Comment on Is this a triangle?

RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• towerful@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  What if it had 3 corners and 4 edges? Or 4 corners and 3 edges?

  source

  • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    If a shape has 3 corners and 4 edges, it is incomplete or open and therefore not a shape yet but a collection of edges.

    A shape with 4 corners and 3 edges is not possible. An edge cannot have a corner in the middle of it, that would make it two edges.

    source

    • towerful@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I felt like adding something about the specific case of 180° between edges and a vertice.
      Makes sense.
      And I guess too many vertices means an open set of edges (ie not close, this not a shape).
      I was kinda hoping for a strange edge case, like a mobius strip or Klein bottle.

      I guess a mobius strip is a 2d representation of a 1d paradigm. And a klein bottle is a 3d representation of a 2d paradigm.
      It would be too much to ask of a 1d representation of a ??d paradigm.

      source
  • ByteJunk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Why the down votes? Bro asking a question and being legit curious, don’t be hating on someone that’s looking to challenge what they know just because it’s trivial to you.

    source

    • towerful@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I feel my comment adds to the discussion and wants more details.
      But it was too simply phrased.
      I guess the details of such a question should be obvious. And if you need the details, the question doesn’t actually add the the discussion… It just seems idiotic!

      I felt like there might be a really cool scenario where a vertice isn’t considered a vertice.
      Like, there actually might be some case on a 2d plane “where actually” applies.
      I’m fine being wrong

      source
    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Welcome to Lemmy, first time?

      source
  • november@lemmy.vg ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I don’t think that can be a thing.

    source

    • towerful@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Yeh, seems not

      source
• morphballganon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  It doesn’t matter that the edges are curved?

  source

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    If you were to walk this route along the surface of the earth, you would walk in perfectly straight lines apart from the three turns.

    source

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      No such thing. Even if you were walking on a surface with no change in elevation, the acceleration due to gravity would cause your path to be curved as it followed the curvature of the planet.

      source

      • abfarid@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Curved relative to what?

        source
  • november@lemmy.vg ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    They’re not curved; the space they’re embedded in is curved.

    source

    • someacnt_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The space itself has canonical curvature >.>

      source
    • Azzu@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Well that depends on your definition of curved… If I look at this image from a 3 dimensional coordinate system that includes the sphere, the edges are definitely curved. Of course, if you look at this from the coordinate system “surface of the sphere” then I would agree with you. There are 2 ways to look at this and decide if it is a triangle.

      source

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I don’t think this is relevant. Using your first definition there is no possible way to walk in a straight line on a sphere. While true in that context I don’t think it’s what most people are meaning by “straight line”.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Donkter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    The edges curve in 3d space, but not relative to the sphere.

    source