Not a polygon
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
822 points (92.4% liked)
memes
15405 readers
4091 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not a math major, but I always considered it that a square is a special case of rectangle, a rectangle is a special case of parallelogram, and a parallelogram a special case of a quadrilateral, a quadrilateral a special case of a simple polygon.
This shape isn't a polygon, so it cannot be a square.
Rotate the cone towards you.
Now you see this. 🤯
Oh let's get pedantic!
The curved edges technically have infinite "side".
Hey, that's my job!
Also I don't think that's technically the technical classification. I think that sidedness is an attribute that simply doesnt apply to curves.
You can approximate curves with some number of sides, and the approximation gets more accurate as the number approaches infinity, but it doesn't actually have the infinite sides.
Very cool! I'm always happy to learn something new!
....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.
the angles are interior if you go into the scary world of high level maths and their weird fucking geometries.
this is a square, from a certain point of view
Someone knows more calculus than they are letting on...
Hey, I failed the highest level of calculus possible. Twice.
I'll have you know that I passed the two lowest levels of calculus required for my degree. So you know, I'm something of an expert.
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.
Pentagon fits that definition also since it doesn't specify "it has four and only four" sides
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.
No, just a 2d plane
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
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]
load more comments
(8 replies)
Mathematics by Diogenes
Didn't a square need broad nails or something?
The interior angles need to be equal 🤓
Here you can see how things go haywire when skipping minor parts of definitions.
Tut tut, all these maths books promoting unhealthy square shapes, real squares have curves.
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.
load more comments
(25 replies)
Thanks, I hate it.
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
ITT: math people going "listen here you little shit"
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›