Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!jml
From: jml@cs.strath.ac.uk (Joseph McLean)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: pentagons within squares
Message-ID: <313@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11-Nov-86 05:20:46 EST
Article-I.D.: stracs.313
Posted: Tue Nov 11 05:20:46 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Nov-86 02:00:27 EST
Reply-To: jml@cs.strath.ac.uk (Joseph McLean)
Organization: Department of Computer Science at Strathclyde University, UK.
Lines: 35

>
>Joseph McLean writes:
>> A pentagon can't be inscribed in a square ? Absurd.Whoever said that
>> all 5 corners of the pentagon need to touch the square ?
>
>My definition of "inscribe", from Webster's, states that all vertices
>of the inscribed polygon must touch a boundary of the polygon in
>which it is inscribed.
>
>Makes sense, when you think about it. Or else, here's two inscribed
>squares for you:
>
>			+--+
>			|  |
>		     +--+--+
>		     |  |
>		     +--+
>
>Who said that all 4 corners needed to touch the square? :-)
>
>Rick
>
>
If the dictionary says that all vertices must touch the square then
of course I accede.I presumed that inscribed meant lying totally within,
so that the above sketch would not be concidered legal by me either (before
I was corrected of course).
Mind you,if,for argument,there was a word that meant "lying totally within"
(subscribed?) then my little argument would hopefully provide the largest
such polygon lying within a square (which would then be at least as large as
the largest inscribed polygon).

Thanks for correcting me Rick,

   jml.