Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio

Author(s): George Markowsky

Source: The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 2-19
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2686193
Accessed: 21-09-2017 06:45 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Mathematical Association of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The College Mathematics Journal

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio
George Markowsky

George Markowsky received his B.A. in mathematics from

Columbia University and his M.A. and Ph.D in mathematics from
Harvard University. From 1974 to 1984 he worked at IBM's
Thomas J. Watson Research Center and since then he has been
a member of the Computer Science Department at the Univer?
sity of Maine. His primary mathematical interests are lattice
theory, discrete mathematics and the applications of computers
to mathematical problems. He became interested in the Golden
Ratio as a result of preparing a talk on the subject for the
Classics Club at the University.

The golden ratio, also called by different authors the golden section [Cox], golden
number [Fi4], golden mean [Lin], divine proportion [Hun], and division in extreme
and mean ratios [Smi], has captured the popular imagination and is discussed in
many books and articles. Generally, its mathematical properties are correctly
stated, but much of what is presented about it in art, architecture, literature, and
esthetics is false or seriously misleading. Unfortunately, these statements about the
golden ratio have achieved the status of common knowledge and are widely
repeated. Even current high school geometry textbooks such as [Ser] make many
incorrect statements about the golden ratio.
It would take a large book to document all the misinformation about the golden
ratio, much of which is simply the repetition of the same errors by different
authors. This paper discusses some of the most commonly repeated misconcep?
tions.

Some Mathematical Properties of the Golden Ratio

The golden ratio arises from dividing a line segment so that the ratio of the whole
segment to the larger piece is equal to the ratio of the larger piece to the smaller
piece. This was called division in extreme and mean ratio by Euclid (see [Smi; Vol.
II, p. 291] and [Her]).

-> <-l-X->

Figure 1
Dividing a line segment according to the golden ratio

Figure 1 shows a line segment of length 1 divided into two pieces. This division
produces the golden ratio if (1/X) = X/(1 -X) or X2 +X- 1 = 0. The positive
root of this equation is X = (-1 + ^5)/2 = 0.61803398875..., so the ratio 1/X =
(l + ^5)/2? 1.61803398875... . Note that 1/X satisfies the equation Y2-Y-
1 = 0.

THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Commonly, the Greek letters <i> [Hil; p. 78] or r [Bur; p. 128] are used to
represent the golden ratio 1.61803... . I will use <J> throughout this paper to
represent 1.61803 .... (Some authors use 0 to represent 0.618... .)
The golden ratio appears in many geometrical constructions. For example, it
appears as the ratio of a side to the base in the 72?, 72?, 36? isosceles triangle.
Figure 2 shows an isosceles triangle ABC with two sides of length 1 and a base of
length X. Bisecting angle A creates an isosceles triangle ADC similar to the first.
Triangle ADB is also isosceles so that the lengths of BD, AD and AC are all
equal to X. CD has length 1 -X, and since ABC and CAD are similar, l/X =
X/(l-X) and X==l/0. From I/O it is easy to construct the 72?, 72?, 36?
triangle and using this triangle it is easy to construct pentagons, pentagrams and
decagons. For additional geometric constructions see [Odo] and [Rig; p. 29].

l-X

Figure 2
Deriving the proportions of a 72?, 72?, 36? triangle

The self-reproducing capability of the golden rectangle is also commonly cited.

R is a golden rectangle with dimensions a > b if a/b = O. Removing a square with
dimensions b X b from one end leaves a golden rectangle with dimensions b and
{a - b). Figure 3(a) shows how constructing a sequence of smaller golden rectan?
gles yields a spiral.
Spirals can be constructed using rectangles of any ratio other than 1:1. Figure
3(b) shows a sequence of smaller rectangles based on the ratio ^2:1. The smaller
rectangles are created from the larger rectangles by dividing the larger rectangle
exactly in half. Unlike Figure 3(a), every rectangle appearing in Figure 3(b) has
exactly the same proportion. For a general discussion of such constructions and
how they appear in living creatures see [Tho; pp. 181-187].
For additional information on the golden ratio and its connection with the
Fibonacci numbers see [Cov], [Cox], [Fo2], [Ga2], [Gru], [Knu] and [Rig]. Browsing

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 (a) (b)

Figure 3
Spirals of rectangles

through the Fibonacci Quarterly will also turn up much information about the
golden ratio and the Fibonacci numbers.

Misconception: The Name "Golden Ratio" Was Used in Antiquity

Many people assume that the names "golden ratio" and "golden section" are very
old. For example, Francois Lasserre states [Las; p. 76]
The proportion, famous throughout antiquity, has been known since
Leonardo da Vinci's time as the golden section.

However, the use of the adjective "golden" in connection with 3> is a relatively
modern one. Even the term "divine proportion" goes back only to the Renais?
sance. David Eugene Smith [Smi; Vol. II, p. 291] states:

The solution (of the problem of drawing 36? and 72? angles) is related to
that of the division of a line in extreme and mean ratio.2 This was referred
to by Proclus when he said that Eudoxus (c. 370 b.c.) 'greatly added to the
number of the theorems which Plato originated regarding the section'
This is the first trace that we have of this name for such a cutting of the
line.
In comparatively modern times the section appears first as 'divine
proportion,'3 and then, in the 19th century,4 as the 'golden section.'

In the above passage footnote 2 refers to Euclid, footnote 3 refers to Pacioli's

book De Divina Proportione and footnote 4 refers to an 1844 article in the Archiv
der Math, und Physik (IV, 15-22).
D. H. Fowler [Fol; p. 146] gives the following history.

It may surprise some people to find that the name 'golden section,' or
more precisely, goldener Schnitt, for the division of a line AB at a point C
such that AB ? CB =AC2, seems to appear in print for the first time in
1835 in the book Die reine Elementar-Mathematik by Martin Ohm, the
younger brother of the physicist Georg Simon Ohm. By 1849, it had
reached the title of a book: Der allgemeine goldene Schnitt und sein
Zusammenhang mit der harminischen Theilung by A. Wiegang. The first
use in English appears to have been in the ninth edition of the Encyclope?
dia Britannica (1875), in an article on Aesthetics by James Sully,.... The
first English use in a purely mathematical context appears to be in G.
Chrystal's Introduction to Algebra (1898).

THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The term "golden mean" was used in classical times to denote "the avoidance of
excess in either direction" [Oxf]. Some authors (for example [Lin]) use the term
"golden mean" to denote the golden ratio. The confusion of names might have led
some people to conclude that "golden mean" was used in classical times to denote
the golden ratio. For a detailed history of the golden ratio up until 1800 see [Her].

How to Find the Golden Ratio

Throughout this paper you will see passages from different works that assert
presence of the golden ratio in some work of art or architecture. In some cas
authors will draw golden rectangles that conveniently ignore parts of the ob
under consideration. In the absence of any clear criteria or standard methodolo
it is not surprising that they are able to detect the golden ratio.
Following Martin Gardner's lead I will call such unsystematic searching for
the Pyramidology Fallacy. Pyramidologists use such numerical juggling to justify
sorts of claims concerning the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Martin Gardn
[Gal; pp. 177-8] describes this methodology.
It is not difficult to understand how Smyth achieved these astonishing
scientific and historical correspondences. If you set about measuring a
complicated structure like the Pyramid, you will quickly have on hand a
great abundance of lengths to play with. If you have sufficient patience to
juggle them about in various ways, you are certain to come out with many
figures which coincide with important historical dates or figures in the
sciences. Since you are bound by no rules, it would be odd indeed if this
search for Pyramid 'truths' failed to meet with considerable success.

This process of juggling is rendered infinitely easier by two significant

facts. (1) Measurements of various Pyramid lengths are far from estab?
lished_(2) The figures which represent scientific truths are equally
vague. The distance to the sun...varies considerably because the earth's
path is not a circle but an ellipse. In such cases you have a wide choice of
figures. You can use the earth's shortest distance to the sun, or the
longest, or the mean.

Martin Gardner proceeds to illustrate this principle in action by derivi

"amazing numerical properties" of the Washington Monument based on statisti
taken from an almanac. [Gal] is well worth reading.
Another point overlooked by many golden ratio enthusiasts is the fact tha
measurements of real objects can only be approximations. Surfaces of real obje
are not perfectly flat. Furthermore, it is necessary to specify the precision of
measurements and to realize that inaccuracies in measurements lead to greater
inaccuracies in ratios. For example, a ?1% variation in the measurement of two
lengths can lead to a roughly ?2% variation (0.99/1.01 ? 0.98 to 1.01/0.99 ? 1.02)
in the ratio that is computed. Thus, someone eager to find the golden ratio
somewhere can alter two numbers by ? 1% and alter their ratio by roughly ?2%.
It is unfortunate that many writers on mathematical subjects treat measurements
of real objects as if they were exact numbers. To discuss the claims about O
intelligently it is necessary to create some guidelines for dealing with measure?
ments and ratios.
I propose the following guidelines. If measurements are given without an error
range I will assume that they are accurate to within + 1%. In practice, error ranges

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992 5

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
can be substantially better than this. For example, codes of practice for structural
engineers call for tolerances of 0.2% (see [Ame; pp. 6-235, 6-236]). For measure?
ments done with a ruler, a +1% error range represents roughly a 1/16" error in a
6 inch object.
As a consequence of this assumption, I will consider a claim for the presence of
O to be at least reasonable if the computed ratio is within about 2% of O. To be
more generous, I will expand these bounds a little and use the range 1.58 to 1.66.
For convenience I refer to the range [1.58,1.66] as the acceptance range. If a ratio
falls outside the acceptance range I will not consider it reasonable to claim that it
is O.
Even if a ratio falls within the acceptance range, this will not constitute
automatic proof that O is present. This simply means that a claim has passed the
first test and is worth investigating further. Since the acceptance range includes
infinitely many numbers near O it is necessary to justify the claim that O is the
preferred number. Some other ratio coincidentally near O might be the important
one.

I will compute ratios to at most 3 significant figures since we hav

of about ?2%.

Misconception: The Great Pyramid Was Designed to Conform to <I>

A variety of people have looked for O in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of
Khufu (Cheops), which was built before 2500 b.c. According to [Tas; p. 12] the
lengths of the sides of the base of the Great Pyramid range from 755.43 feet to
756.08 feet, so it is not a perfect square. The average length is 755.79 feet. The
height of the Great Pyramid is given as 481.4 feet. Every source that I have
checked for the dimensions gives values within 1% of these (e.g. [Gil; p. 185]).
Throughout this section I will use 755.79 feet as the length of the base and 481.4
feet as the height.
Some authors claim that the Great Pyramid was designed so that the ratio of the
slant height of the pyramid to half the length of the base would be O. In Figure 4,
h represents the height, b half the base, and s the slant height of the Great
Pyramid. From the Pythagorean theorem s ? 612.01 feet. This gives a ratio of
612.01/377.90 ~ 1.62 which differs from O by only 0.1%. Thus, we must examine
the claims put forward for the presence of the golden ratio in the dimensions of
the Great Pyramid.

Figure 4
A square pyramid

THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Quite a few books repeat the claim that O is present in the Great Pyramid by
design. For example, Martin Gardner [Gal; p. 178], Herbert Westren Turnbull
[Tur; p. 80] and David Burton repeat essentially the same story:

Herodotus related in one passage that the Egyptian priests told him that
the dimensions of the Great Pyramid were so chosen that the area of a
square whose side was the height of the great pyramid equaled the area of
a face triangle. [Bur; p. 62]

This passage implies that the ratio of the slant height of a face to half the length
of the base is the golden ratio. If the area of a face (Figure 4) is equal to the area
of a square whose side is equal h we get the equation h2 = sb. The Pythagorean
theorem yields h2 + b2 = s2. Let r = s/b. Dividing both equations by b2 and
expressing the results in terms of r yields (h/b)2 = r and (h/b)2 + 1 = r2. Combin?
ing these equations yields 0 = r2 ? r? 1, which has the golden ratio as its only
positive root.
Fischler [Fi2] and Gillings [Gil; pp. 238-239] have decided that this interpreta?
tion of Herodotus is bogus. Fischler traces it to the book The Great Pyramid, Why
Was It Built and Who Built It? which was published in 1859 by the pyramidologist
John Taylor.
Neither Gardner, Turnbull nor Burton specifies the location of this passage in
Herodotus. I could find only one passage about the dimensions of the Great
Pyramid in the translations of Herodotus's History (ca. 445-425 B.C.) by Rawlinson
[He2] and Selincourt [Hel], and the commentaries of How and Wells [How].
Rawlinson [He2] translates this passage, paragraph 124 of Book II, as follows.

The Pyramid itself was twenty years in building. It is a square, eight

hundred feet each way, and the height the same, built entirely of polished
stone fitted together with the utmost care. The stones of which it is
composed are none of them less than thirty feet in length.

The Selincourt translation [Hel; p. 179] is similar. Herbert Westren Turnbull [Tur;
p. 80] admits that his interpretation depends on "the slightest literal emendation."
Figure 5 is the text from Herodotus [Hud; 11.124, lines 16-20], and a translation.
The text in parentheses gives the antecedents for the pronouns, while the text in
braces lists alternative readings for the word. The text does not support the story
repeated by [Bur], [Gal] and [Tur].

tt) ?6 T:vpa\xihi avrfi yj)6vov yeveaOai ?ikoo~l

erea iroLevpLev^, ttjs kari Travraxfj [xeroyTrov eKaarov oktlo
irkiOpa iovcrris rerpaydvov kcu v\jros Icrov, \i0ov be ^earov
re kclI apixoajxivov ra fMaXtorra' ovbels t&v XLOuiV TpLrjKOvra
TTob&v e\ao-(ru)v.
(a) The original Greek.

of which (the pyramid) is in each direction {the face; the front} each one 8 {100 feet; 10,000
square feet} of being (the pyramid) {of four equal angles; square} and the height the same.
(b) A word by word translation.

Figure 5
Herodotus (Herodoti Historiae, p. 124, II, lines 16-20)

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Furthermore, Herodotus's figures about the dimensions of the Great Pyramid
are wildly off. The Great Pyramid neither is nor was (it has lost some height over
the years) anywhere near 800 feet tall nor 800 feet square at the base. Finally, we
should note that Herodotus wrote roughly two millennia after the Great Pyramid
was constructed.
The distorted version of Herodotus's story makes little sense. Even the authors
who quote it do not give a reason why the Egyptians would want to build a pyramid
so that its height was the side of a square whose area is exactly the area of one of
the faces. This idea sounds like something dreamt up to justify a coincidence
rather than a realistic description of how the dimensions of the Great Pyramid
were chosen. It does not appear that the Egyptians even knew of the existence of
O much less incorporated it in their buildings (see [Gil; pp. 238-9]).
Some authors [Men; p. 64, 73] have noticed that the ratio of the circumference
of the Great Pyramid to the height is approximately 2tt. Using the figures given
above yields 4 X 755.79/481.4 ? 6.28 which is well within ?2% of 2tt =
6.2831853.... Now, of course, we must decide whether this is a coincidence or
whether there is some reason why this ratio would be close to 277.
A wide variety of theories have been advanced for the proportions of the
Egyptian pyramids ranging from preserving a particular slope [Gil; pp. 185-187] to
using rollers to measure horizontal distances and ropes to measure vertical
distances [Men; pp. 64, 73]. [Fi5] gives a survey of these theories.

Misconception: The Greeks Used <f> in the Parthenon

Many sources (for example, [Ber; pp. 94-95], [Bro; p. Cll], [Hil; p. 79], [Hun; p.
63], [Man; p. 168], [Mit; p. 1445], [Pap; p. 102]) claim that the Parthenon embodies
the golden ratio in some way. To support this claim authors often include a figure
like Figure 6 where the large rectangle enclosing the end view of the Parthenon-like
temple is a golden rectangle. None of these authors is bothered by the fact that
parts of the Parthenon are outside the golden rectangle.
For example, Bergamini [Ber; pp. 94-95] presents a photograph and a line
drawing to illustrate how the Parthenon fits snugly in a golden rectangle. The
caption reads as follows.

The Parthenon at Athens fits into a golden rectangle almost precisely once
its ruined triangular pediment is drawn in. Though it incorporates many
geometric balances, its builders in the fifth century b.c. probably had no
conscious knowledge of the golden ratio.

H. E. Huntley [Hun; p. 63] presents a figure that looks like Figure 6 with the
caption,

The Parthenon at Athens, built in the fifth century, b.c, one of the world's
most famous structures. While its triangular pediment was still intact, its
dimensions could be fitted almost exactly into a Golden Rectangle, as
shown above. It stands therefore as another example of the aesthetic value
of this particular shape.
Similar statements can be found in the Random House Encyclopedia [Mit; p. 1445]
and in this journal [Man; p. 168].
The dimensions of the Parthenon vary from source to source probably because
different authors are measuring between different points. With so many numbers

THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 T~X T~X 3 C ^~X 3 c 3 c x~c

Figure 6
The Parthenon supposedly fitting into a golden rectangle

available a golden ratio enthusiast could choose whatever numbers gave the best
result.
Marvin Trachtenburg and Isabelle Hyman [Tra; p. 90] give the dimensions of the
Parthenon as: height = 45 feet 1 inch; width = 101 feet, 3.75 inches; length = 228
feet 1/8 inch. They do not specify the points between measurements. These
numbers give the ratios width/height ~ 2.25 = 9/4 and length/width ~ 2.25 which
are well outside the acceptance range. The reader might be struck by the fact that
the ratio 2.25 appears as the ratio of width/height and length/width. Stuart
Rossiter [Ros; p. 88] gives the height of the apex above the stylobate as 59 feet.
This gives a ratio of 101/59 ~ 1.71 which also falls outside the acceptance range.
According to Stuart Rossiter [Ros; p. 77]

Its (the Propylaia's) axis is alined to that of the Parthenon, its width would
have equalled the length of the temple, and like the Parthenon, its
proportions are worked out in the ratio of 4:9, thus affording the only
certain example before Hellenistic times of designing one building in
direct relationship to another.

More generally, Christine Flon [Flo; p. 131] dismisses much of the numerical
mysticism about ancient structures with the following comment.

On the basis of a small number of ancient texts, an effort has been made
to find (in buildings sufficiently well preserved) a coherent system of
proportions based on the golden number, pKir), or on the universal ratios
of the Pythagoreans. Almost always, when all possible measurements have
been taken, some system of geometric figures or some modular common
denominator has come to light. However, the validity of this research
remains uncertain: it is easy to overestimate the importance of an architec?
tural speculation. It is not unlikely that some architects, in imitation of
sculptures such as Polycleitos, should have wished to base their works on a
strict system of ratios, but it would be wrong to generalize. In the
conservative environment of ancient Greece, architectural activity was an
empirical practice in which experience and intuition, that is to say 'mastery',
played a large part.

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Misconception: Many Painters, Including Leonardo da Vinci, Used *
Golden ratio enthusiasts (for example [Ber; pp. 94,96], [Wil; p. 74]) also claim that
Leonardo da Vinci used the golden ratio widely in his artistic works. In particular,
Margaret F. Willerding [Wil; p. 74] states
THE GOLDEN SECTION. As we look about us, we see many geometric
patterns in nature, art, architecture, and even in such mundane things as
tables, chairs, and cups and saucers. A very special pattern that we find in
leaves around the stems of plants, in seashells, and in the arrangement of
sunflower seeds is called the golden section. Leonardo da Vinci, one of the
greatest geniuses of all times, stated proportions for the ideal figure in
terms of this geometric pattern.

Bergamini [Ber; p. 94] is more specific:

SYMMETRY IN A FACE. In Leonardo da Vinci's drawing of an old

man, probably a self-portrait, the artist has overlaid the picture with a
square subdivided into rectangles, some of which approximate Golden
Rectangles.

The drawing Bergamini is describing is often reproduced (Figure 7). Since the
rectangles in Figure 7 are very roughly drawn and do not have square corners it is
difficult to see the significance of the claim that some rectangles "approximate"
golden rectangles.

Figure 7
A drawing attributed to Leonardo da Vinci

10 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The claims that Leonardo da Vinci used the golden ratio seem to be based on
the fact that he illustrated Luca Pacioli's book De Diuina Proportione (1498, [Cla;
p. 72]). The biographies of Leonardo da Vinci by Clark, Vallentin [Val], and
Zammattio et al. [Zam] give no indication that he used the golden ratio in
paintings or drawings not intended for Pacioli's book. Roger Fischler [Fi3; p. 31]
claims that Pacioli "advocated a classical Vitruvian system, that is a system based
on simple proportions," and did not advocate using the golden ratio for painting.
Another painting often used (for example [Ber; p. 96], [Pap; p. 33]) to support
the claim that Leonardo da Vinci used the golden ratio extensively in his art is a
painting of St. Jerome ([Cla; plate 18]). For example, Bergamini states

RECREATIONS of DA VINCI. St. Jerome, an unfinished canvas by

Leonardo da Vinci painted about 1483, shows the great scholar with a lion
lying at his feet. A Golden Rectangle (black overlay) fits so neatly around
St. Jerome that some experts believe Leonardo purposely painted the
figure to conform to those proportions. Such an approach would have
been in keeping with the artist's ardent interest in mathematics. He took
special delight in what he once described as 'geometrical recreations.'

A glance at Figure 8 from [Ber; p. 96] is sufficient to show the flaws in the claims
about this painting. The placement of the rectangle is somewhat arbitrary since the
top does not touch the head. The rectangle is drawn using a very thick line. Its left
side is tangent to a small fold of fabric and does not touch St. Jerome's body at any
point. St. Jerome's right arm extends well past the left side of the superimposed
rectangle. Finally, Leonardo da Vinci's acquaintance with the divine proportion
dates from his meeting with Luca Pacioli, which occurred 13 years after he painted
St. Jerome.

Figure 8
St. Jerome by Leonardo da Vinci

Bergamini [Ber; pp. 94-97] also claims that Mondrian and Seurat used the
golden ratio in their paintings. Again no exact data are given, but rectangles are

VOL 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992 11

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
superimposed over sketches and paintings with no justification being given for the
particular lines being drawn. Roger Fischler's [Fi3; p. 31] detailed analysis of
Seurat's writings, sketches and paintings shows that Seurat did not use the golden
ratio as a basis for his paintings. Fischler also discusses the alleged use of the
golden ratio by other painters, including Le Corbusier [Fil].

Misconception: The UN Building Embodies the Ratio <?>

The UN Building is supposedly another example of the golden ratio. The Random
House Encyclopedia [Mit; p. 1445] states

The Greeks saw beauty in number and shape and their excitement with
the golden ratio [5] manifested itself in their art and architecture and has
been echoed by later civilizations in such places as Notre Dame in Paris,
in the architecture of Le Corbusier, and in the UN building in New York.

We can assume that the reference is to the Secretariat Building, the most
prominent of the UN buildings in its New York complex. The UN gave these
dimensions for the Secretariat Building over the phone: 505 feet high, 287 feet
wide, and 72 feet thick. The only ratio even remotely close to 0 is height/width ~
1.76 which is outside the acceptance range 1.58 to 1.66. [Mob; p. 301] gives the
height of the Secretariat building as 550 feet, while [Whi] gives the height as 544
feet. These values give height/width ratios of 1.92 and 1.90, which are even further
away from O.
The explanation of the differences in height from the people in the UN's
Architectural Planning Section was that the building rises 505 feet from the main
entrance level, but it extends 41 feet below this level. Thus, the height depends on
whether you measure it from the west side of the building and street level (41 feet
up) or whether you measure it from the east side at river level. At any rate, the
Secretariat building does not appear to be designed on the basis of the golden
ratio.
To see how significant the golden ratio is in architecture I consulted several
books on architecture. I could not find golden number, golden ratio, golden section
or divine proportion in the indexes of [Mus] or [Tra]. An attack on the 0 cult in
architecture is found in [Coo].

Misconception: A Golden Rectangle Is the Most Esthetically

Pleasing Rectangle
A common claim is that the golden rectangle is in some way the most esthetically
pleasing of all rectangles. For example,

The golden rectangle was used by Greek architects in dimensions of their

temples and other buildings. Psychologists have shown that most people
will unconsciously select post cards, pictures, mirrors, and packages with
these dimensions. For some reason, the golden rectangle holds the most
artistic appeal. [Wil; p. 74]

The Golden Rectangle is said to be one of the most visually satisfying of

all geometric forms; [Ber; p. 94]

Tastes may vary, but many people asked to select one of the shapes shown
in Figure 13.5 for note-paper or for the frame of a picture would choose
the third. It is not too square and not too elongated. [Lan; p. 222]

12 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 9
A reconstruction of Figure 13.5 from Land's book

Figure 9 shows a computer reconstruction of Land's Figure 13.5.

The New Columbia Encyclopedia [Har; p. 1103] in its article about the golden
section states

The Golden Rectangle, whose length and width are the segments of a line
divided according to the Golden Section, occupies an important position
in painting, sculpture, and architecture, because its proportions have long
been considered the most attractive to the eye.

Many of the claims about people's preference for the golden ratio seem to be
based in large part on the experiments of Gustav Fechner performed in the 1860s.
According to Leonard Zusne [Zus; p. 399],

Fechner's procedure consisted in placing 10 rectangles before a subject

and asking him to select the most pleasing rectangle. The rectangles varied
in their height/length ratios from 1.00 (square) to .40_ The modal
rectangle had a height/length ratio of .62, i.e., the golden section, with
76% of all choices centering on three rectangles having the ratios .57, .62,
and .67. While all other rectangles received less than 10% of the choices
each, Fechner's results still indicated that many other rectangles besides
the golden-section rectangle were considered the most pleasing by a fair
number of subjects.

The above statement can hardly be viewed as overwhelming evidence for the
importance of the golden ratio in esthetics. Furthermore, Fechner's testing was
rather limited since he offered only 10 choices. If the choices were presented
ordered by increasing or decreasing proportion one could argue that people would
tend to select the ones in the middle.
H. R. Schiffman and D. J. Bobko [Sch; p. 102] state

Research on the golden section proportion as an empirically demonstrable

preference has most often been applied to the rectangle where the results,
on the whole, are negative.

Figures 10 and 11 can be used in your own tests to see whether people
consistently select the golden ratio as the most pleasing ratio for a rectangle.
Figure 10 shows 48 randomly arranged rectangles all having the same height but
with their widths ranging from 0.4 times the height to 2.5 times the height.
In Figure 11 the same 48 rectangles are arranged by increasing length when read
from left to right and bottom to top. Figures 10 and 11 each contain two rectangles
that qualify as golden rectangles, one having ratio 0 and the other having ratio
I/O, and two rectangles that exhibit the ratio of the Parthenon: 9/4 and 4/9. See
if you can identify them.

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992 13

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Cn D ? ? ? ? cn ?

n cn ? ? cn ? ? n

D ? D D D D D ?

? D ? D D D D ?

? cn d a cn d n cn

cn a ? ? n d n d
Figure 10
Rectangles with ratios ranging from 0.4 to 2.5 in random order

? ???????

? nnnnnnn

D D D D D D ? D
Figure 11
Rectangles with ratios ranging from 0.4 to 2.5 in linear order

My informal experiments asking people attending my lectures to select the

"most pleasing rectangle" suggest that people cannot find the golden rectangle in
Figure 10. Furthermore, they generally select slightly different rectangles as the
most pleasing rectangles when shown both Figure 10 and Figure 11.
In the experiments I have conducted so far, the most commonly selected
rectangle is one with a ratio of 1.83 (row 3, column 4 of Figure 10). In Figure 10,
the numbers closest to <I>, I/O, 9/4 and 4/9 are locations (4,5), (5,4), (3,8) and
(6,6) respectively where the first coordinate gives the row and the second coordi?
nate gives the column. In Figure 11, the corresponding locations are (4,4), (6,6),
(1,2) and (6,2).
I also experimented with a collection of 48 rectangles with ratios ranging from
1.6 to 1.7, which has convinced me that most people cannot see any differences

1 4 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
among the rectangles whose ratios are so close together. This strongly suggests that
even if people do prefer certain rectangles, the only reasonable claim would be
that people prefer ratios in a certain range. The various claims made about the
esthetic importance of the golden ratio seem to be without foundation.

Misconception: The Human Body Exhibits <?>

Some authors claim that the human body is designed according to the golden ratio.
For example, Browne [Bro; p. Cll] states
Penrose tiling has another characteristic that fascinates mathematicians
and architects: it exhibits a feature known to the ancient Greeks as 'the
golden mean,' a ratio that has been used in paintings, sculpture and
architecture through the ages. The golden mean governs the proportions
of the Parthenon and many other classical buildings. The ratio, as applied
to artistic shapes and structures, is roughly equal to the ratio of lengths of
the human body as divided at the navel, and is regarded as particularly
pleasing to the eye.

This passage repeats many of the misconceptions we have already discussed and
adds the claim that the ratio of a person's height to the height of his/her navel is
roughly the golden ratio. We are not told why this is significant; the navel is a scar
of no great importance in an adult human being. Much of the work relating the
golden ratio to the human body suffers from the Pyramidology Fallacy.
While it might be entertaining to compute the ratio of many people's heights to
the elevations of their navels, I did not spend much time on this effort. I did
compute the ratios for the four members of my immediate family: 1.59, 1.63, 1.65
and 1.66. Their average is 1.63, which falls within our test interval for the golden
ratio, although even in this small sample there is a significant amount of variation.
However, there is some ambiguity about the precise location of the navel since it
has a nontrivial length.
Boles and Newman [Bol; p. 47] find <? in, among other things, two Greek
statues, Doryphoros the Spearbearer by Polycleitos and Aphrodite of Cyrene.
The sketch of Doryphoros shows him divided into three zones: from the top of
the head to the right nipple on the chest which is given the length 1; from the right
nipple on the chest to the right knee which is given the length 1.61803; from the
right knee to the big toe on the right foot which is given the length 1. It is unlikely
that measurements were made accurately enough to justify a ratio with 5 decimal
places. In particular, a knee covers a large area and should not be treated as a
single point. A quick examination of their diagram shows that the left side of
Doryphoros does not have the same proportions.
The sketch of Aphrodite of Cyrene is also divided into three zones, including
one with a length of 1.61803. This time, since Aphrodite is missing her head, the
first zone runs from the stump of the neck to the navel, the second zone runs from
the navel to the right knee, and the third zone runs from the right knee to some
indeterminate point on the right foot. Again, assigning 1.61803 as a length is
nonsense and seems to imply that the sculptor of Aphrodite anticipated that she
would lose her head.
Besides seeing the golden ratio in the statues just mentioned, Boles and
Newman see it in many animal forms. [Bol; p. 59] shows a hawk, a dragonfly, a
flying squirrel and a sunfish boxed by golden rectangles. The proportion of the
golden rectangle is given as 1.61803 as before. Of course, wings, legs and fins can

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992 15

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
be moved over a wide range of positions and it is not surprising that the golden
rectangle can often be produced. Like the arm of St. Jerome, the tail of the flying
squirrel extends well past the boundaries of the bounding golden rectangle. Some
of the wing feathers of the hawk also extend past the boundaries. On page 59 of
[Bol] the left side of the bounding golden rectangle does not touch any part of the
sunfish or dragonfly. Despite these difficulties, Boles and Newman express the
proportions of the bounding rectangle using 5 significant figures.

Misconception: Virgils' Aeneid Exhibits 4>

George E. Duckworth wrote Structural Patterns and Proportions in Vergil's Aeneid
[Due] to prove that Virgil used $ as a key element in designing the Aeneid.
Duckworth arrives at this conclusion by computing the ratios of the lengths of
different passages in the Aeneid. His work is criticized by Curchin and Fischler
[Cur], Fischler [Fi4], and Bews [Bew]. Some of the points raised in [Fi4] are quite
interesting to a mathematician.
Duckworth measures the number of lines in what he calls major (M) and minor
(ra) passages. If m/M is the reciprocal of the golden ratio I/O, then m/M =
M/(m + M). On this basis Duckworth claims that he can use either measure and
uses M/(m + M) as being "slightly more accurate" [Due, p. 43, Note 6]. On page
65 in Note 7, Duckworth observes that m/M shows a greater variation from the
golden ratio than M/(m + M). Unfortunately, he does not realize that he is
fooling himself by using M/(m + M). If m/M varies uniformly and randomly over
[0,1], the ratio M/(m + M) is restricted to the range [0.5,1] and is not uniformly
distributed.
This point is illustrated in Figures 12 and 13. Figure 12 is a histogram for 1000
points chosen at random from the uniform distribution [0,1] for the value r = m/M.

Figure 12
One thousand values for m/M chosen at random

16 THE COLLEGE MATHEMATICS JOURNAL

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The points have been grouped into intervals of width 0.01. Figure 13 shows the
1000 points from Figure 12 replotted using M/(m +M)= 1/(1 + r) instead of
m/M = r.
The expected value of points chosen uniformly and randomly from the interval
[0,1] is 0.5. On the other hand, choosing values from [0,1] at random and plotting
them as 1/(1 + r) produces the following expected value:

dx
fi ax
ln(l+x) = In2-Inl = In2?0.69,

which is not the golden ratio, but is nevertheless closer to 0.61803... than is
For additional mathematical analysis of Duckworth's approach see [Fi4].

Figure 13
The values from Figure 12 replotted using M/(m + M)

Curchin and Fischler [Cur; p. 133] conclude that

An analysis, using the ratio m/M, has now been made with Duckworth's
data and indicates that random scattering is indeed the case with Virgil."

Not only did Duckworth waste a lot of time on his misguided effort, but other
people bandy his results about uncritically. An example can be found in [Nim;
p. 317] in the chapter entitled "Golden Numbers." This chapter, besides repeating
some of the errors discussed earlier in this paper, contains the following sentence
on page 317:

And Vergil, Dante's guide, appears to have made an almost unbelievable

use of the proportions of the golden section and the Fibonacci numbers
(as they were later named).*

The * refers to a footnote referencing Duckworth's work.

VOL. 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992 17

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Juliet Markowsky and Ed Laverty for helping to make this
paper more readable. I am grateful to Jay Bregman and Tina Passman for translating the Greek
passage from Herodotus. I would like to acknowledge helpful references from Pat Burnes, Tom Byther,
Mohamed Elgaaly, Ed Ferguson, Martin Gardner, Bill Halteman, Paul Schroeder and Bill Soule. I
would also like to thank my family for letting me measure their proportions and all the people who
attended my lectures on the golden ratio and selected the most beautiful rectangles.

References

The following is not an exhaustive list of books and papers dealing with the golden ratio, but it should
serve as a good starting point for your own investigations in this area. (Note that Roger Fischler and
Roger Herz-Fischler are the same person.)

[Ame] American Institute of Steel Construction, Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and
Bridges, AISC, Chicago, 1986.
[Ber] David Bergamini and the Editors of LIFE, Mathematics, Time Incorporated, New York, 1963.
[Bew] Jane B. Bews, Aeneid I and 618?, Phoenix 24, 2 (1970) 130-143.
[Bol] Martha Boles and Rochelle Newman, The Golden Relationship, 2nd ed., Pythagorean Press,
Bradford, MA, 1987.
[Bro] Malcolm W. Browne, "Impossible" form of matter takes spotlight in study of solids, New York
Times, September 5, 1989, pages Cl & Cll.
[Bur] David M. Burton, The History of Mathematics: An Introduction, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1985.
[Cla] Kenneth Clark, Leonardo da Vinci, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1976.
[Coo] T. Cook, A new disease in architecture, The Nineteenth Century & After 91 (1922) 521-53.
[Cov] Thomas M. Cover, Do longer games favor the stronger player?, The American Statistician 43, 4
(1989) 277-278.
[Cox] H. S. M. Coxeter, The golden section, phyllotaxis, and Wythoffs game, Scripta Mathematica 19
(1953) 135-143.
[Cur] L. Curchin and R. Fischler, Hero of Alexandria's numerical treatment of division in extreme
and mean ratio and its implications, Phoenix 35, 2 (1981) 129-133.
[Due] George E. Duckworth, Structural Patterns and Proportions in Vergil's Aeneid: A Study in
Mathematical Composition, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1962.
[Fil] Roger Fischler, The early relationship of Le Corbusier to the "golden number," Environment
and Planning B 6 (1979) 95-103.
[Fi2] Roger Fischler, What did Herodotus really say? or how to build (a theory of) the great pyramid,
Environment and Planning B 6 (1979) 89-93.
[Fi3] Roger Fischler, On the application of the golden ratio in the visual arts, Leonardo 14 (1981),
31-32.
[Fi4] Roger Fischler, How to find the "golden number" without really trying, Fibonacci Quarterly 19
(1981) 406-410.
[Fi5] Roger Fischler, Theories mathematiques de la grande pyramide, Crux Mathematicorum 4 (1978)
122-129.

[Flo] Christine Flon, The World Atlas of Architecture, Mitchell Beazley Publishers, 1984. This is th
English edition of Le Grand Atlas de V Architecture Mondiale.
[Fol] D. H. Fowler, A generalization of the golden section, Fibonacci Quarterly 20 (1982) 146-15
[Fo2] D. H. Fowler, The Mathematics of Plato's Academy: A New Reconstruction, Clarendon Pres
Oxford, 1987.
[Gal] Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Dover, New York, 1957.
[Ga2] Martin Gardner, Penrose Tiles to Trapdoor Ciphers, W. H. Freeman, New York, 1989.
[Gil] Richard J. Gillings, Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1972.
[Gru] Branko Griinbaum and G. C. Shephard, Tilings and Patterns, W. H. Freeman, New York, 198
[Har] William H. Harris and Judith S. Levey, The New Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University
Press, New York, 1975.
[Hel] Herodotus, The Histories, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
England, 1954 (1979 reprinting).
[He2] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, translated by George Rawlinson, reprinted in 1936 by J
M. Dent & Sons, London.

18

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
[Her] Roger Herz-Fischler, A Mathematical History of Division in Extreme and Mean Ratio, Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Canada, 1987.
[Hil] Francis S. Hill, Jr., Computer Graphics, Macmillan, New York, 1990.
[How] W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, Oxford University Press, 1912
(reprinted 1967).
[Hud] Carolus Hude, ed., Herodoti Historiae, Oxonii, Londini, 1947.
[Hun] H. E. Huntley, The Divine Proportion, Dover, New York, 1970.
[Knu] Donald E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming: Fundamental Algorithms, Vol. 1, 2nd ed.,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973.
[Lan] Frank Land, The Language of Mathematics, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1963.
[Las] Francois Lasserre, The Birth of Mathematics in the Age of Plato, American Research Council,
Larchmont, NY, 1964.
[Lin] Charles F. Linn, The Golden Mean, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1974.
[Man] George Manuel and Amalia Santiago, An unexpected appearance of the golden ratio, The
College Mathematics Journal 19 (1988) 168-170.
[Men] Kurt Mendelssohn, The Riddle of the Pyramids, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1974.
[Mit] James Mitchell, ed., The Random House Encyclopedia, Random House, NY, 1977.
[Mob] Mobil Travel Guide {Northeastern States), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
[Mus] John Musgrove, ed., Sir Banister Fletcher's: A History of Architecture, 19th ed., Butterworth's,
London, 1987.
[Nim] John F. Nims, Western Wind: An Introduction to Poetry, Random House, New York, 1983.
[Odo] George Odom, Elementary problem E 3007, American Mathematical Monthly 90 (1983) 482.
[Oxf] The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971.
[Pap] Theoni Pappas, The Joy of Mathematics, Wide World Publishing, San Carlos, CA, 1989.
[Rig] J. F. Rigby, Equilateral triangles and the golden ratio, The Mathematical Gazette 72, 459, (1988)
27-30.
[Ros] Stuart Rossiter, Greece, 3rd ed., (in the Blue Guide Series), Ernest Benn Ltd., London, 1977.
[Sch] H. R. Schiffman and D. J. Bobko, Preference in linear partitioning: the golden section
reexamined, Perception & Psychophysics 24 (1978) 102-103.
[Ser] Michael Serra, Discovering Geometry: An Inductive Approach, Key Curriculum Press, Berkeley
CA, 1989.
[Smi] David Eugene Smith, History of Mathematics, Vol. II Special Topics of Elementary Mathematics
Dover, New York, 1953.
[Tas] Socrates G. Taseos, Back in Time 3104 B.C. to the Great Pyramid, SOC Publishers, Charlotte
NC, 1990.
[Tho] D'arcy Thompson, On Growth and Form, abridged edition, edited by J. T. Bonner, Cambridg
University Press, 1961.
[Tra] Marvin Trachtenberg and Isabelle Hyman, Architecture: From Prehistory to Post-Modernism /The
Western Tradition, Harry N. Abrams Inc., New York, 1986.
[Tur] Herbert Westren Turnbull, The great mathematicians, in James R. Newman's The World o
Mathematics, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1956, 75-168.
[Val] Antonina Vallentin, Leonardo da Vinci: The Tragic Pursuit of Perfection, translated by E. W.
Dickes, Viking Press, New York, 1938.
[Whi] Norval White and Elliot Willensky, AIA {American Institute of Architects) Guide to New York
City, Macmillan, New York, 1968.
[Wil] Margaret F. Willerding, Mathematical Concepts, A Historical Approach, Prindle, Weber &
Schmidt, Boston, 1967.
[Zam] Carlo Zammattio, Augusto Marinoni, and Anna Maria Brizio, Leonardo the Scientist, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1980.
[Zus] Leonard Zusne, Visual Perception of Form, Academic Press, New York, 1970.

VOL 23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1992 19

This content downloaded from 137.189.49.162 on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms