CyberHexx
2058
65
19
.
Nov 29, 2024 6:09 AM
CyberHexx
2058
65
19
.
bladderinfection
Anything is everything if you describe it wrong enough.
iwyrm
This would be a great problem on a trig midterm. Let r be the radius of the smaller arc and m be the length of each segment. Find the relative angle of the two straight segments.
cyanideremark
There's actually only one angle there, defining two separate arcs. Those are not right angles.
PwnageHobo
A square is a type of parallelogram. This is not.
dancingbarefootonlego
That shape reminded me of something, no idea why.
INeverReadTheTOS
"Square, noun: a plane figure with four equal STRAIGHT sides and four right angles." -Oxford
TurnsOut42WasASlightMiscalculation
What, are we living in curved space now?
CyberHexx
You realize the earth is round, yeah? Any square you draw on it is gonna have curves of some degree?
evilspock
Four straight sides of equal length.
You left out a word.
As both the geometry and gym teacher - go run a lap.
Nivvi
Make it two laps just for a good measure
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
It's not.
Inmate45
As a maths teacher, ackshually a square is described as a 'polygon' (which have no curved sides) with 2 sets of 2 parallel equal length sides and 4 right angles...
Owl2017
But what 'is' a square
Laylah77
Correct
Rasayana
Straight lines are merely circles with an infinite radius.
afambelafonte
Inmate45
I prefer this one.
mortrans
Yoink.
floriannica3000
Can you have an angle between a line and a curve? Or is it implied that the angle is between the line and a tangent to the curve?
Rasayana
Consider an intersect of two circles. Now place the centers of those circles infinitely far away in some directions. Now you have the intersect of two lines.
Rasayana
So, yes: it's the tangent.
MrSpookywasagoodboy2
Yeah and this has absolutely ZERO right angles to begin with.
MrSpookywasagoodboy2
Sure it has right angles to the tangents of the arcs, but that's not shown.
SterlingArcherSecretAgent
It's wrong though. The right angles has to be inside angles and two of these are outside angles. And that's just for starters...
MySushi
We can do some funny stuff beyond cartesian planes too
SterlingArcherSecretAgent
Meh. This whole post is just rage-bait anyway
CyberHexx
This is true and I won't deny it. There's too little information in the definition to rule out exceptions.
RedCamaro
Two angles are 270. Not a square.
CyberHexx
Not to be pedantic (okay, absolutely to be pedantic,) there is no functional difference between an angle of 0 degrees and 360 degrees on paper (Yes this is different in calculations and programing, but as a 2d picture on a flat surface there is no difference) and I would posit that there is no functional difference between a 90 degree angle and a 270 degree angle either when defining a Right Angle. In fact, the only way you can determine the difference is with other angles in relation.
CyberHexx
On a piece of paper, draw a 90 degree angle, then draw a 270 degree angle, and then turn the 270 degree angle 180 degrees and tell me the difference between the 270 and 90 degree angle. No really. Do it. I dare you.
dunkum09
that's arguably true when talking about the angle on its own, but in the context of a shape interior vs exterior angle matters. on a square the interior angles are 90 degrees.
CyberHexx
However the definition the original picture uses is "4 Right Angles", which only means 90 degrees on it's own.
RedCamaro
CyberHexx
The definition being adhered to is the one in the image. Not the one on Wikipedia. Turns out a lot of things are valid if you aren't too specific.
RedCamaro
if you want to go by your own definitions to define something, that's fine. sooner or later, your conjectures will start contradicting itself, and make the original definition useless. have fun.
CyberHexx
But it's not my own definition. Just not the complete definition. Four sides of equal length with four 90 degrees angles is 100% accurate to the definition of a square. It's just not the *Whole* definition of a square.