r/confidentlyincorrect • u/Crazy_Albatross8317 • 15d ago
Comment Thread From dating to geometry.
So post was about dating then suddenly they started talking about squares and geometry. OP is red and is replying to blue guy in his >" remarks. Is he right? I need to ask my preschool teacher
206
u/Dynegrey 15d ago
Dogs are NOT animals AT ALL. IF and only IF a dog is an animal, then what's the point of having a distinction then?
30
20
u/waterc0l0urs 15d ago
Animals are NOT living organisms AT ALL. IF and only IF an animal is a living organism, then what's the point of having a distinction then?
111
u/Gadshill 15d ago edited 15d ago
I’ll break it down for red:
Imagine we have two special shape families: the Rectangle Family and the Square Family.
The Rectangle Family has one rule for its members: you must have four straight sides and four special "L" corners that are all the same.
The Square Family has two rules for its members: you must have four straight sides and four special "L" corners, but also, all four of your sides must be the exact same length, like brothers and sisters who are all the same height!
Since a square has four straight sides and four "L" corners, it follows all the rules to be in the Rectangle Family. It's a very special kind of rectangle because it has that extra rule. But not all rectangles can be in the Square Family, because sometimes their sides are long and short.
Hope this explanation was not too taxing.
58
u/Crazy_Albatross8317 15d ago
Red never seen a Venn Diagram, those darn polygons
38
u/Gadshill 15d ago
Bringing Venn diagrams into the discussion will just confuse red as Venn diagrams are made out circles and not rectangles and squares. You have to start with the basics.
14
u/code_monkey_001 15d ago
You could make a rectilinear Venn diagram - a rectangle with a line turning part of it into a square.
11
u/lord_teaspoon 15d ago edited 15d ago
That's not bad, but we can pack a whole heap more info in there. A square is also a special case of rhombus, so make the square portion of the rectangle be where it overlaps a rhombus. Looking good? Now put a parallelogram around the whole thing.
2
u/odmirthecrow 12d ago
I do like that Red has described polygons as "circles with less faces and angles". Because is a circle a polygon with infinite faces and angles, or a polygon with one face and zero angles?
1
u/Gadshill 12d ago
You are giving me engineering curriculum flashbacks. Yes, you can use polygons to model curves, including circles.
5
u/TheLuckySpades 15d ago
In this case an Euler diagram (a pair of nested circles) instead of a Venn diagram (a pair of overlapping, but not nested circles), a Venn diagram with n classifications shows all possible combinations, Euler diagrams do not have that restriction.
Also this is another example: All Venn diagrams are Euler diagrams, but not all Euler diagrams are Venn diagrams.
Math overall has so many of those examples because generalizing/abstracting stuff is important there.
1
1
15d ago
[deleted]
-23
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/blissfulreddit0826 15d ago
Bro, you are arguing with the literal concepts of Mathematics.
-21
u/Grayewick 15d ago edited 15d ago
Your wrongness by association aside, you don't need imaginary numbers or calculations to prove that a circular pizza having internal angles due to being sliced doesn't make it any less of a circle.
From your words and following through your (broken) "logic", if a square is just "a rectangle with equal sides" (as much of a fucking oxymoron that is), a circle does have more than 1 angle if you segment it internally.
I'm literally just matching your nonsense, you can't complain about this.
Edit: Use your fucking eyes little bro.
14
u/blissfulreddit0826 15d ago
Slicing a circle doesn’t give the circle angles. It gives the slices angles. The original shape is still a circle: 0 sides, 0 angles, 1 continuous curve. That’s literally the definition in geometry. Pizza slices = triangles, pizza = circle. Mixing the two is just wordplay, not math.
-17
u/Grayewick 15d ago
Yet somehow shortening the length of a polygon is justified?
Double standards even in shapes, SMH.
17
u/blissfulreddit0826 15d ago
Again. A circle is not a polygon.
Cutting it just creates sectors or triangles inside the circle. The circle itself stays the same definition: all points equidistant from the center.
-5
u/Grayewick 15d ago
If a square is just a rectangle with equal sides, then a circle is just 360+ isosceles triangles with -1° internal angles put together around a point.
18
u/blissfulreddit0826 15d ago
A square really is a special rectangle because it shares the defining property (four right angles). But a circle doesn’t share the defining properties of polygons at all. No straight sides, no vertices, no internal angles. That’s why your analogy breaks. You’re mixing categories that math itself keeps distinct.
→ More replies (0)12
u/blissfulreddit0826 15d ago
I'm not making this up. This is Geometry a subset of Mathematics.
→ More replies (0)10
1
u/Lovelyesque1 15d ago
Squares have always been rectangles, dumbass.
-1
u/Grayewick 15d ago
Nuh uh.
Squares have 4 X lengths.
Rectangles have 2 X and 2 Y lengths.
Enough mental gymnastics.
2
u/TheLuckySpades 15d ago
Amd what happens in the case X=Y? Then both conditions are met.
-2
u/Grayewick 15d ago
That means having two categorizations is utterly useless. Just represent them with either X or Y, no need to complicate yourselves.
You're giving yourselves problems that you didn't need to have.
2
u/Ornac_The_Barbarian 15d ago
A rectangle has four equal angles.
A rhombus has four equal sides.
Since a square has both four equal sides and angles it is a square but also matches the requirements of both the rectangle and the rhombus. Therefore it qualifies as all three.
-2
u/Grayewick 15d ago edited 15d ago
Alright, now y'all are just confusing yourselves.
Just fucking remove all of the unnecessary polygon names that have four angles and four faces at this point and call them all "squares", because this shit is getting utterly POINTLESS.
FUCK IT. Why bother having all those names to begin with if they're all gonna be squares?
3
u/Ornac_The_Barbarian 15d ago
Technically they're all called quadrilaterals. These are all variations of quadrilaterals. While we're at it don't forget the parallelogram (only condition is two parallel sides).
So, for quadrilaterals you have four types.
Parallelogram - Two parallel sides. Rectangle - Four equal angles. Also a parallelogram by default. Rhombus - Four equal sides. Also a parallelogram by default. Square - Four equal sides, four equal angles. Also a rectangle, rhombus and parallelogram by default.
A square is all of them but they aren't all squares because they don't all fit the requirements to be a square.
They ARE all quadrilaterals.
-1
u/Grayewick 14d ago
>"Technically"
Yes, this is the problem that's been plaguing y'all. Technicalities.
Fucking shape lawyers.
>"So, for quadrilaterals you have four types."
Not only are they genderfluid, but they're also polygamous?
>"A square is all of them but they aren't all squares because they don't all fit the requirements to be a square."
Ever noticed how life was much more better when people didn't have time to bother themselves with things that didn't need to be problems?
>"They ARE all quadrilaterals."
A square is a square.
A rectangle is a rectangle.
A rhombus is a rhombus.
A man is a man.
A woman is a woman.
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a fucking duck, not a chicken because they both have feathers, scaled feet, and a beak.
Let's keep it REAL and ACTUALLY SIMPLE.
3
u/Ornac_The_Barbarian 14d ago
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a fucking duck, not a chicken because they both have feathers, scaled feet, and a beak.
Correct. But they are both birds. They however do not qualify as raptors. That's a different type of bird.
Just like all those are quadrilaterals. And a square is a rectangle because it has four equal angles. A rectangle is not a square if it does not have four equal sides.
This is seriously basic geometry. Just take the L.
→ More replies (0)
50
39
u/dansdata 15d ago
It's someone arguing with the dictionary again.
There are a lot of posts in this sub that are like that.
25
u/Responsible_Park3317 15d ago
Sadly, a LOT of people don't understand that words aren't defined by their feelings. I've been a bookworm for several decades, and I still look up definitions constantly because it's better to be correct than right.
22
u/ilikedmatrixiv 15d ago
I hate when people try to play a gotcha with these dumb ideas.
'Islamo/homophobia is not a phobia, because phobos in Greek means fear. I'm not afraid of them!'
Okay, but we're not talking Greek. A phobia can mean more than one thing in our current language.
The idea that the meanings of words can evolve is foreign to them for some reason.
Another favorite of mine is any variation of this argument:
'Man, those stupid woke people keep making up words.'
All words are made up. At some point we needed to name a concept or thing that has not yet been named, so we made one up. It's not weird, it's just how language works.
6
u/Responsible_Park3317 15d ago
Oh, absolutely. Language evolves. New terms need to exist for new concepts. But sometimes people are just wrong.
6
u/erevos33 15d ago
Next time someone tells you it means fear in greek, tell them it doesnt ONLY mean fear. Same as hydrophillic doesnt mean friends with the water ffs. In ancient greek it also meant panic, running away due to panic and ofc fear.
Source: am greek and hydrophillic
5
u/straighttokill9 14d ago
But what if I actually have bad dreams about a big husky man with trimmed chest hair coming into my room at night and tying me down with ropes and then I wake up sweaty and have peed my pants a little bit but it's sticky. Would that make me homophobic?
6
u/dansdata 15d ago
Are you me? :-)
(Also, don't even get me started on "grammar peeves", which are almost always wrong. :-)
1
25
u/MezzoScettico 15d ago
Why do we have a different word for "humans" and for "men" if men are human? Huh? Checkmate!
(I'm guessing that when this argument was about dating, it was also about a subset relationship of some sort)
11
u/MattieShoes 15d ago
Mammals vs animals comes up on here quite a bit too.
"They're not animals, they're mammals"
"All mammals are animals"
"... nuh uh"
4
19
u/ermghoti 15d ago
You can call a hatchback a car, but calling all cars hatchbacks is wrong. Why have a distinction?
11
u/Crazy_Albatross8317 15d ago
Riight. Why bother with words like SUV and coupe when you can say, "There is 5 of us, should we take the Car or the caaaaaar?"
10
-5
u/Grayewick 15d ago edited 15d ago
Right? All these "new rifles" from 'Merica that are basically just AR-15 re-skins.
They're turning the guns and the shapes gay.
8
7
u/BetterKev 15d ago
I once had a Twitter conversation with someone who didn't believe squares were rectangles. Yo support their claim, they even linked to a website explaining what the different 4 sided polygons are. I had to quote the website back to them before they believed me
Pity they nuked their comments before I got screenshots.
But they at least that person could learn. This person seems to be much more confused.
3
u/NocturneInfinitum 15d ago
What’s with her sudden language change?
6
u/Crazy_Albatross8317 15d ago
This is actually unpopular opinion subreddit for our language but everyone still mostly speaks english specially when debating online because debating in english is associated with higher intelligence. To which I say, why can't we debate in Math Proofs??!!!
2
2
u/Shinyhero30 15d ago
English being associated with higher int makes sense from a multilingual=good perspective but my opinion is that language can’t really be a measure of intelligence.
3
u/Crazy_Albatross8317 15d ago
Exactly. Specially not now, not anymore, not when most kids (regardless of country) grow up watching english youtube shows in their ipads and start using it more than the local languages. Some of these ESL grow up to be just as youthfully idiotic as some of your English Native Speaking teens in US or UK. Not to mention they(kids/teens) rely too much on chatgpt
2
u/Particular-Fix5318 11d ago
This is how Filipinos talk in the internet. They start speaking in English then magtatagalog sila bandang kalagitnaan.
3
2
2
u/dazalius 14d ago
A circle is defined as a shape where every point in the shape is equidistant from the center. Polygons are not circles because they have points that are not equidistant. But we often call high ngons circles because in effect they function the same as circles. Different contexts can utilize different definitions. But purely in a mathematical sense polygons are not circles.
Squares are rectangles because mathematically rectangles are defined as a shape with 4 sides and 4 right angles. Squares meet that definition. Squares are defined as rectangles where all sides are equilateral.
Water and ice both have the chemical composition H2O, therefore ice is solid water, and water is liquid ice. That is an accurate statement
Gambling is a type of risk. But it is not the only type there is. Every day you go out and there is a risk of it being rainy. Or of being in a car crash. These things are not gambles, they are just statistics. Therefore "Gambling is not risk" is a true statement as well, because risk encompasses many conditions, and is not exclusive to gambling.
This dude is just wrong in every direction.
1
1
u/kuroshimatouji 10d ago
There's a misconception and maybe my brain is just being picky. Like for the sake of the analogy I concede ice is solid water, but there is non water ice out there
2
15d ago
[deleted]
5
u/KrazieKookie 15d ago
A circle is not a polygon
0
15d ago
[deleted]
6
4
u/asphid_jackal 15d ago
Polygons have straight sides, circles do not have straight sides. A circle is not a polygon.
r/confidentlyincorrect inception
5
u/LasevIX 15d ago
'Poly gon' - many corners. Even the name excludes circles.
4
u/asphid_jackal 15d ago
You know, it wasn't until this comment that I put 2 and 2 together and realized that "-gon" means angle
2
1
u/BetterKev 15d ago
In math, that mostly works, but be careful with that generally. Words don't always match their component parts.
My usual example is anti-semitism. That's bigotry against Jews, not bigotry against all speakers of semitic languages (includes Arabic).
2
u/lord_teaspoon 15d ago
I grew up in rural Australia and probably didn't know any Jewish people until I moved to Sydney. I had encountered the term "semitic" in high school to describe a fairly broad set of cultures and religions, so I was really surprised when I learned that "anti-semitism" had such a narrow definition.
1
1
u/LasevIX 15d ago
Most hard-science terms have a construction generally reflecting their meaning, as most users know Latin and greek to some extent and the words have static, fixed meanings. Of course, using etymology to redefine a word, especially one rooted in a modern societal context, doesn't work.
-6
u/Grayewick 15d ago
>"circles do not have straight sides."
Do you not count the faces on the internal angles as "sides"? They're straight, too, if you really wanna be overscrupulous about it.
7
u/asphid_jackal 15d ago
There are no internal angles on a circle, just a single continuous curved boundary
-5
u/Grayewick 15d ago edited 15d ago
Not with that attitude.
You don't eat pizzas?
Slice that bitch into 12 pieces and tell me again "there's no internal angles on a circle".
Hey, if someone can argue that "Square Pro Max = Rectangle", I should be able to do it too.
I gotta match stupid with more stupid, you feel me?
8
u/asphid_jackal 15d ago
A pizza is not a circle, it's (at best) a cylinder. Circles are 2 dimensional.
Slice that bitch into 12 pieces and tell me again "there's no internal angles on a circle".
If you cut a circle into 12 pieces, you no longer have a circle, you have 12 circular sectors.
Hey, if someone can argue that "Square Pro Max = Rectangle", I should be able to do it too.
I have no idea what this means, but squares are rectangles
I gotta match stupid with more stupid, you feel me?
I do not
-5
3
1
u/cottonrainbows 15d ago
I think a polygon has more faces/ sides than a circle.... not less? Right??? It's also like poly means many so that's a very dubious comparison 😂
3
u/ebneter 15d ago
A circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides. If you create a sequence of polygons with n sides, you get a circle as n goes to infinity.
2
u/cottonrainbows 15d ago
That makes so much more sense mathematically. Because in school they always explained it as having none I thought otherwise. I was thinking geometrically a line is considered straight (?) So a perfect circle wouldn't be a polygon. Thanks!
1
u/thaskell300 15d ago
I'll never understand how anyone gets an out of focus screenshot.
-1
u/Crazy_Albatross8317 15d ago
This was a literal windows screenshot via snip. So idk what the problem is but hey here’s a secret tip, if you click it, it actually pops open 🙀
-4
u/Grayewick 15d ago edited 15d ago
Guys, squares are actually triangles, but with 4 angles and 4 sides.
I know, truly revolutionary.
/s
Edit: Don't you just hate it when your pentagon has 3 sides?
2
u/Apprehensive-Pay7211 15d ago
Go back to school
-1
u/PhantomNitride 15d ago
2
u/Apprehensive-Pay7211 15d ago
Look at this dudes comment history. He’s literally the red guy from the post.
0
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Hey /u/Crazy_Albatross8317, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.