Comment on Definitions

ewigkaiwelo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  ah yes, ignoring that is actuality a polygon, implying a closed shape with straight sides much like this ignores the “weapon” and “used for thrusting or striking” parts of the definition.

  not hard to make things fit a definition when you just ignore parts of it.

  source

  • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    something tells me neither of these are genuine attempts at properly using the definitions but rather clever subversions in pursuit of… checks notes… humor.

    source
  • ewigkaiwelo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Relax, take a deep breath<3

    source

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      No. You can’t just put little boxes in the corner and call them right angles THERE ARE RULES WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY

      source

      • ewigkaiwelo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        But that’s correct in the image there - they are perpendicular or as you in the US call it “level”, they are all 90° and pweze pweze don’t forget you’re trying to be pedantic in a comments section of a stolen meme in a community called shitposting like just chill c:

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ameancow@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The idea isn’t literal, it’s to show that our language is entirely just noises that we’ve made into increasingly complicated levels of agreed-upon abstraction.

    source
  • someacnt@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Let me introduce you to the Non-Euclidean surfaces to bend your concept of straight lines

    source
• Empricorn@feddit.nl ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This image makes me angrier than it should. Those 4 “right angle” designations are all lies. You cannot have a curved line attached to anything and call it a “right angle”. It’s not. Like, factually. I don’t care if it’s 2 feet long, or 200,000 miles, it will never be exactly 90°, which invalidates the entire thing.

  source

  • letsgo@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    OK. Walk in a straight line for a couple of metres and stop. Rotate left or right by exactly 90°. Now take a curved path in any direction.

    Did you or did you not turn 90°?

    source

    • mriormro@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That doesn’t make the resultant diagram 90° at those vertices. That’s just empiricist stupidity.

      source

      • letsgo@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        OK, then what angle is it?

        source
  • Abnorc@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    If it’s not a right angle, then what is it? Wouldn’t you just measure the angle between the tangent of the curve and the line? Working with the tangents is how you find the angle between two curves as far as I know. You say it will never be exactly 90 degrees, but it would be 90 degrees at exactly that point. That’s not a weird thing to say from a math perspective.

    source
• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This is not a parallelogram and is therefore not a square

  source