I have a question for you, if I may. My children and I have been playing with classic geometry problems. We’ve come across this technique of constructing a tangent to a point on a circle. It involves drawing a series of circles at intersecting points.
While I find it perfectly fun to draw beautiful circles to make a tangent, it has been gnawing on me for a whole day and night that I cannot seem to figure out why it results in a line that’s at the required right angle to the radius. Argh! This is what I’ve got.
No matter how much I move the angles around in various triangle-angle-sum equations, I don’t get anywhere illuminating.
Can anyone explain this to me? Please?
I should clarify, the tangent is the result, not the beginning. This is how the problem starts: you have a circle, its centre, and a point on the circle. You have a compass and a ruler. How to construct a tangent in only three steps?
Step 1: draw a circle with the radius going from another point on the circle to the given point on the circle.
Step 2: draw another circle, this time from the given point on the circle to the intersecting point of the two circles from step 1.
Step 3: draw a line between the given point on the circle and the new intersecting point between the circles from step 1 and 2. Done.
Mystery!
Or, hair-pulling puzzlement, as the case may be.
Got it!
My hurdle: I was missing the inscribed angle theorem. Tomáš pointed to it with elegant efficiency.
The cyan angle referred to I labeled ε though it is hard to see; I was trained in the Greek letter notation for angles, and I still like it best. math.stackexchange.com/questions/1961…
2) Many of James' fans and followers are decidedly or far right-wing. Anti-maskers and anti-lockdown folks among them. #JamesLindsay collaborates, intellectually and financially, with a Covid-denying organization, Sovereign Nations.
3) In the recent past, James has attacked several researchers and epidemiologists who tweet knowledgeably about Covid-19 and about measures to handle the current pandemic. I'm not aware of him saying something about Covid-19 that's knowledgeable or useful for public health.
It's Saturday morning. I've spent 2 hours on the computer, doing work. I have answered student emails. Set up the promised extra office hours for next week. Sent course announcements. Did a necessary update on a file I will not need until two months from now. 1/
Read up about the newest case in the debate on academic freedom & free speech policies on North American campuses. 2/
Have I done either one of the two truly looming, necessary, urgent tasks I came to this desk to do? 3/
Ah, that's disappointing. Since Adichie has not publicly commented for a while on trans issues, I hoped she was thinking more critically following from earlier disappointing claims.
Linked below: my thread on why Rowling's anti-trans essay is not perfectly reasonable.
If you’re not in the middle of debates about trans rights & research on trans lives, you might be wondering what critics mean when they say Abigail Shrier’s work is transphobic. Allow me to lay a few points out for you, taken—for convenience—from her article in #Quillette. 1/
Shrier frames her work with the familiar stance of: I’m just asking questions! I’m only reporting on these ideas some have, what can be wrong with that?! Don’t stop the messenger of common sense ideas!
Then she lines up her words to make it sound like that’s what she’s doing. 2/
It is noticeable, however, that reporting on current research relating to trans girls isn’t what she’s doing. She’s made up her journalist mind that groups of professionals—with researched & constantly re-evaluated guidelines & ethics behind them—are merely “rubber-stamping.” 3/
I laughed. Malinda Smith argues with Jon Kay, points out several times how ill-informed he is on the issue and how disappointing his attempts at argument.
It has some of his favourite tropes, the ones that make him feel good when he’s been beaten at the game he was trying to play.
He’s got some back channel into your institution going! 2/
You are partly being paid by public money, you must be incapable to make it in the rough and tumble market where he, #Quillette editor, claims to do so well! 3/
What’s the egregious part? What do you find so embarrassing? What source are you considering? Why “useless”? What’s true and untrue academic freedom? Where’s there something authoritarian?
You know what I see? I see a veiled attempt to dismiss the academic freedom of two particular scholars, with no evidence or argumentative merit being brought to challenge their research. Curious. Curious.
If you want to hear the talk that brought about the above tweet, if you want to have your own thoughts on it, it’s here: