[kuhewa]

> "cyclometric"

it's cyclotopic, a term they coined. I suggest the intro section juxtaposing trigonometry vs 'circular' approaches might best be read as guidance as to how interested high school students (their past selves?) might think about the topic rather than a necessary preface for their paper.

[lupire]

I am a college graduate and I found it quite interesting and enlightening. I don't understand the persistent effort some bystanders are making to discredit this work that has met the approval of mathematical professionals.

I also very much enjoyed: "In this section, we verify that our proofs aren’t circular."

[MisterBastahrd]

It's called jealousy. They've got all these big brains and nuanced thoughts and somehow not a one of them accomplished something that got that kind of recognition at that age.

Didn't have the motivation? So what? They did.

The things they did seem obvious? Yes, I bet they do in hindsight. Touch screens on cell phones seem obvious today too.

[Suppafly]

>I don't understand the persistent effort some bystanders are making to discredit this work that has met the approval of mathematical professionals.

I don't try to discredit this stuff, and probably couldn't come up with similar proof myself since I'm not that interested in mathematics in general, but I am personally getting kinda tired of all these "child discovers x" stories where x turns out to either be something this is already well known or it turns out that they've just restated something that was well known in a somewhat trivial way. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but it is what happens in most of these sorts of stories that get published anytime it's a slow news day.