Wake up babe new shape just dropped

Comments

• TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  This is why you specify that they are straight, parallel lines.

  source

  • AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Perhaps this is just a projection of a square from a non-Euclidean space in which the lines are in fact straight and parallel.

    I think the 2D surface of a cone (or double cone) would be an appropriate space, allowing you to construct this shape such that angles and distances around geodesics are conserved in both the space itself and the projected view.

    This shape in that space would have four sides of equal length connected by four right angles AND the lines would be geodesics (straight lines) that are parallel.

    source

    • captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I suppose you could get a shape like this if you tried to draw a square by true headings and bearings near the North pole of a circle. “Turn heading 090, travel 10 miles. Turn heading 180, travel 10 miles.” and so forth. Start at a spot close to the pole and this will be your ground track.

      source
  • potoo22@programming.dev ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    They could be if we’re talking about non-euclidian geometry.

    source
  • Angry_Autist@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    there is no definition that someone can’t fuck up, that’s the point of this exercise, not to find a perfect definition

    But as usual 70% of you miss it

    source

    • Zorque@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The point of this exercise is to say “ha-ha gotcha, I’m so clever neener neener” while everyone else rolls their eyes.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The way science advances is in part making definitions harder and harder to screw up

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• credo@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I don’t remember all my geometric rules I guess, but can an arc, intersecting a line, ever truly be a right angle? At no possible length of segment along that arc can you draw a line that’s perpendicular to the first.

  source

  • filcuk@lemmy.zip ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    An infinitely small segment of the arc can be.
    Geometrically there isn’t a problem. If you draw a line from that point to the center of the arc, it will make it clearer.

    source

    • credo@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I guess if we define it as a calculus problem, I can see the point…

      I didn’t mean to pun but there it is and I’m leaving it. Any way, there is no infinitely small section that’s perpendicular. Only the tangent at a single (infinitely small) point along a smooth curve, as we approach for either direction. Maybe that’s still called perpendicular.

      source
  • pooberbee@lemmy.ml ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    A right angle exists between the radius of the circle and the line tangent to the circle at the point that the radial line intersects it. So we can say the radius forms a right angle with the circle at that point because the slope of the curve is equal to that of the tangent line at that point.

    source
• deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Those are not 4 right angles, but 2 right angles and 2 angles of 270 degrees

  source

  • psx_crab@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    So 2 right angle and two wrong angle. Got it.

    source

    • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts will.

      source
• quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  The square is a parallelogram, this is not a parallelogram.

  source
• traches@sh.itjust.works ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  but they aren’t parallel

  source

  • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    And the right angles are supposed to be inside, not 2 out 2 in

    source
  • redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    They could be in some n-dimensional spaces

    source

    • cRazi_man@europe.pub ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      “That’s …like…just your perspective, man”

      source
    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      You could just use polar coordinates

      source
  • TheFogan@programming.dev ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Going off webster… it looks like this really is only stretching the lines to fit one adjective

    www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/square

    source
• Angry_Autist@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It wasn’t funny when Diogenes did it and it isn’t funny now but it keeps getting reposted anyway and we have to pretend it is

  source

  • miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I understand Diogenes was usually the life of the party, so they just pretended it was funny.

    source

    • Angry_Autist@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Philosophers of that era spend a lot of time drunk.

      I mean who the fuck dies from laughing to death at a donkey eating figs?

      source
• BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  A squary is a polygon

  source

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Wikipedia calls a square a “regular quadrilateral,” which seems like a decent enough definition.

    Today I learned that when you make up your own inadequate definition, then it’s easy to match the definition with something inadequate.

    source
• NONE_dc@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Fuck off, Diogenes!

  source
• Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Explain it to a ball

  source