Talk:Fermat's spiral

TeX not parsing

Header added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The TeX on this page is not parsing! Would someone who knows what should go there fix it? Michael Hardy 21:53 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

parabolic spiral

Hi, 3 def of parabolic spiral :

• here radius of parabolic spiral is $r=r(\theta )=\theta ^{2}\,$
• here $r=a{\sqrt {\theta }}$
• in article $r=\pm \theta ^{1/2}\,$

Which def is good ? --Adam majewski (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The last two are synonymous except for scale.

That German page says "The spiral 1 is called parabolic spiral or Fermat's spiral." While #1 (r=t²) can reasonably be called 'parabolic', Fermat's is definitely #3 (r=±√t). (Mathworld agrees with our article that parabolic spiral is a synonym for Fermat's spiral, but I think it best avoided, because of this obvious ambiguity!) —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So maybe in article should be stated that definitions of parabolic spiral may be different in different sources ? --Adam majewski (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Archimedian?

I moved the following from the article to the talk page:

It is a type of Archimedean spiral.

This is only true if we adopt a more general definition of Archimedean spiral than the wikipedia article does. So it doesn't make sense to link it in this way.--81.99.202.66 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that further down in the article on Archimedean spirals the general case is treated. So I fixed up the link to point to the subsection.--81.99.202.66 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

References

CSP

The citation to our "Heliostat field optimization: A new computationally efficient model and biomimetic layout" is not quite accurate. We did not use n^{0.5} but rather optimized for the exponent. I am one of the authors of the cited article, so I would rather not edit the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.mitsos (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not for the general reader

This article is in my opinion too esoteric for Wikipedia. The subject is not too esoteric, it's the presentation. Don't write an article for your circle of enthusiasts, make thousands of enthusiasts by explaining this subject in a way that reaches out to a person who has never heard of this subject before. Or, let somebody who can explain things well do a complete rewrite. Thanks--71.36.123.89 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Phyllotaxis Nexus?

The content I'm reading here about the phyllotaxis sounds like it might be productively merged with phyllotaxis content at the golden spiral article, but I'm unsure which article the resulting content should live under.

I'll attempt to nudge this article in that direction with a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)