Continued Fraction algorithm for factorising integers, which is still one of the fastest methods for numbers in a certain range.

Continued Fractions also give what is, to me, one of the nicest proofs that sqrt(2) is irrational.

Comment by AceJohnny2 1 day ago

Thanks! Do you have a version of that talk published anywhere? I tried searching your YouTube channel [1] for a few things like "golden ratio" "ratio", "irrational"... but didn't find anything.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@colinwright/

Comment by ColinWright 1 day ago

That's not my channel. Alas, my name is fairly common, and there are some proper whackos who publish widely.

I only have one video in my channel ... never really got going, but I keep promising myself I'll start doing more. My channel is here:

https://www.youtube.com/@ColinTheMathmo

I don't have that talk on video, but I can probably sketch the content for you if you're interested, and then give pointers to pages with the details.

How to contact me is in my profile ... I'm happy to write a new thing.

Comment by AceJohnny2 1 day ago

Aw thanks, but I think the Mathologer and Numberphile videos are sufficient for me if you haven't already uploaded yours. I don't want to bother you doing extra work for little return!

Comment by ColinWright 1 day ago

I honestly should sketch out the talk anyway. I haven't seen anyone else bring together the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational, and the Continued Fraction method of factoring.

Yeah, maybe I'll hack out a sketch tomorrow, show it to a few people, and get them to tell me what's missing so I can flesh it out.

I owe Chalkdust an article anyway.

Comment by AceJohnny2 1 day ago

Correction! The actual video I was thinking of was this one, also by Mathologer but from 2018:

https://youtu.be/ubHVK71F01M

This one actually has the geometric (rectangle subdivisions) animations I had in mind.

Comment by avidiax 2 days ago

If you like this sort of thing, there's a game where you can solve these kinds of proofs: https://www.euclidea.xyz/en/game/packs/Alpha

Comment by kubanczyk 13 hours ago

Nice. I love the sense of humor of the motivational quotes. Immediately after inscribing a circle in a square: "You can't fit a round peg into a square hole. (American proverb)"

Comment by tigerlily 1 day ago

I once wondered what happens when you take x away from x squared, and let that equal 1.

I sat down and worked it out. What do you know golden ratio.

Oh and this other number, -0.618. Anyone know what it's good for?

Comment by x1000 1 day ago

It’s the negative of the inverse of the golden ratio. (Also 1 minus the golden ratio.) So, good for anything the golden ratio itself is good for.

Comment by e9 1 day ago

0.618 is used as level for trading with fibonacci retracements: https://centerpointsecurities.com/fibonacci-retracements/

Comment by awhitty 1 day ago

Recently read through The Power of Limits and deepened my appreciation for the golden ratio. https://www.shambhala.com/the-power-of-limits-1203.html

Comment by exodust 1 day ago

Can you elaborate on how it deepened your appreciation? An example perhaps?

Comment by jdsane 1 day ago

not related directly, but there is a ui library that uses golden ratio for spacing. https://www.chainlift.io/liftkit

Comment by Biganon 1 day ago

The idea that the golden ratio is particularly aesthetically pleasing is 100% snake oil.

Sure, moving a heading slightly higher can make it look much better than if it was perfectly equidistant from the side and the top, but the precise amount depends on a million visual factors. The golden ratio might happen to work fine, but there's nothing magical about it.

Even temples that we thought followed the golden ratio for their dimensions have been measured better, and it turns out they don't. The civilizations back then knew enough so they could have made them very close to the golden ratio, but they didn't. Not always at least.

Comment by vedmakk 1 day ago

This is awesome! Thank you.

Comment by jdsane 1 day ago

there is also a tailwind version, which i maintain. https://github.com/jellydeck/liftkit-tailwind

Comment by TheAceOfHearts 1 day ago

Do any of you deliberately integrate the golden ratio into anything you create or do? For me it always seems more like an intellectual curiosity rather than an item in my regular toolkit for design, creative exploration, or problem solving. If I end up with a golden ratio in something I create it's more likely to be by accident or instinct rather than a deliberate choice. I keep thinking I must be missing out.

The closest thing I do related to the golden ratio is using the harmonic armature as a grid for my paintings.

Comment by jerf 1 day ago

The golden ratio is very mathematically interesting and shows up in many places. Not as prolific as pi or e, but it gets around.

I find the aesthetic arguments for it very overrated, though. A clear case of a guy says a thing, and some other people say it too, and before you know it it's "received wisdom" even though it really isn't particularly true. Many examples of how important the "golden ratio" are are often simply wrong; it's not actually a golden ratio when actually measured, or it's nowhere near as important as presented. You can also squeeze more things into being a "golden ratio" if you are willing to let it be off by, say, 15%. That creates an awfully wide band.

Personally I think it's more a matter of, there is a range of useful and aesthetic ratios, and the "golden ratio" happens to fall in that range, but whether it's the "optimum" just because it's the golden ratio is often more an imposition on the data than something that comes from it.

It definitely does show up in nature, though. There are solid mathematical and engineering reasons why it is the optimal angle for growing leafs and other patterns, for instance. But there are other cases where people "find" it in nature where it clearly isn't there... one of my favorites is the sheer number of diagrams of the Nautilus shell, which allegedly is following the "golden ratio", where the diagram itself disproves the claim by clearly being nowhere near an optimal fit to the shell.

Comment by pvab3 1 day ago

This video helped me solidify my opinion that the Golden Ratio is no more attractive or appealing than any other fraction or ratio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AofrZFwxt2Y

Comment by jerf 1 day ago

I've never seen that one, but yeah, that is very definitely what I was getting at. Very in line with my thinking. Thank you for the expansion.

Comment by samirillian 1 day ago

At least by analogy with sound, it doesn’t make sense to me to use the golden ratio. If you consider the tonic, the octave, the major fifth, you have 1:1, 2:1, and 3:2. It seems to me that the earliest ratios in the fibonacci sequence are more aesthetically pleasing, symmetry, 1/3s, etc. but maybe there is something “organically” pleasing about the Fibonacci sequence. But Fibonacci spirals in nature are really just general logarithmic spirals as I understand it. Would be interested to hear counterpoints.

Comment by WillAdams 1 day ago

When I'm working out where to place hardware or otherwise proportion a woodworking project, if there isn't an obvious mechanical/physical aspect driving the placement, then I always turn to the Golden Ratio --- annoyingly, I don't get to hear the music or bell ring from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BqnN72OlqA

or the older black-and-white film which I was shown in school when I was young.

Comment by wonger_ 1 day ago

I used it as the proportion for a sidebar layout of a webpage, where the sidebar needed to be not too small yet smaller than the sibling container.

  .sidebar { flex: 1; }
  .not-sidebar { flex: 1.618; }
But imo using thirds would've worked fine. Hard to tell the difference, at least in this case. 67% vs 62%.

(https://wonger.dev/enjoyables on desktop / wide viewport)

Comment by neonnoodle 1 day ago

I agree with you. The harmonics/diagonals of the notional rectangle(s) of the piece are more important than any one particular ratio. Phi is no more special than any other self-similar relationship in terms of composition. The root rectangle series offers more than enough for a good layout even without phi.

And yes, for the people who get hung up on what the Old Masters did, it’s mostly armature grids and not the golden ratio!

Comment by Xmd5a 1 day ago

It can be useful in a "primitive" environment: with the metric or even the imperial system, you need to multiply the length of your measurement unit by a certain factor in order to build the next unit (10x1cm = 1dm for instance).

But if your units follow a golden ratio progression, you just need to "concatenate" 2 consecutive units (2 measuring sticks) in order to find the third. And so on.

Comment by boothby 1 day ago

Fibonacci heaps are nice. They aren't state of the art, but it's a pretty data structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_heap

Comment by ColinWright 1 day ago

Yes. We used it for the structures underlying the digital fade algorithm for marine radar images.

It's probably no longer "Commercial In Confidence" ... I should probably write it up sometime.

Comment by srean 1 day ago

Could you elaborate please.

Comment by ColinWright 1 day ago

Hmm.

This was a long time ago, so we didn't have GPUs or fancy rendering h/ware. We addressed every pixel individually.

So a radar image was painted to the screen, and then the next update was painted on top of that. But that just gives the live radar image ... we wanted moving objects to leave "snail trails".

So what you do for each update is:

* Decrement the existing pixel;

* Update the pixel with the max of the incoming value and the decremented value.

This then leaves stationary targets in place, and anything that's moving leaves a trail behind it so when you look at the screen it's instantly obvious where everything is, and how fast they're moving.

Ideally you'd want to decrement every pixel by one every tenth of a second or so, but that wasn't possible with the h/ware speed we had. So instead we decremented every Nth pixel by D and cycled through the pixels.

But that created stripes, so we needed to access the pixels in a pseudo-random fashion without leaving stripes. The area we were painting was 1024x1024, so what we did was start at the zeroth pixel and step by a prime number size, wrapping around. But what prime number?

We chose a prime close to (2^20)/phi. (Actually we didn't, but that was the starting point for a more complex calculation)

Since phi has no good rational approximation, this didn't leave stripes. It created an evenly spread speckle pattern. The rate of fade was controlled by changing D, and it was very effective.

Worked a treat on our limited hardware (ARM7 on a RiscPC) and easy enough to program directly in ARM assembler.

Comment by srean 17 hours ago

Thanks for the story.

What's decrementing a pixel ?

I(x,y,t+1) = I(x,y,t) - c ?

Comment by ColinWright 16 hours ago

Exactly that ... for a given pixel, reducing the existing level/brightness by some value, the default is usually 1, or a fixed percentage.

Comment by srean 9 hours ago

Ah! Now I understand.

I was stepping out with my wife for a day out and had read your reply very cursorily. That reading had left me quite puzzled -- "I would have done exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) over time for trails. Why is \phi important here in any form. Is \phi the weight of the EWMA ?".

Now I get it, decrementing the pixels were quite peripheral to the main story.

The main story is that of finding a scan sequence that (a) cycles through a set of points without repetition and (b) without obvious patterns discernible to the eye.

In this, the use \phi is indeed neat. I don't think it would have occurred to me. I would have gone with some shift register sequence with cycle length 1024 * 1024 or a space filling curve on such a grid.

This becomes even more interesting if you include the desiderata that the minimum distance between any two temporally adjacent pixels must not be small (to avoid temporal hot spots).

Finding MiniMax, min over temporal adjacency, max over all 1024* 1024! sequences, might be intractable.

Another interesting formulation could be, that for any fixed kxk sized disc that could be drawn on the grid, the temporal interval between any two "revisit" events need to be independent of the disk's position on the grid.

I think this is the road to small discrepancy sequences of quasi Monte Carlo.

Comment by cong-or 1 day ago

Is there a computational advantage to constructing φ geometrically versus algebraically? In rendering or CAD, would you actually trace the circle/triangle intersections, or just compute (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2 directly?

I’m curious if the geometric approach has any edge-case benefits—like better numerical stability—or if it’s purely for elegance.

Comment by meindnoch 1 day ago

When a computer does "geometry", it just computes numbers under the hood. There are no tiny people in the CPU with compasses and straightedges.

Comment by cong-or 1 day ago

Fair enough—I wasn’t imagining tiny compass-wielders. I was thinking more about whether the structure of a geometric construction might map to something computationally useful, like exact arithmetic systems (CGAL-style) that preserve geometric relationships and avoid floating-point degeneracies.

But for a constant like φ, you’re right—(1 + sqrt(5)) / 2 is trivial and stable. No clever construction needed.

Comment by pgreenwood 1 day ago

That is neat, I did not know this method of constructing a gold ratio. Once you have a golden ration it's easy to construct a pentagon (with straight-edge and compass).

Comment by allknowingfrog 1 day ago

I'm not familiar with this pentagon trick. Care to elaborate?

Comment by jonah-archive 1 day ago

The ratio of the length of the diagonal of a pentagon to one of its sides is the golden ratio -- easiest visualization is with similar triangles. Draw a regular pentagon (sides of length 1 for simplicity) and pick a side, make an isosceles triangle with that side as the base and two diagonals meeting at the opposite point. Go one side length down from the opposite point and mark that (F below). Convince yourself that triangle DCF is similar to CAD (symmetry gets you there).

Now we wish to find the length of, say, CA. From similarity CD/CA = FC/DF, and CD = DF = 1, and CA - FC = 1, so the ratio simplifies to... CA^2 - CA - 1 = 0 which yields the golden ratio.

            A
           .'.
         .' | `.
       .'  | |  `.
    B.'    | |    `.E
     \   F|   |    /
      \   |   |   /
       \ |     | /
        \|_____|/
        C       D

Comment by wessorh 1 day ago

I always like the equlateral triangle with the top half removed to for a rombus, the shape is used in the mosaic virus. now I understand my attraction to it, thanks!

Comment by fluoridation 1 day ago

An equilateral triangle with the top half removed is not a rhombus, it's a trapezoid.

Comment by keeganpoppen 1 day ago

wow that is gorgeous. this is the kind of thing that convinces me that the golden ratio is a fundamental, natural construct, rather than merely a mathematical abstraction. not that the typical construction itself doesn’t make me think that— the way it is constructed absolutely lends itself to natural, physical explanation that is almost too natural to ignore.

Comment by teiferer 1 day ago

In your mind, what is the difference between a mathematical abstraction and a natural construct?

Asking because to me, any mathematical abstraction is a natural construct. Math isn't invented, it's discovered.

Comment by Xmd5a 1 day ago

Some comments I wrote a while back:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44077741

I don't have the energy to delve into this shit again, I found another antique site + ancient measurement system combo where the same link between 1/5, 1, π and phi are intertwined: https://brill.com/view/journals/acar/83/1/article-p278_208.x... albeit in a different fashion. + it was used to square the circle on top of the same remarkable approximation of phi as

    5/6π - 1
which preserves the algebraic property that defines phi

    phi^2 = phi + 1
But only for 0.2:

    0.2 * pseudo-phi^2 = 0.2 * (pseudo-phi + 1) = π/6
My take is that "conspiracy theories" about the origin of the meter predate the definition of the meter. You don't need to invoke a glorious altantean past to explain this, just a long series of coincidentalists puzzling over each other throughout time. It's something difficult to do, even on HN, where people don't want to see that indeed g ~= π^2 and it isn't a matter of coincidence. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208988

I'm depressed. I tried to sleep as long a possible, because when I woke up, within 3 seconds, I was back in hell. I want it to end, seriously, I can't stand it anymore.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by harvie 1 day ago

What about using PI/2 ? Seems close enough :-D

Comment by EpiMath 1 day ago

Thanks! I didn't know this one either.

Comment by andrewflnr 1 day ago

> Universal Symbolic Mirrors of Natural Laws Within Us; Friendly Reminders of Inclusion to Forgive the Dreamer of Separation

Are we really upvoting this on HN? Truly the end times have come.

Comment by Xmd5a 1 day ago

https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1712.01826

> In this work, I propose a rigorous approach of this kind on the basis of algorithmic information theory. It is based on a single postulate: that universal induction determines the chances of what any observer sees next. That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the observer alone that determines those probabilities. Surprisingly, despite its solipsistic foundation, I show that the resulting theory recovers many features of our established physical worldview: it predicts that it appears to observers as if there was an external world that evolves according to simple, computable, probabilistic laws. In contrast to the standard view, objective reality is not assumed on this approach but rather provably emerges as an asymptotic statistical phenomenon. The resulting theory dissolves puzzles like cosmology’s Boltzmann brain problem, makes concrete predictions for thought experiments like the computer simulation of agents, and suggests novel phenomena such as “probabilistic zombies” governed by observer-dependent probabilistic chances. It also suggests that some basic phenomena of quantum theory (Bell inequality violation and no-signalling) might be understood as consequences of this framework.

You're welcome

Comment by Daub 1 day ago

> Natural Laws Within Us

We did some statistical analysis on the golden ratio and its use in art. It does indeed seem that artists gravitate away from regular geometry such as squares, thirds etc and towards recursive geometry such as the golden ratio and the root 2 rectangle. Most of our research was on old master paintings, so it might be argued that this was learned behavior, however one of our experiments seems to show that this preference is also present in those without any knowledge of such prescribed geometries.

Comment by srean 1 day ago

Is that really true ?

Golden ratio is very specific, whereas any proportional that is vaguely close to 1.5 (equivalently, 2:1) gets called out as an example of golden ratio.

The same tendency exists among wannabe-mathematician art critics who see a spiral and label it a logarithmic spiral or a Fibonacci spiral.

Comment by Daub 1 day ago

Certainly some art critics and artists over-apply and over-think so-called 'golden' geometry. What I think is happening is very simple... that artists avoid regularity (e.g. two lights of the same color and intensity, exact center placement, exact placement at thirds, corner placement, two regions at the same angle, two hue spreads of equal sides on opposite sides of the RYB hue wheel etc etc). These loose 'rules' of avoidance can be confused with 'rules' of prescription such as color harmony, golden section etc.

Comment by andrewflnr 1 day ago

What does that have to do with the barely-coherent woo of "Friendly Reminders of Inclusion to Forgive the Dreamer of Separation"?

Comment by anigbrowl 1 day ago

No, we're upvoting the solid and novel (to many of us) mathematical derivation. I don't really mind what woo-woo statements sacred geometry enthusiasts make as long as the math checks out.

Comment by Datagenerator 1 day ago

The chord through the midpoints of two sides of an inscribed equilateral triangle cuts a diameter in the golden ratio. This interesting method gives a purely geometric construction of positive Phi without using Fibonacci numbers.

Comment by thaumasiotes 1 day ago

> This interesting method gives a purely geometric construction of positive Phi without using Fibonacci numbers.

There's nothing particularly interesting about that; phi is (1 + √5)/2. All numbers composed of integers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and square roots can be constructed by compass and straightedge.

Comment by yababa_y 1 day ago

I was somewhat surprised to learn that phi is _merely_ (1 + √5)/2, I didn't have a good conception of what it was at all but I didn't think it was algebraic.

Comment by thaumasiotes 1 day ago

Phi is conceptually defined like so:

    Suppose you have a rectangle whose side length ratio is ϕ. You draw a line across the rectangle which divides it into a square and another rectangle.

    Then the side length ratio of the new, smaller rectangle is also ϕ.
The diagram is straightforward to set up:

       a        b
    +-----+--------+
    |     |        |
    |  ϕa-|        |
    |     |        |-b
    |     |        |
    +-----+--------+
     \            /
      -----  -----
           \/
           ϕb
This gives us a system of two equations:

    ϕa = b
    ϕb = a + b
If you substitute b = φa into the other one, you get

    ϕ(ϕa) = a + ϕa
And since a is just an arbitrary scaling factor, we have no problem dividing it out:

    ϕ² = 1 + ϕ
Since we defined φ by reference to the length of a line, we know that it is the positive solution to this equation and not the negative solution.

(Side note: there are two styles of lowercase phi, fancy φ and plain ϕ. They have their own Unicode points.

HN's text input panel displays ϕ as fancy and φ as plain. This is reversed in ordinary text display (a published comment, as opposed to a comment you are currently composing). And it's reversed again in the monospace formatting. (Which matches the input display.)

The ordinary text display appears to be incorrect, going by the third usage note at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%95 )

Comment by anigbrowl 1 day ago

HN's text input panel displays ϕ as fancy and φ as plain. This is reversed in ordinary text display (a published comment, as opposed to a comment you are currently composing). And it's reversed again in the monospace formatting. (Which matches the input display.)

I'm glad you posted this. I'm not a unicode expert and have always assumed these weird dichotomies were some sort of user/configuration error on my part. Realizing the unicode glitches are actaully at the website end instead of between my ears is quite a relief.

Comment by thaumasiotes 21 hours ago

To be more specific, that usage note strongly suggests that the problem is in the font used by HN. The font is what complies or doesn't comply with the Unicode standard. We can also say that HN has a problem, but HN's problem is "they're using a noncompliant font for monospaced text".

(On further investigation, I got the characters backwards, and HN's ordinary display is correct while the monospaced display isn't.)

Comment by boczez 1 day ago

[dead]

Comment by 2 days ago