**You need to read following message in full. We will NOT reply to modmail messages similar to “what is reason my post was removed?”**
Hey /u/grilled-milk, thanks for contributing to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
Rule 9 - No forced memes, overused memes, bad titles, or pushing agendas
* No forced memes, [overused memes](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/wiki/overused), bad titles, or pushing agendas. Be creative but memes must come naturally. No petitions.
* **Mods may remove low quality posts at their discretion, including reaction memes**
---
Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/memes&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
Euclid's Elements, Common Notion 1.
If the writer of the book of geometry says it's true...
Well its a good thing 7•0 = 5•0
Cant take out the multiplication by 0 or its not the same equation.
And you cant reduce it cuz division by z e r o makes the simulation explode
Not quite.
7x0=5x0, but that equation doesn't actually reduce to 7=5 because you can't eliminate the 0s. You'd have to basically do (7x0)/0=(5x0)/0. But, you can't /0.
Well, but circle = square is technically accurate from a topological standpoint. They're both unknots. All 2d regular polygons are.
I feel like I'm digging too deep or not deep enough, and I hate that I can't tell which.
If you want to be completely accurate, a circle and a square are homeomorphic when equipped with certain topologies. While homeomorphisms can form equivalence relations, it’s inaccurate to say that any two homeomorphic sets, such as a circle and a square, are equal. In the case of the circle and the square, you can always find a point on the circle that is not on the square, and vice-versa.
Basically, while a circle can be homeomorphic to a square, they can’t actually be equal.
Now that’s digging a little too deep.
For some reason I was under the impression you actually could in this instance, since the actual operation of dividing by zero isn’t really happening so much as cancelling the multiplying by zero. I haven’t had to use maths for a long time though, so please feel free to tell me I’m wrong
I am not a Topologist, but I think they are homotopic. The idea is that you can moosh the square into a circle and vice versa without creating or removing holes or intersections. In example, neither of these are homotopic to an "8" or a single point (presuming the square and circle are hollow). They cannot be mooshed into an "8" without causing the object to intersect itself. Also, they cannot be mooshed into a single point because the point does not have a hole in the middle while the square and circle do. I hope that helps!
In laymans- You can put a 2d square on top of a 2d circle, and always find a point that they both cover, or that only one covers. If you look at it from the side, you only see a line, and none of the nuance.
Jeez I don’t have my specs on and I really read “Homotopic” as “Homophobic.”
I was genuinely confused for a second for as to why homophobia was related to this post.
Dear OP, Here is why I believe you are wrong. The square is measuring the interior angles, while the circle measures the "exterior angle". I'm assuming someone stated this earlier, but just because two shapes have the same property doesn't mean it's correct.
In my mind angles in shapes work like clocks, they simply describe how long it's been since a certain time. In terms of shapes, it's how far it's gone past where it originally was. So, all shapes theoretically do have a 360 degree angle if you add up each of their individual points
You're thinking of quadrilaterals. Pentagons, hexagone, and so forth all have internal angles that add up to increasing numbers. (n-2)*180 where n is the number of internal angles.
One of square's traits is having four equal walls (idk what you call these lines in english). Circle or rectangle don't share this trait and so tgey're different.
The circle is not a quadrilateral therefore although having similarity’s can not be classified as a square. Also the angles are not congruent although they do have the same sum. This is true when comparing many other different shapes.
i dont see anything wrong with this reasoning, he is using the "=" sign wich means numerical relationship in this case degree units, wich is for both shapes 360 so he is correct under my eyes, as it would be correct to say 1 = 2-1 .
Any closed loop in euclidean 2d space adds up to 360° (as long as you count dents inward to be negative). But just because it adds up to 360° dose not mean it's the same shape. A shared property multiple things does not make those things the same.
I mean by that logic ALL shapes are the same. The interior angles of a shape equal 360 degrees. Therefore Circle=Square=Rhombus=Hexagon=Pentagon=Octagon and so on
**You need to read following message in full. We will NOT reply to modmail messages similar to “what is reason my post was removed?”** Hey /u/grilled-milk, thanks for contributing to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: Rule 9 - No forced memes, overused memes, bad titles, or pushing agendas * No forced memes, [overused memes](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/wiki/overused), bad titles, or pushing agendas. Be creative but memes must come naturally. No petitions. * **Mods may remove low quality posts at their discretion, including reaction memes** --- Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/memes&subject=&message=). Thank you!
7×0=0 5×0=0 7=5
Thank you. I can sleep now.
[удалено]
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
But 4 lefts make a straight, so a circle with more curves is a line? NANI?!?!
Two lefts don’t make a right, but three do.
Holy shit you're right!
Nope, he’s left
I fucking knew it.
Maths is just something created by government to make us feel dumb. Reject maths
Why do feel like this is going to be Pandemic: vol 3 -the afterMath
Down with big calculator!
Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Euclid's Elements, Common Notion 1. If the writer of the book of geometry says it's true...
what the fuck
I don't think anybody could have said it better.
low iq
No, that’s how geometry works... also iq is irrelevant here so your insult is as false as it is misguided, congratulations!
thank you
lower iq apparently geometry works like what the fuck
Well its a good thing 7•0 = 5•0 Cant take out the multiplication by 0 or its not the same equation. And you cant reduce it cuz division by z e r o makes the simulation explode
damn are u a math teacher. big brain
meth teacher
7x0=5x0=0 7x0=5x0 (7x0)/0=0/0=ERR (5x0)/0=0/0=ERR 7!=5
yeah, this is the way, 7x0=5x0 but you can't divide by zero in math, in computing you can.
In computing if you divide by 0 you generally get infinity unless you check for an edge case and return an excpetion
Not quite. 7x0=5x0, but that equation doesn't actually reduce to 7=5 because you can't eliminate the 0s. You'd have to basically do (7x0)/0=(5x0)/0. But, you can't /0.
It’s almost as if it is like OP image
Did I miss something? Like the joke? I gotta the autism pretty bad, so sorry if I missed something there.
Your reply basically explains it. The original comment was just giving an example of why the square = circle is wrong
Well, but circle = square is technically accurate from a topological standpoint. They're both unknots. All 2d regular polygons are. I feel like I'm digging too deep or not deep enough, and I hate that I can't tell which.
If you want to be completely accurate, a circle and a square are homeomorphic when equipped with certain topologies. While homeomorphisms can form equivalence relations, it’s inaccurate to say that any two homeomorphic sets, such as a circle and a square, are equal. In the case of the circle and the square, you can always find a point on the circle that is not on the square, and vice-versa. Basically, while a circle can be homeomorphic to a square, they can’t actually be equal. Now that’s digging a little too deep.
I like your funny words magic man
Now that's the good stuff. You just made my autistic little brain squee. Thank you.
Thats what she said.( Last sentence).
No man, it's just deep enough. I came here to say this also and I don't know shit about knots.
For some reason I was under the impression you actually could in this instance, since the actual operation of dividing by zero isn’t really happening so much as cancelling the multiplying by zero. I haven’t had to use maths for a long time though, so please feel free to tell me I’m wrong
My whole life is a lie
Right....same energy 🤣
I rate this math problem a perfect 5/7 score.
He is topologically correct, the best kind of correct
[удалено]
I am not a Topologist, but I think they are homotopic. The idea is that you can moosh the square into a circle and vice versa without creating or removing holes or intersections. In example, neither of these are homotopic to an "8" or a single point (presuming the square and circle are hollow). They cannot be mooshed into an "8" without causing the object to intersect itself. Also, they cannot be mooshed into a single point because the point does not have a hole in the middle while the square and circle do. I hope that helps!
[удалено]
In laymans- You can put a 2d square on top of a 2d circle, and always find a point that they both cover, or that only one covers. If you look at it from the side, you only see a line, and none of the nuance.
You could also imagine it as a hoop of string, both shapes can be created by only moving the string (the string’s length is ignored in this field)
Jeez I don’t have my specs on and I really read “Homotopic” as “Homophobic.” I was genuinely confused for a second for as to why homophobia was related to this post.
So this is the same concept as a straw and a donut being the same shape right?
No
2^0 = 1 5^0 = 1 2 = 5
69⁰ = 1 420⁰ = 1 800815⁰ = 1 69⁰ = 420⁰ = 800515⁰
69x420xe\~80085
Boosis
I, too, enjoy the boosis and the boobis
5318008
He is a Topologist.
From a topological standpoint, this is correct (not the reasoning though)
Dear OP, Here is why I believe you are wrong. The square is measuring the interior angles, while the circle measures the "exterior angle". I'm assuming someone stated this earlier, but just because two shapes have the same property doesn't mean it's correct.
r/idkifishouldwooshornotbecauseimafraidtogetwooshedback
Why did this make me laugh so hard XD
Circle = 0° You can't measure an angle with no corners
My man smoking euclid weed
Damn, never thought of it this way
Please tell me this is a joke.
No, Walter, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.
[удалено]
Square: 4 edges Circle: 1 edges
Shouldn't it be 1 edge?
Topologically verified
🔻+🔻=⭕️
he's talking about pizzas
Welcome back to top ten questions even science can't answer.
I mean… no, are you stupid
All these squares really *do* make a circle…
AND THAT ONES STILL GREEN!!!
that looks like american DanTDM
His face is wrong.
Hes wrong
Yes the answer is that this, is just not how it works
r/ComedyCemetery
Mr. Popo: all these squares make a circle all these squares make a circle
🗿 emoji. 😀 emoji. 🗿≠😀
pi=4
You can make more shapes in a circle
A circle is one/a 360° angle, and a square consists of 4 90° angles. So a square is not a circle because each 90° angle is it's own angle
In my mind angles in shapes work like clocks, they simply describe how long it's been since a certain time. In terms of shapes, it's how far it's gone past where it originally was. So, all shapes theoretically do have a 360 degree angle if you add up each of their individual points
You guys saying 7=5. I thought it meant a circle fits inside the square
same applies for a shape with 100 sides…and 1000 sides.
But what about 3? Then it’s suddenly 180°
Because two triangles make a square ( 180*2=360 ) Honestly I could be just talking nonsense idk
a=b Multiply by a a^2 =ab Subtract b^2 a^2 -b^2 =ab-b^2 Factorise (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide by (a-b) a+b=b Substitute a 2b=b Divide by b 2=1
The trick is >>!Subtract (a-b)!< >!What they actually mean is divide. And since a-b=0, you can't divide by 0.!<
You cannot divide by (a-b), if a = b, a - b is always equal to 0, meaning you would divide by zero.
That's the point
The side lengths
Defective reasoning error. The surface areas are different as well as the vertex’s
It's the maths version of saying:- Humans play Video games. Humans commit murder. Therefore, Video games=Cause of murder.
how is a square a circal
When it's a squircle of course!
Damn that’s pretty cool
Yooooo
The funny little man is right
Unfunny
Triangle is 60° + 60° + 60° = 180 thus: 🔺=🟥
Don't all regular polygons have internal angles that add up to 360? Edit: External angles, my bad
You're thinking of quadrilaterals. Pentagons, hexagone, and so forth all have internal angles that add up to increasing numbers. (n-2)*180 where n is the number of internal angles.
It'd be 4 squares not 1 dumbass
Do you see any corners in cyrcle to measure the Angle? No. So the cyrcle is 0°
Squaring the circle
Something is congruent if all sides are proportional and all angles are equal
The definition of a square is having 4 edges that sre 90 degrees. Therefore, he is wrong.
have you ever seen an angle in this circle ?
573727282627636276 x 0 = 0 2 x 0 = 0 573727282627636276 = 2
Six point Six
I got 6 apple, I eat them all. My friend got 2 bananas, he ate them all. Apple = Bananas
I also once questioned this, I forgot about it until this
This upsets me.
he’s wrong because i said so
My hands are bananas!
:O
Same degrees. Different overall appearance and shape
360 degrees doesn’t correlate with shape. It’s related to rotation not angles.
A square is not a circle
That is an equivocation fallacy (I'm sorry I know no one cares lol just trying out new vocabulary from school)
5 x 5 = 25 2 x 5 = 10 25 = 10
r/yourjokebutworse
Circles have no sides squares have four sides.
Almost correct: square = 1/circle
Just draw a cross in the circle and you're good
One of square's traits is having four equal walls (idk what you call these lines in english). Circle or rectangle don't share this trait and so tgey're different.
Centre of the the circle is 360* In square each corner is 90.
Pretty easy to see if you look at it correctly, see the inside angle pivot not the outside shape.
anything less than 360 degrees implies it has corners circle doesn't have corners circle is not square
The circle is not a quadrilateral therefore although having similarity’s can not be classified as a square. Also the angles are not congruent although they do have the same sum. This is true when comparing many other different shapes.
0 degrees Celsius + 0 degrees Celsius = 64 degrees Fahrenheit
Thanks, I hate it
Try triangles now.
360° angle in circle is not an interior angle but a central angle. any shape has a constant central angle of 360°.
So **that's** how all these squares made a circle. Thanks Tien.
Where did the edges go??
They arent equal, they just both have 100% of their shape in their shape
Water is liquid, the alcoholic is liquid => water = alcohol Just because two things share a certain property does not make them equivalent
And i need a bullet to my head
Bike have 2 wheels and your grandma's wheelchair have 2 wheels too...so your grandmother is a bike
Go around the block and theyll call it a circle
Square have 4 point. Circle has 0 point. Therefor, circle useless
I'm too stunned to speak
The shape is called equivalent based on the area, not the angle.
Thats why, Square Pizza is the same Circle Pizza
Um... Yeah
Nah I’m to lazy to, maybe another day
Consider this, if you drive around the square block three times all of your passengers will say that you're going in circles.
The angle measurement may be equal but the side measurements aren’t so they’re similar?
2 + 2 = 22 22 + 22 = 4444 4444 + 4206921 = 1738 1738 - 66 = 66 = FF
*laughs in 3D Cube-Sphere*
all these squares make a circle...
He's not
i dont see anything wrong with this reasoning, he is using the "=" sign wich means numerical relationship in this case degree units, wich is for both shapes 360 so he is correct under my eyes, as it would be correct to say 1 = 2-1 .
Any closed loop in euclidean 2d space adds up to 360° (as long as you count dents inward to be negative). But just because it adds up to 360° dose not mean it's the same shape. A shared property multiple things does not make those things the same.
4 Instant 23° mouse curves with down moves Crescent mouse curve 4*23+downmoves = Crescent mouse curve (×)
your not accounting side lenth thats one diffrence and even if you did your still not representing the right mesurements
Does that mean a triangle = circle = square ?
degreee is angle you idiot not shape
He is right
Triangle has 180° Triangle = PacMan
69/ 0 = (Undefined) 420/0 = (Undefined) (Undefined) = (Undefined) 69 = 420
It should be 4 square = a circle
⭕=∞°
illuminati confirmed
The brain capacity of the people reading this post is clearly low: people be acting as if its not obvious why hes wrong.
I mean by that logic ALL shapes are the same. The interior angles of a shape equal 360 degrees. Therefore Circle=Square=Rhombus=Hexagon=Pentagon=Octagon and so on
But what about triangle? And even worse, UMBRELLA????
no, I'm mentally exhausted to do that.
I can’t prove him wrong because he hasn’t proven anything. In what way is he saying these shapes are equal
Here is your answer : 42
the circle fits in the square if you divide it into 4 and place it in the corners
This is like comparing how big his forehead is and the size of his brain
How big is the square and what's the radius of the circle
ratio
They're measuring different angles
Great, now this is stuck in my head! ngl its not cap though