As long as we ignore the parallel sides requirement, sure.
And that the 90 degree angles should be interior angles.
And that polygons should only consist of straight lines.
Yes sure, in Euclidean geometry, but this is clearly keyhole shaped geometry.
They’re also not actually right angles, as the curvature starts departing from the angles origin. They may be approximately 90, down to many many small decimal places, but they are not 90.
That’s not accurate. If you are measuring the angle of a line intersecting with a curved surface, you measure against the tangent at the point of contact/intersection. It can be and still is exactly 90 degrees.
c/gatekeeping squares
Take shitposts seriously and point out their obvious errors
-Carl Friedrich Gauss, probably
The name of that Gauss?
Ampere
Science memes is not r/shitposting? I would assume the person is serious when posting here.
gasp!!! it is c/!!!
I would assume the person is serious when posting here.
This sounds like a “you” problem
You’re no fun
Polar coordinate square?
I remember enough from geometry to know this is horseshit and be annoyed at it but not enough to actually prove why
Sides must be straight and parallel two and two.
QED
it’s homeomorphic to a square, so why not
See, you get it
What are the 4 sides?
The black lines
The semi-circle is one side, then the 2 straight edges, and the arc between them is the 4th side.
That’s what I thought. The only way on which this has four sides is if the semi -circle is a side. But if that’s the case, then I don’t know wha the definition of “side” is
Knock knock. Do you have a moment to discuss non-euclidean geometry?
/slams door
