This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Slant height page were merged into Cone. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2 April 2017) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Currently the lead says that the base of a cone is frequently, though not necessarily, circular. It then goes on to say
But reference [2] does not say that. It says
clearly distinguishing between pyramids and cones.
Is there any source for the assertion that something with a polygonal base and an apex can be called a cone? I doubt it, and I think the assertion should be either sourced or deleted. If deleted, I think we should find a source that the base of a cone has to be a circle or ellipse, and mention that in the article. Loraof ( talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
a convex set C is a cone with apex 0 provided ax is in C whenever x is in c and a ≥ 0.
In Conic section article there is mentioned "Generating line". In cone article it is called "generatrix". Would it be correct adding (mentioning) "Generating line" as synonym? generating_line_anon_user 11:26, 17 Nov 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.235.158 ( talk)
The article uses "Apex angle" but does not define it. Is it the aperture, half the aperture, the slant angle, or something else? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 12:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the angle of the circular sector obtained from a cone by unfolding the lateral surface? Is it equal to the axial section apex angle? — 213.233.84.39 ( talk) 15:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
in the right-top visual explanation, the surface area uses "l" as a variable which is not defined in the variable list. the image should be self-consistent, is the "l" supposed to be "c". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goofyseeker311 ( talk • contribs)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Slant height page were merged into Cone. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2 April 2017) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Currently the lead says that the base of a cone is frequently, though not necessarily, circular. It then goes on to say
But reference [2] does not say that. It says
clearly distinguishing between pyramids and cones.
Is there any source for the assertion that something with a polygonal base and an apex can be called a cone? I doubt it, and I think the assertion should be either sourced or deleted. If deleted, I think we should find a source that the base of a cone has to be a circle or ellipse, and mention that in the article. Loraof ( talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
a convex set C is a cone with apex 0 provided ax is in C whenever x is in c and a ≥ 0.
In Conic section article there is mentioned "Generating line". In cone article it is called "generatrix". Would it be correct adding (mentioning) "Generating line" as synonym? generating_line_anon_user 11:26, 17 Nov 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.235.158 ( talk)
The article uses "Apex angle" but does not define it. Is it the aperture, half the aperture, the slant angle, or something else? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 12:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the angle of the circular sector obtained from a cone by unfolding the lateral surface? Is it equal to the axial section apex angle? — 213.233.84.39 ( talk) 15:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
in the right-top visual explanation, the surface area uses "l" as a variable which is not defined in the variable list. the image should be self-consistent, is the "l" supposed to be "c". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goofyseeker311 ( talk • contribs)