- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is a square in polar coordinates
A square? A square?! Wake up sheeple! That things not even a rombus! Don’t you see the lies? Look at the lines! Look! Not all rhombuses are squares, but all squares are rhombuses! All squares are rhombuses and look at this thing they try to call a square. Where are the parallel lines? There’s got to be parallel lines, don’t you see, or then it’s not a rombus and all squares are rhombuses. Don’t forget that, don’t let them take that fact from you and perpetuate their geometric lies. Does no one even remember what a rombus is? This is, this is basic geometry here that you should have learned in middle school or elementary school, but then you just forget it, and let people trick you with these misleading definitions and fancy diagrams but you have to remember that a Square. Is. A. Rombus.
This has an infinite number of sides
270°≠90°
You could say a regular square has 4 270° exterior angles
This is what AI would give you after countless tries strating with a triangle and having gone up the Pentagon and down to two pairs of unconnected parallel lines…but what if all equally sized lines were connected? Bam! This
Fun Fact: It is very difficult to get any of the image generators to make a pentagon.
Man I miss my Zune 80
of course there’s a Wikipedia page for that
A square has all right angles inside the structure. This thing has two inside and two outside.
If you add that to the definition, you could still have a “square” with a segment of a circle connecting the edges in the middle
Then that section would be of a shorter length.
Ah, got me
But arent the ones from the circle 90 degrees on the inside of the circle as well? The squares could’ve just as well been placed on the other side of the (circle) lines.
No, the two angles are not equal. Outside/inside angles add up to two π radians. A square has four interior angles of 1/2 π radians, and four exterior angles of 3/2 π radians.
This is true, however now it has 4 inside and two outside the structure, so it now has something a square doesn’t has.
Take that, Euclid!
Kinda forgot the sides being parallel part. Like missing a step in assembling IKEA furniture, its not gonna turn out right.
Those arc sides are parallel in polar coordinates.
You don’t normally need to specify that the sides are parallel if you specify four right angles.
Also pretty sure definition of a shape requires only one enclosed or contiguous area.
This one is enclosed and contiguous though, the lines of the triangle end where the circular line starts. (The rest is just a drafting residue.)
No, it is 2 contiguous regions. The line of separation is the bounding line of a “shape.”
Otherwise, the entire whitespace outside of the region is also part of the shape, as is anything it touches.
OK, imagine the space outside of the shape is black, or see through or whatever.
Well then the line of separation means nothing and then you’ve lost a right angle to the contiguous void.
Why? Does a cube floating in the void not have angles?
Without a distinction of where the cube begins or ends it does not because there is no cube and there are no angles.
When you miss one important constraint in your CAD project.
Oh man I felt this.
Now make a square out of squiggly yarn
String theorists claim this is the true shape of spacetime!
It’s Pac-Man with a megaphone!
you geometry people go too far stop personifying vertexes, planes, and points math shouldn’t be fun
Pac-man eating a new york slice
Pac-Man’s & Sons Original Famous
two blocks away from
Pac-Man’s Original
which is a block and a half away from
Pac-Man’s Famous
across the street from
Pac-Man’s & Sons Famous
etc.Meet you at Ray’s.
Or a comically big joint.
Pac-Marley
Snoop Pac
Where are the broad, flat fingernals tho?
Wouldn’t the angles need to be interior?
They are all interior to the meme
This meme seems to be in a 16:9 ratio making it a rectangle.
This is merely a projection of a square on the surface of a cone projected onto a plane.
also the sides must be straight
It’s 2024 now… Not everyone has to be straight anymore!
If you want to claim you are a square, you need.
WOW! just wow, do you hear yourself?
It’s actually illegal
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Hi.
Polar coordinate straight
Define straight in a precise, mathematical way.
The tangent of all points along the line equal that line
Only true in Cartesian coordinates.
A straight line in polar coordinates with the same tangent would be a circle.
EDIT: it is still a “straight” line. But then the result of a square on a surface is not the same shape any more.
A straight line in polar coordinates with the same tangent would be a circle.
I’m not sure that’s true. In non-euclidean geometry it might be, but aren’t polar coordinates just an alternative way of expressing cartesian?
Looking at a libre textbook, it seems to be showing that a tangent line in polar coordinates is still a straight line, not a circle.
I’m saying that the tangent of a straight line in Cartesian coordinates, projected into polar, does not have constant tangent. A line with a constant tangent in polar, would look like a circle in Cartesian.
Polar Functions and dydx
We are interested in the lines tangent a given graph, regardless of whether that graph is produced by rectangular, parametric, or polar equations. In each of these contexts, the slope of the tangent line is dydx. Given r=f(θ), we are generally not concerned with r′=f′(θ); that describes how fast r changes with respect to θ. Instead, we will use x=f(θ)cosθ, y=f(θ)sinθ to compute dydx.
From the link above. I really don’t understand why you seem to think a tangent line in polar coordinates would be a circle.
I knew math was homophobic!
This is also not a polygon. It has infinite and 2 sides at the same time.
This actually has six right angles if you include exterior ones.
It makes me want to be angry and laugh at the same time
