Talk:Intercept theorem

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Error in calculating the pyramid's height?

The article says:

C=2m+63m+{\frac {230m}{2}}=180m

But why is the addition of "2m" needed? It seems an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.84.58 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the 2m are actually included in the 63m shadow of the pyramid. I'll fix it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One more thing: I think "shadow of the pole (A)" should be changed to "shadow of the pole (B)".

About calculating the pyramid's height

It might be worth explaining that the two triangles (the pyramid's and the pole's) are similar only because the sun is very far and is thus practically "at inifinity". This makes the angle at the top of the triangles congruent. The picture is misleading because it shows the sun very low and thus it's not clear why the hypotenuse of the pole's triangle has the same slope as that of the pyramid's triganle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.110.65 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

Is it only me or the proof given in the article is way too complicated? I suggest this one:

That's exactly what the proof does, that picture is just a rotated version of the one in the proof.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry, I didn't know that notation of $|\triangle CDA|=|\triangle CBA|$ , so I stopped reading the proof and did not pay attention on the figure. Then I went searching for another proof, my mistake, hehe. Thanks for the attention.