ok, but if it's for pedagogical purposes, then it's even more important to point out that you're not done here (which the article misses). also, but this is pu

ok, but if it's for pedagogical purposes, then it's even more important to point out that you're not done here (which the article misses). also, but this is purely personal preference, I don't think geometrical constructions are a good way to introduce someone to proofs. it's easy to fall into traps of circular reasoning (as in this example) or outright wrong arguments, it's not clear when you've done enough work, and it doesn't generalize well to other problems (what is the general strategy here - "draw more stuff and hope you see something"?). personally, I'd much rather have an introduction to proofs eg through something like Induction - it's very clear when you're 'done', there's no debate about whether it's a 'real' proof, much less risk of falling into traps, it's closer to university-level math and, most importantly, it's a versatile general tool that is easy to apply to new problems (and easy to see where it can be applied)