Trigonometry Redefined without Sines And Cosines
He uses a right angle to define spread.
The complaint about redundant information with the suplemental angle is nonsense.
And he limits himself to triangle geometry.
I really doesn't buy that argument about it beeing more natural. Why should I square the pages of a triangle? And he talks about special cases only shortly after complaioing about suplemental angles, and he also adds ac/ob.
And how should young kids learn geometry?
How does he intend to handle circular things?
What the finite fields means is a mystery to me.
The example on page 14,15,16 clearly shows how simple the proposed method is.(irony).
Inaccurate with the classical way? If he did it the classical way without calculating any of the approximate values, like the alpha angle, he would not only find the "mysterical" sqrt(7). He would also find sqrt(2).
Nice though to get the second solution.
Finaly. He's just making a fool out of himself. He complains about the flaws in the classical way, but gladly uses perpendicular things, and other intuitive things.
It might be of interest as a curiosity, nothing else. There is no value in this for calculations unless it handles all the fields where trig things are used.