Rotate the cone towards you.
Now you see this. 🤯
Oh let’s get pedantic!
The curved edges technically have infinite “side”.
…and a square has four interior 90 degree angles.
…and based on the infinite number of sides for a curved line aspect, the “90 degree” angles would all be +/- the limit as it approaches zero, so never truly 90 degrees but always an infinite fraction away.
Yeah, we gonna need more rigor on this one.
“A square is a shape made up of four equally long lines a, b, c, d where a is perpendicular to c and d and parallel to b. Each of these lines meet exactly two other lines at it’s ends.”
I’m not a mathematician so there might an odd case somewhere in there. Maybe it has to be confined to a shared plane?
Lines are infinitely long… do you mean line segments?
Wikipedia has a good enough definition: “It has four straight sides of equal length and four equal angles.” Nice and simple.
So you’re saying this is the outline of a square in the astral plane? Because it sounds like you’re saying this is a square in the astral plane.
Someone knows more calculus than they are letting on…
Hey, I failed the highest level of calculus possible. Twice.
Not if this square is a projection of a curved surface
If it is a projection, then there are more than two curved sides, which also begs credence to the interpretability of the angles they intersect.
Well angles between 3 points are always going to be angles. If your choose a different configuration of dimensional parameters you can effectively project a square from the 2D plane into this exact shape, then logically the angles would follow.
You lost me at 3 points. Could you dumb it down a bit?
Yo bro let’s downscale everything to 2D then upscale it to infinity or something, everything is possible when you project to this demonic crystal justttt this way /s
Mathematics by Diogenes
Didn’t a square need broad nails or something?
Diogenes go home.
Wrong. This is a definition of a [pizza] + [the extra peperoni from the other slices that got stuck to that slice because the cutting was imperfect]
Plus the table.
Listen if they put a pepperoni in the center of the pie then a poor cut is clearly the least of our concerns
Always put a pepperoni in the exact middle. It’s like a wishbone, but for pizza. The person who gets the majority of the center pepperoni gets a wish.
A center pepperoni is asking for the center of your pie to be fucked up
Peperoni are bell peppers. I have no idea why the USA chose to use this word to mean salami, instead of, you know, salami.
You’re thinking of peperoncino, a spiced chilli pepper also known as sweet Italian peppers. We still have salami in the US.
I’d guess pepperoni is called that because it’s dried salami with pepper seasoning.
I found a link just randomly googling. https://www.thoughtco.com/you-say-pepperoni-3972377
Yes, peperoncini are a bit like chili. Peperoni is literally “bell peppers” though. Peperone in singular.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/italian-english/peperone
Pepperoni and salami are totally different dude, you might as well be saying that Americans should just call their potatoes “yams”. And you can get both of those sausages and many, many more on your pizza, often at the same time
Tut tut, all these maths books promoting unhealthy square shapes, real squares have curves.
Thanks, I hate it.
The interior angles need to be equal 🤓
Does no one understand this is a joke, talking about parallel lines and mathematical proofs is pointless when its a fucking meme
It’s not pointless because you can laugh about a joke and then learn something about math.
They don’t cancel each other out. They can be at the same place and still work on their own.
I love memes that are funny on their own, but also provide discussion material.
You’re having fun wrong!!1one
Or the fun part.
Its wrong though so the joke falls flat
Didn’t realize jokes have to be literally correct
Just the good ones.
We do understand it’s a meme and a joke. Just not a very good one, because one can easily poke holes into it.
Just not a very good one, because one can easily poke holes into it.
That’s not how jokes work.
Depends on the joke.
No, it depends on if you have humor. Yes, humor is individual, I know. But people without tend to over analyze and try to pick the joke apart, often missing the point.
A joke doesn’t have to pass every technicality. You thinking it’s bad if it doesn’t, only applies to your humor (or lack there of).
Ooh, watch out, the humor police is here! Everything the deem funny is humor and if you don’t find funny what they do you don’t even have humor! Wee-ooo wee-ooo!
I can be presented with a bad joke without the urge to pick it apart. You couldn’t. Just saying.
And you cannot take criticism. Just saying.
(Also, I’m not picking apart the joke, I’m explaining why some people do.)
Its supposed to be absurd, taking it seriously makes the already bad joke even worse
It’s not about taking it seriously. The meme wants to be a technically correct-meme, where a thing fulfills another things definition and thereby could be deemed the other thing - which creates the absurdity the meme lives off of. But in order for that kind of humour, there cannot be obvious holes in the logic of the joke and these obvious holes are very present in this meme.
Any maths joke of this type will have obvious holes in it, that’s just how maths works
Well the text in the image of the “definition” of a square is clearly tailored to fit this joke, thats why the logic of what a square actually is doesn’t apply. Its like telling Diogenes that his chicken is not technically a human because it doesn’t have two hands and a nose.
Diogenes plucked that chicken to point out Platon’s definition of a human (being a bipedal, featherless animal) being flawed. This meme leaves out parts of the definition to enforce a joke. Two different situations.
Its similar enough, the definition is limited and therefore enables a joke to be made.
It’s not similar, it’s the exact opposite.
These are parallel too. They just look that way because they are project on to the euclidean plain.
ITT: math people going “listen here you little shit”
A square must also have two pairs of parallel sides.
Calculus can find you two pairs of parallel sides, right there on the circle!
No it doesn’t. Right angles + equal length is a sufficient condition
No, it isn’t. A square is a plain, convex and regular quadrilateral with four internal right angles.
In that case, there’s no need to specify anything about the angles. Or, the characterisation the meme is playing with: a shape with four straight sides of equal length and right angles. Adding parallel to the meme’s version doesn’t help.
I’m just tired of this thread. Not only do Lemmy users have this weird urge to show off their high school maths knowledge to dunk on a joke that obviously only works because OP played with the definition, but they’re not even correct. The /r/mathmemes thread was much better.
✌️
Straight lines. Also two sets of parallel lines. This is one definition of a square, but not the common one.
This shape could exist as a projection onto an upright cylinder, wrapping around the cylinder. The two straight edges go vertically along opposite sides of the cylinder. The curved lines wrap around the circumference. The lines are now straight and parallel on the net of the cylinder.
But we can go further: Imagine taking this cylinder and extending it. Wrap it into a loop by connecting the top to the bottom so it forms a torus (doughnut) shape. This connects both sides of the shape, now all “interior” angles are on the inside of the square, and all “exterior” angles are on the outside. The inside and outside just happen to be the same side.
I believe these lines are straight with a black hole at the centre.
straight, gay, lines are lines. let them be.
If that’s so, the angles are probably not right angles.
None of the angles looks wrong either
Can straight be defined in a nonlinear environment?
I would guess on a sphere these can be straight yes: The pole goes into the center of cicular thing and radius of the sphere needs to put the other arc on one latitude.
Euclid’s first postulate: Give two points, there exists exactly one straight line that includes both of them.
This only applies in 2nd order real space. Euclidean geometry aside, I agree with at least one line could exist between two points
Counterexample: North and Southpole on Earth.
Someone never had to deal with mathematical proofs, only layman’s definitions.
All properties of a parallelogram apply:
- Opposite sides are parallel
- Opposite sides are congruent
- Opposite angles are congruent
- Consecutive angles are supplementary
- Diagonals bisect each other
AND
- All angles are congruent
- All sides are congruent
- Diagonals are congruent
- Diagonals are perpendicular
- Diagonals bisect opposite angles
Of course, but such strict definitions only come about because smart people come up with examples like OP when you don’t add the full definition.
