10mo ago

Behold, a square

Source

29 comments

As long as we ignore the parallel sides requirement, sure.
- And that the 90 degree angles should be interior angles.
  
  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.
- Take shitposts seriously and point out their obvious errors
  -Carl Friedrich Gauss, probably
  
  Science memes is not r/shitposting? I would assume the person is serious when posting here.
  
  The name of that Gauss?
  Ampere
- c/gatekeeping squares
- 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
- I'll tell you why not! You hippie homeopaths are all the same! Science has scienced the evidence that there's no evidence for homopathic medicines otter than the libido effect.
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
- Someone may want to double-check my math on this one, but the length of the sides will be dependant on the radius of the smaller circle
  
  I look at your diagram and see:
  
  ϴ= L/(L+R)
  And
  
  2π-ϴ = L/R
  I solved those (using substitution, then the quadratic formula) and got
  
  L= π-1 ± √(1+π²) ~= 5.44 or -1.16
  Whether or not a negative length is meaningful in this context is an exercise left to the reader
  Giving (for L=5.44):
  
  ϴ~= 0.845 ~~48.4°
  I'm surprised that it solved to a single number, maybe I made a mistake.

29 comments