No arguments here
-
Hey, that's my job!
Also I don't think that's technically the technical classification. I think that sidedness is an attribute that simply doesnt apply to curves.
You can approximate curves with some number of sides, and the approximation gets more accurate as the number approaches infinity, but it doesn't actually have the infinite sides.Very cool! I'm always happy to learn something new!
-
Hey, I failed the highest level of calculus possible. Twice.
I'll have you know that I passed the two lowest levels of calculus required for my degree. So you know, I'm something of an expert.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not a polygon
-
Okay, but... Why? Is that a theorem that I don't remember from school?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Take this shape as an example. The "square" in question consists of AC, BD, the outer AB, and the inner CD.
Point (5) means that, since the lines AC and BD are radii of the concentric circles, the arcs AB and CD should have the same inner angle. That's because the angle COD is equal to AOB.
Since, the inner angle is the same, then the outer AOB should, by definition, be 2π - (the inner AOB), because that's how radiants work; a circle is 2π rads.
-
Take this shape as an example. The "square" in question consists of AC, BD, the outer AB, and the inner CD.
Point (5) means that, since the lines AC and BD are radii of the concentric circles, the arcs AB and CD should have the same inner angle. That's because the angle COD is equal to AOB.
Since, the inner angle is the same, then the outer AOB should, by definition, be 2π - (the inner AOB), because that's how radiants work; a circle is 2π rads.
Thank you! But why arc CD and arc AB length should add to 2 PI? Or why does the angle COD times two is 2PI if that's what you meant?
-
Thank you! But why arc CD and arc AB length should add to 2 PI? Or why does the angle COD times two is 2PI if that's what you meant?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Point (5) is not about the arcs' lengths. It's about the angle they create with the center.
Also, I never said that COD * 2 = 2π. I said (inner COD) + (outer COD) = 2π rads
-
Very cool! I'm always happy to learn something new!
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I mean, I'm just pedantic; double check with a mathematician, to be sure lol
-
Rotate the cone towards you.
Now you see this. 🤯
uhhh, wait. Under what projection is OP's "square" reduced to an actual square
-
uhhh, wait. Under what projection is OP's "square" reduced to an actual square
It's possible, but there needs to be a thickness in addition to the length and width.
-
I mean, I'm just pedantic; double check with a mathematician, to be sure lol
I'm genuinely curious, what is your job that requires arithmetic?
-
I'm genuinely curious, what is your job that requires arithmetic?
I feel like most jobs require arithmetic.
But it is not my career to be a pedant, just my role in life
-
It's possible, but there needs to be a thickness in addition to the length and width.
Im gonna need more than that as an explanation. Sandwiches too if you're making some
-
In that case, there's no need to specify anything about the angles. Or, the characterisation the meme is playing with: a shape with four straight sides of equal length and right angles. Adding parallel to the meme's version doesn't help.
I'm just tired of this thread. Not only do Lemmy users have this weird urge to show off their high school maths knowledge to dunk on a joke that obviously only works because OP played with the definition, but they're not even correct. The /r/mathmemes thread was much better.
That weird urge is like 80% people feeling the need to correct OP's grammar, like birds do when they hear the wrong birdsong, as if there were anything at stake here.
Honestly, I wish people would play with definitions more. It's fun. And, unironically, you would be a much better mathematician than most of the know-it-alls here.
-
Counterexample: North and Southpole on Earth.
No, it's still accurate - the straight line goes through the center of the Earth. Only in coordinate systems where 'straight' is defined as following the curvature of a surface are there infinite lines between the North and South Poles... and that would be non-Euclidean geometry.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Okay, calm down Diogenes
-
This post did not contain any content.
Don't the internal angles need to be 90°? Two of those right angles aren't right angles on the inside.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Lines that intersect a circle like that aren't "right angles" tho, they're called "normal" to the circle - in other words pointing directly toward the center. A normal line is at right angles to a tangent line, but not to a curve.
-
Im gonna need more than that as an explanation. Sandwiches too if you're making some
Imagine you have a cookie cutter in that shape. Cut a cookie as thick as the chord of the largest arc.
View the new vertical surface of the longest arc that is now a cylindrical section.
Viola, square.
-
Imagine you have a cookie cutter in that shape. Cut a cookie as thick as the chord of the largest arc.
View the new vertical surface of the longest arc that is now a cylindrical section.
Viola, square.
*munches thoughtfully*
this is terrible, but it tastes okay
-
uhhh, wait. Under what projection is OP's "square" reduced to an actual square
Science bitch
