Maven (famous) to Science [email protected]English • 5 months agoSquare!lemmy.zipimagemessage-square136fedilinkarrow-up11.28Karrow-down136cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.25Karrow-down1imageSquare!lemmy.zipMaven (famous) to Science [email protected]English • 5 months agomessage-square136fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@RememberTheApollo_linkEnglish147•edit-25 months agoKinda forgot the sides being parallel part. Like missing a step in assembling IKEA furniture, its not gonna turn out right.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish83•5 months agoYou don’t normally need to specify that the sides are parallel if you specify four right angles.
minus-square@finitebanjolinkEnglish16•5 months agoAlso pretty sure definition of a shape requires only one enclosed or contiguous area.
minus-square@angrystegolinkEnglish24•5 months agoThis one is enclosed and contiguous though, the lines of the triangle end where the circular line starts. (The rest is just a drafting residue.)
minus-square@finitebanjolinkEnglish-12•5 months agoNo, 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.
minus-square@Threeme2189linkEnglish5•5 months agoOK, imagine the space outside of the shape is black, or see through or whatever.
minus-square@finitebanjolinkEnglish-4•edit-25 months agoWell then the line of separation means nothing and then you’ve lost two right angles to the contiguous void.
minus-square@Threeme2189linkEnglish4•5 months agoWhy? Does a cube floating in the void not have angles?
minus-square@finitebanjolinkEnglish-4•5 months agoWithout a distinction of where the cube begins or ends it does not because there is no cube and there are no angles.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish4•edit-25 months agoFun fact - there are no actual cubes anywhere in the universe. All geometric shapes are an abstraction. There are no cubes and no angles, so that checks out.
minus-square@Threeme2189linkEnglish4•5 months agoThe cube begins where the void ends and ends where the void begins.
minus-square@angrystegolinkEnglish2•5 months agoThe angle of the triangle that protrudes into the circular part is not a right angle.
minus-square@finitebanjolinkEnglish0•5 months agoMy apologies you’re correct, you lose two right angles.
Kinda forgot the sides being parallel part. Like missing a step in assembling IKEA furniture, its not gonna turn out right.
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 two right angles 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.
Removed by mod
Fun fact - there are no actual cubes anywhere in the universe. All geometric shapes are an abstraction. There are no cubes and no angles, so that checks out.
The cube begins where the void ends and ends where the void begins.
The angle of the triangle that protrudes into the circular part is not a right angle.
My apologies you’re correct, you lose two right angles.
Those arc sides are parallel in polar coordinates.