No arguments here
-
Lines are infinitely long... do you mean line segments?
Wikipedia has a good enough definition: "It has four straight sides of equal length and four equal angles." Nice and simple.
Pentagon fits that definition also since it doesn't specify "it has four and only four" sides
-
....and a square has four interior 90 degree angles.
...and based on the infinite number of sides for a curved line aspect, the "90 degree" angles would all be +/- the limit as it approaches zero, so never truly 90 degrees but always an infinite fraction away.
the angles are interior if you go into the scary world of high level maths and their weird fucking geometries.
this is a square, from a certain point of view
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm not a math major, but I always considered it that a square is a special case of rectangle, a rectangle is a special case of parallelogram, and a parallelogram a special case of a quadrilateral, a quadrilateral a special case of a simple polygon.
This shape isn't a polygon, so it cannot be a square.
-
Oh let's get pedantic!
The curved edges technically have infinite "side".
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. -
The interior angles need to be equal
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Here you can see how things go haywire when skipping minor parts of definitions.
-
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 2Ï€ - (the inner AOB), because that's how radiants work; a circle is 2Ï€ 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 2Ï€ - (the inner AOB), because that's how radiants work; a circle is 2Ï€ 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 = 2Ï€. I said (inner COD) + (outer COD) = 2Ï€ 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
