Talk:Pascal's theorem
Where is the mention of Pascal's theory of the logic of religious belief? That's one of his most widely quoted theorems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.44.135 (talk)
- That's not a theorem. Maybe you should start by looking that the article titled Blaise Pascal. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sixth Step
What happened to the sixth step?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_theorem&diff=prev&oldid=192916740
--Scottdavies (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the second step?
Complicated proof
Why is such a messy proof being used in this article? It looks a very short proof is being linked using Menelaos. A similarly short proof can also be found as Theorem 6.3.1 here: http://www-math.mit.edu/~kedlaya/geometryunbound/gu-060118.pdf. 76.69.85.111 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added a short proof using projective geometry which I think is instructive as it applies to the original conic as well. Lim Wei Quan (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessarily complex picture
The diagram illustrating this article is unnecessarily complicated, because the hexagon has been chosen to be 'tangled-up'.
Although the theorem is of course true in this case too, this will make most readers miss the point.
A simpler and better picture is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THPascal.svg
