Talk:Wallace–Bolyai–Gerwien theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMathematics Start‑class Low‑priority
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Name clarification[edit]

I think the "William Wallace" who proved this theorem is different from Sir William Wallace. Are there any information about him? And what is the full name of Gerwien? --Hkpawn 15:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems there's no proof that the firstname of Gerwien be Paul, see [1]( In fact, as indicated in this post, Gerwien could well be Karl Ludwig Gervien ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the proof constructive?[edit]

Does there exist an algorithm for actually performing such reassembly for any two polygons, or does the proof merely show that it's possible without specifying how? - Sikon (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone please transfer this image to Commons? João Seelig (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rework August 2015[edit]

I just thoroughly changed the article, according to my current knowledge and (hopefully) to follow wikipedia's guidelines on maths articles a bit more. I tried to preserve as much of the original content as possible, but that hasn't been easy. The History section has been copied verbatim, but I'd love to see some reference to it, possibly a slightly extended version. Without reference, I'm not sure how much I can believe of it, actually.

As for the rest of the article, I'm not entirely sure how much the sketch of the proof contributes to the article. It was previously in the introduction. What I did was move it and extend it to increase readability (hopefully). Since some major steps are omitted from the proof anyway, I'd say it could in fact be omitted. The notes on the proof in the next section, however, are still useful for those who do not know the proof. I would strongly recommend leaving those comments intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSNie (talkcontribs) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]