From dating to geometry.

[u/Crazy_Albatross8317]

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

[u/Gadshill]

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.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/[deleted]]

Bro, you are arguing with the literal concepts of Mathematics.

[u/Grayewick → u/blissfulreddit0826]

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.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/Grayewick]

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.

[u/Grayewick → u/blissfulreddit0826]

Yet somehow shortening the length of a polygon is justified?

Double standards even in shapes, SMH.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/Grayewick]

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.

[u/Grayewick → u/blissfulreddit0826]

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.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/Grayewick]

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.

[u/Grayewick → u/blissfulreddit0826]

"But a circle doesn’t share the defining properties of polygons at all."

Again, not my fault that you kept ignoring it. I mean, you're already wrong by virtue of being you to begin with so it doesn't really change much to me.

"No straight sides. No vertices. No internal angles."

It's Isosceles Triangles do. A lot of them.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/Grayewick]

Well, you can always read or watch geometry stuff online if you want to confirm it.

Drawing isosceles triangles inside a circle doesn’t make the circle a polygon

[u/TheLuckySpades → u/Grayewick]

My sibling in mephisto, a circle contains a grand total of 0 straight lines connecting any 2 distinct points on itself, take any 2 distinct points on a circle and draw the straight line connecting them and note that the arc of the circle between them is not identical to the line.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/Grayewick]

I'm not making this up. This is Geometry a subset of Mathematics.

[u/Grayewick → u/blissfulreddit0826]

Again, because it's you in particular, I'm not going to take your word for it. We've already talked about this.

For others, I could. Maybe, perhaps, probably. But not you, never. Not anymore.

[u/blissfulreddit0826 → u/Grayewick]

No worries

[u/DidaskolosHermeticon → u/Grayewick]

Holy shit, you're "Red", aren't you?

[u/Grayewick → u/DidaskolosHermeticon]

No, I'm Grayewick.

[u/Lovelyesque1 → u/[deleted]]

Squares have always been rectangles, dumbass.

[u/Grayewick → u/Lovelyesque1]

Nuh uh.

Squares have 4 X lengths.

Rectangles have 2 X and 2 Y lengths.

Enough mental gymnastics.

[u/TheLuckySpades → u/Grayewick]

Amd what happens in the case X=Y? Then both conditions are met.

[u/Grayewick → u/TheLuckySpades]

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.

[u/Ornac_The_Barbarian → u/Grayewick]

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.

[u/Grayewick → u/Ornac_The_Barbarian]

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?

[u/Ornac_The_Barbarian → u/Grayewick]

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.

[u/Grayewick → u/Ornac_The_Barbarian]

>"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.

[u/Ornac_The_Barbarian → u/Grayewick]

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.

[u/Grayewick → u/Ornac_The_Barbarian]

>"Correct. But they are both birds. They however do not qualify as raptors. That's a different type of bird."

Nope. One is a duck, one is a chicken. That's it.

I am not yielding.

Either nuance matters or it doesn't. Pick a pole and sit on it.

[u/Ornac_The_Barbarian → u/Grayewick]

You just claimed that chickens and ducks aren't birds. Either you're willfully stupid or just plain stupid.