Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

Wake up babe new shape just dropped

⁨343⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Gork@sopuli.xyz⁩ to ⁨science_memes@mander.xyz⁩

https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/557defa5-96e9-4263-97b8-1db19d831456.webp

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • 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