Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pythagoras-2a.gif

Image:Pythagoras-2.gif, featured

Original (left), not featured

•  Info This is what we might call a "proof by rearrangement" of the famous Pythagorean theorem. I know it is not fancy at first sight. The "WoW" only comes after we look at the animation for a dozen times. In Mathematics beauty is strongly connected to simplicity and for me this is a very elegant proof of the theorem. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice and useful. May I just suggest you to change the fonts ? Usually in mathematics, variables are written in italic (I would personnally use Times New Roman italic). Benh 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that, Benh, but I'm not sure it would be an improvement. Let's listen to other opinions - Alvesgaspar 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It may not improve it, in a FP scope, but it won't spoil it. I believe this is the kind of small details which turn something good into a great one. Convention are useful is everyone use them. When I come across a piece of software code, I can easily identify a variable i or j as a counter. This saves a lot of time. Same applies in scientific reports. I hope this draw will be seen by a lot of people. It's beautiful, it's didactic, and when they take this as an example, they will remember when writing a report "this is a variable, I'd better write it in italic". I hope you don't take my comment as an offense. I really appreciate what you do, and just hope it helps to slightly improve it. Benh 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree fully with Benh that using a serif based font in italic like Times New Roman is the optimal solution. The sans serif font used is unconventional for math symbols. -- Slaunger 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support If you make any changes, one small thing to add is to label a second side 'c' on the image that first shows area=c², and perhaps both 'c' labels on the outside of the square --Tony Wills 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's done - Alvesgaspar 07:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support² :-) --Tony Wills 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But what about small square?--Beyond silence 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info The side of the small square is equal to (b-a) and its area, (b-a)². The area of the large square will then be c ² = 4 x (a x b) / 2 + (b - a) ² = a² + b², Q.E.D.  :)) - Alvesgaspar 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This has definitely a "WOW effect" after you see the animation for the first time and understand it. Should be the POTY (Picture of the Year) 2008 animation. Freedom to share 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I'm a sucker for interesting diagrams. JaGa 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Question I find it takes some time to understand what is going on (even though I have a physics degree!) I think it's the way that areas jump unexpectedly across the figure from one side to the other. Would it be possible for them to slide, or for arrows to be used or something to show what's moving where? --MichaelMaggs 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to slide but to rotate. Maybe I'll give it a try, but I'm not sure the result will be pretty to see - Alvesgaspar 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Quod erat demonstrandum --LucaG 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one better than the alternative, things don't really "slide" so much as violently jerk in animated gifs. I never knew how Pythagoras came up with this proof but after watching this two times it's crystal clear. Calibas 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Because I support the other version which I think is much better. The font change makes a big difference. /Daniel78 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Because I prefer the other version with the serif font and the modified animation. -- Slaunger 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose In the hope the other version is promoted instead. Benh 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative (right), featured

•  Info - Alternative version following MichaelMaggs suggestion - Alvesgaspar 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Alvesgaspar 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 05:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Actually I don't know which version to support. This one seems to be slightly easier to understand after viewing the animation only a few times. Shushruth 06:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I think this is the best animation. I wish that font was an italic serif one though (e.g., Times New Roman) as Benh also suggest. It would just give it that last touch of professionalism. -- Slaunger 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done - Alvesgaspar 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent! -- Slaunger 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The slide, though not smooth, shows clearly how the squares are formed. --Tony Wills 11:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Of course :) One last thing (sorry to bother !!) "area" shouldn't be in italic here, it's not a variable. Benh 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• same thing with the numbers (square) which have to be "straight" (?). Benh 11:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• You are right, I'll fix it later (though "area" could be taken as the name of a variable...) - Alvesgaspar 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Although I always feel a bit stressed by all gif animations that try to explain something in many steps. What I would really like to have something where you clicked next to see the next stage. /Daniel78 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with you. It should be possible to visualize gif animations frame by frame. - Alvesgaspar 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - I made a slight edition on this version to smooth the animation and make the final frame longer - Alvesgaspar 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ...which improved it further IMO. -- Slaunger 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Brilliant! Finn Rindahl 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ram-Man 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support it's media like this that has real practical value that needs featuring the most --Ben^hello! 12:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very ilustrative Chabacano 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Pumpmeup 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)