Comments on: Credit Cards and Golden Ratio Proportions

By: Less Random

Less Random — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 08:50:23 +0000

In reply to Gary B Meisner. One might just as well question the arbitrary 'fact' of whatever dimension has been given to creditcards & the like. One determinator was probably if it would fit into a wallet and another more ergonomic if it was handy, fitting nicely within the palm of ones hand, like Jain108 demonstrates in a youtube video. Myself I have come to assume the ratio is a mix of the golden ánd silver ratio, connecting it to the A-standard paper, although I am not sure what came first. Anyway, 2- 8,560/53,98= 0,4142..

By: ∆

Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:52:41 +0000

Another obscure fact is the creditcard’s relation to the great pyramid of Gizeh. A monument that appears to be based on 2 Fibonacci-rectangle of 89:55 ( i.e. join the 2 of them together so you get a 89:110 and drop both heights to the middle at a common height of about 70.)
If you use 2 creditcards instead; you won’t get a Kepler pyramid, of course, with a base to height ratio of 7/11, but a Creditcard Pyramid with a base to height ratio of (exactly) 8/13 !!
Was the designer of the creditcard maybe a Freemason and or a huge fan of the great pyramid of Gizeh ? I wonder.

By: Jungle George

Jungle George — Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:19:04 +0000

In general I find it strange to suggest that 27/17 is no way near the golden ratio being only 1/17 off from the fairly accurate approximation of 55/34

By: Jungle George

Jungle George — Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:57:11 +0000

In reply to Anyone. The unlikely "closet mathematician" referred to in the article, might just have been an equally big fan of the silver ratio as well with a rational credit card ratio of 157/99 not only being close to Phi, but also a silver rectangle, i.e. 41/99, from a double square.

By: Anyone

Anyone — Mon, 09 Oct 2023 10:57:02 +0000

ps all the more weird is the other visitor’s (personal) preference for ‘a’ ratio of 1: 1,41 (due its property of staying the same when doubled or halfed) is acclaimed to be as far from (mathematically) preferable to let’s say anyone as the Golden Ratio, which is pure nonsense.

By: 555

555 — Mon, 02 Oct 2023 07:59:18 +0000

Here’s someone blaming Donald Duck (i.e. Walt Disney) for perceiving the credit card as a Golden Rectangle.
Quite strange, as the main theme of his books and talks, is that accuracy is rarely needed to find a fairly correct answer.
https://robeastaway.com/blog/golden-rectangle

By: Correction

Correction — Thu, 20 Jul 2023 22:00:35 +0000

In reply to Likelyhood. I meant 6 sheets of A4, with a gap in the middle that magically holds 7 creditcards. since 29,7-21 = 8,7 and (2x 29,70 - 21) /7 = 5,48

By: Likelyhood

Likelyhood — Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:51:06 +0000

In reply to Mark.

Thus, I do not believe the likeness popped up without intent, as that would be statistically absurd and mean that even a (1) monkey could have chosen the creditcard to be what it is; standard paper (DIN476) with a Fibonacci-twist.
As a consequence; 4 sheets of A4 paper could be used to imitate the creditcardshape: (2*29,7×21) : (29,7x21cm) = 80,4: : 50,7

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 15 May 2023 19:23:40 +0000

2,236 (√5)
3,162 (√10)
5,398
8,560

By: Mark 99

Mark 99 — Tue, 02 May 2023 14:17:51 +0000

Another (little) curiosity is, that if one cuts off a 53,98 x 53,98 square from the creditcard and repeat the proces with 31,62 (85,60-53,98), one will end up (down) with a 31,62 by 22,36. An approximation of the root of 2, with both sides being the first 4 digits of √5 and √10 x 10. That seems quite significant to me.