This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Would it perhaps be prudent to merge this article with the article about INTPs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.128.14 ( talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm removing most of the "Distinguished Architects" section because it seems pretty un-verifiable :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrickMcLargeHuge ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I think that is premature, given that all the other similar pages still have the list, furthermore, it seems as verifiable as anythying else that deals with biography or sociology, all though it might take more work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.33.59 ( talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

This is a good article, but it's seriously lacking sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.133.208 ( talk) 20:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I really want to list L Lawliet from Death Note as a notable Architect... I know it wouldn't fly though because he's not a real person, but it would make INTPs all over the world feel so much better. But Albert Einstein's on the list so there's not too much reason to worry. NERVUN ( talk) 12:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The list of notable Architects needs better sourcing or it becomes NN trivia -- Guerillero | My Talk 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Are we sure this is an INTP trait? I'm an INTP and I don't see that in myself (I might not be aware of it, though). What makes me skeptical most about it is that I think it's a Te trait, not Ti. Someone please elaborate on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvantir ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I've removed it; the whole section is pretty much OR, but most of it could be found in reliable profiles of Architects - not pragmatism, though, unless you're defining it very loosely. FWIW, I'm an INTP as well, and I have some unusual traits for them: for example, I can get very wrapped up in sentimental things and prefer to "cushion" unpleasant statements rather than just go "This is how it is; prove me wrong." And that much can be expected; the MBTI isn't going to perfectly fit everyone, only approximate their traits. Pragmatism, though, is not something I've really ever heard attributed to Architects/INTPs before, and does not jibe with N or P at all. Tezero ( talk) 19:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I have been a registered architect since 1986 working for firms like Arrowsreet, TAC and SBRA. IMHO this analysis is spot on. I can't speak for every architect on the planet, but of the thousands I have interacted with at every level from students at MIT to people grinding out production in CAD pits, doing labs, highrise offices, transportation systems, water treatment plants or building New Cities in the middle of deserts , Social Pragmatism describes the mindset well. The idea is to engineer a better world systematically and its been that way for thousands of years.

International standards of measure, incorporated in cathedrals during the dark ages to keep the STEMs safe, unit fractions, ratios and proportions help make international business, property laws, navigation, contracts, treaties and economies more efficient.

The design process from proposal to program, design development, working drawings, permit sets, bid documents, contract administration and punch list takes subtle gestures of hand waved ideas and keeps making them scientifically more precise until it gets built and even then it doesn't stop.

I'd love to hear why its a Te trait and Not both; TE-Ti. We tend to think in terms of paired opposites with a seven termed dialectical process of asking and answering questions; chaos, mythos, eros, holos, logos, chronos, cosmos of which Chronos, the time constraint is the bain of our existence. Once we have thought through where our program is taking us be begin engaging others in the process of consensus building. More than once we are invited to go back to the drawing board, or these days our Sketchup so we can't have any problems with our ego's taking a hit. Its not enough just to have a design that works, we have to do design development and make the architecture work and when it does we have to make you love it. The best analogy I can think of is trying to win chopped; you want to take risks, explore new ideas, make the presentation eye watering and have everything cooked to perfection, then you turn into a shameless hustler trying to sell it to a skeptical audience that has seen it all. 142.0.102.55 ( talk) 00:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The most common architectural trait I have observed is a favorable attitude toward the self, we may be egotistical.

142.0.102.55 ( talk) 23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Remen can be either 4:5 making it the hypotenuse or 3:4 making it the side of a right triangle. If the remen is the hypotenuse of a 3:4:5 triangle then the foot is one side and the quarter another so the proportions are 3:4 quarter to foot, 4:5 foot to remen and 3:5 quarter to Remen. The quarter is 1/4 yard. The foot is 1/3 yard. The remen is

The remen may also be the side of a square whose diagonal is a cubit The proportion of remen to cubit is 4:5

The proportion of palm to remen is 1:5

The proportion of hand to remen is 1:4

The proportion of palm to foot is 1:4

The proportion of hand to foot is 1:3

The table below demonstrates a harmonious system of proportion much like the musical scales, with fourths and fifths, and other scales based on geometric divisions, diameters, circumferences, diagonals, powers, and series coordinated with the canons of architectural proportion, Pi, phi and other constants..

In Mesopotamia and Egypt the Remen could be divided into different proportions as a similar triangle with sides as fingers, palms, or hands. The Egyptians thought of the Remen as proportionate to the cubit or mh foot and palm.

They used it as the diagonal of a unit rise or run like a modern framing square. Their related seked gives a slope. Its convenient to think of remen as intermediate to both large and small scale elements.

Even before the Greeks like Solon, Herodotus, Pythagorus, Plato, Ptolomy, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, and the Romans like Vitruvius, there seems to be a concept that all things should be related to one another proportionally.

Its not certain whether the ideas of proportionality begin with studies of the elements of the body as they relate to scaling architecture to the needs of humans, or the divisions of urban planning laying out cities and fields to the needs of surveyors.

In all cultures the canons of proportion are proportional to reproducable standards.

In ancient cultures the standards are divisions of a degree of the earths circumference into mia chillioi, mille passus, and stadia.

Stadia, are used to lay out city blocks, roads, large public buildings and fields

Fields are divided into acres using as their sides, furlongs, perches, cords, rods, fathoms, paces, yards, cubits, and remen which are proportional to miles and stadia

Buildings are divided into feet, hands, palms and fingers, which are also systematized to the sides of agricultural units.

Inside buildings the elements of the architectural design follow the canons of proportion of the the inscription grids based on body measures and the orders of architectural components.

In manufacturing the same unit fraction proportions are systematized to the length and width of boards, cloth and manufactured goods.

The unit fractions used are generally the best sexigesimal factors, three quarters, halves, 3rds, fourths, fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, tenths, unidecimals, sixteenths and their inverses used as a doubling system

Greek Remen generally have long, median and short forms with their sides related geometrically as arithmetric or geometric series based on hands and feet.

• The Egyptian bd is 300 mm and its remen is 375 mm. the proportion is 1:1.25
• The Ionian pous and Roman pes are a short foot measuring 296 mm their remen is 370 mm
• the Old English foot is 3 hands (15 digits of 20.32 mm) = 304.8 mm and its remen is 381 mm
• The Modern English foot is 12 inches of 25.4 mm = 304.8 mm and its remen is 381 mm (15")
• The Attic pous measures 308.4 mm its remen is 385.5
• The Athenian pous measures 316 mm and is considered of median length its remen is 395 mm
• Long pous are actually Remen (4 hands) and pygons
• See cubit for the discussion of the choice of division into hands or palms
• See the table below for proportions relative to other ancient Mediterranean units

Roman Remen generally have long, and short forms with their sides related geometrically as arithmetric or geometric series based on fingers palms and feet.

By Roman times the Remen is standardized as the diagonal of a 3:4:5 triangle with one side a palmus and another a pes. The Remen and similar forms of sacred geometry formed the basis of the later system of Roman architectural proportions as described by Vitruvius.

Generally the sexagesimal (base-six) or decimal (base-ten) multiples have Mesopotamian origins while the septenary (base-seven) multiples have Egyptian origins.

1 daktulos (pl. daktuloi), digit

= 1/16 pous

1 condulos

= 1/8 pous

1 palaiste, palm

= ¼ pous

1 dikhas

= ½ pous

1 spithame, span

= ¾ pous

1 pous (pl. podes), foot

≈ 316 mm, said to be 3/5 Egyptian royal cubit. There are variations, from 296 mm ( Ionic) to 326 mm ( Doric)

1 pugon, Homeric cubit

= 1¼ podes

1 pechua, cubit

= 1½ podes ≈ 47.4 cm

1 bema, pace

= 2½ podes

1 khulon

= 4½ podes

1 orguia, fathom

= 6 podes

1 akaina

= 10 podes

1 plethron (pl. plethra)

= 100 podes, a cord measure

1 stadion (pl. stadia)

= 6 plethra = 600 podes ≈ 185.4 m

1 diaulos (pl. diauloi)

= 2 stadia, only used for the Olympic footrace introduced in 724 BC

1 dolikhos

= 6 or 12 diauloi. Only used for the Olympic foot race introduced in 720 BC

1 parasanges

= 30 stadia ≈ 5.5 km. Persian measure used by Xenophon, for instance

1 skhoinos (pl. skhoinoi, lit. "reefs")

= 60 stadia ≈ 11.1 km (usually), based on Egyptian river measure iter or atur, for variants see there

1 stathmos

≈ 25 km, one day's journey. May have been variable, dependent on terrain

For variant, the stadion at Olympia measures 192.3 m. With a widespread use throughout antiquity, there were many variants of a stadion, from as short as 157.5 m up to 222 m, but it is usually stated as 185 m.

The Greek root stadios means 'to have standing'. Stadions are used to measure the sides of fields.

In the time of Herodotus, the standard Attic stadion used for distance measure is 600 pous of 308.4 mm equal to 185 m. so that 600 stadia equal one degree and are combined at 8 to a mia chilioi or thousand which measures the boustredon or path of yoked oxen as a distance of a thousand orguia, taken as one orguia wide which defines an aroura or thousand of land and at 10 agros or chains equal to one nautical mile of 1850 m.

Several centuries later, Marinus and Ptolemy used 500 stadia to a degree, but their stadia were composed of 600 Remen of 370 mm and measured 222 m, so the measuRement of the degree was the same.

The same is also true for Eratosthenes, who used 700 stadia of 157.5 m or 300 Egyptian royal cubits to a degree, and for Aristotle, Posidonius, and Archimedes, whose stadia likewise measured the same degree.

The 1771 Encyclopædia Britannica mentions a measure named acæna which was a rod ten (Greek) feet long used in measuring land. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class= 142.0.102.55 ( talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Is a 3-4-5 triangle a ratio? Are the number of terms limited to two, or does that merely define the dimension of the ratio? Are irrational numbers such as Pi and Phi legitimate ratios where they aren't defined by whole numbers but rather the ratio of a circles radius to its circumference. Can anything expressible as a fraction be considered a ratio? How about continuous fractions? Are they ratios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.102.9 ( talk) 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, the section "Number of terms" gives an example using four terms in the percentage part. You can certainly say that the ratio of lengths of sides in the simplest Pythagoras triangle is 3:4:5. Ratio numbers do not have to be integers. Perhaps we should have a mention in the article that the ratio of circumference to diameter in any circle is ${\displaystyle \pi }$:1 and that the ratio of side length to diagonal length in a regular pentagon is 1:${\displaystyle \phi }$ Dbfirs 06:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

One way to use ratios is with a sequence of heights/widths/depths per unit time

that essentially invokes a fourth dimension of time to create an arc which can be either two dimensional or three dimensional

and in practice is a lot like lofting the hull of a boat; theoretically if the line has a shape you could get nurbs and splines.

Pythagorus studied Egyptian unit fractions and their use by Egyptian architects to define curves as for example.

About 5000 years ago an Egyptian architect at Saqarra came up with a method for describing the arc of a circle at least well enough that his contractor could use it to construct an arch. I know that the Egyptian Rhind papyrus of 1800BC gives the area of a circle as ${\displaystyle 64/81d^{2}}$, where ${\displaystyle d}$ is the diameter of the circle, but thats much later.

• 17. Somers Clarke and R. EnglebachAncient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. Dover. 1990. ISBN  0486264858.

A text found at Saquara dating to c 3000 BC or 5000 years BP has a picture of a curve and under the curve the dimensions given in fingers to the right of the circle as reconstructed to the right. It was presumed the horizontal spacing was based on a royal cubit but the results if based on an ordinary cubit are different. It appears the value for PI being used is 3 '8 '64 '1024. which at 3.141601563 is slightly better than the Rhind value.

The circumference of the circle is 1200 fingers and the diameter of the circle is 191 x 2 = 382

3 '8 '64 '1024 x 382 ~= 1200.0

The side of the square is 12 royal cubits and its area is 434 square feet.

The area of the circle is 191^2 x 3.141601563.

The algorithm suggests working with coordinates and numerical analysis to define a curve.

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 3 1

1 4 6 4 1

1 5 10 10 5 1

3

3 + 1/2y^3 is 3 '8, = 3.125

3 + 1/2y^3 + 1/2y^6 is 3 '8 '64,= 3.140625

3 + 1/2y^3 + 1/2y^6 + 1/2y^10 is 3 '8 '64 '1024 = 3.141601563

For purposes of comparison(3 '7 = 3.142857143)

142.0.102.55 ( talk) 23:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply