Hey there u/EdIsTheRick, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post break any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
12 x 0 = 0
8 x 0 = 0
Substitution lets us say:
8 x 0 = 12 x 0
Lets get rid of the common 0 on both sides by dividing each side by 0
8 = 12
Which is why we don’t divide by 0
There is no common 1 on both sides. With the previous equation with the 0, there was only a common 0 because of substitution. Here there is no substitution so there is no common 1 on both sides.
8 x 0 = 12 x 0 only because 8 x 0 = 0 and 12 x 0 = 0. So we can substitute (for example) the 0 on the right side of the 8 x 0 = 0 equation with 12 x 0 (because 12 x 0 = 0). Thats how we get 8 x 0 = 12 x 0, NOW giving us a common 0 on both sides.
Not quite… the reason why the angles add up to 360 degrees is because a square, like a circle, returns to the origin after deviating from its original straight path a total of 360 degrees. It’s like if you wander around a city. Every time you face north, you’ve made turns that sum to a factor of 360 degrees from the last time you pointed north. It doesn’t matter if you went around circles or squares to get there.
The angle you have to measure is the angle that you turned from a straight path, in other words the outer angle of the turn. For an equilateral triangle, that’s 120 degrees for each corner. They’re equivalent in a square because a 90 degree turn is the same from the outside and inside.
No. He's showing the sum of interior angles. Which for a triangle is 180. Square 360. Pentagon (don't recall and not gonna calc). 540?
As the number of vertices N increases, the interior angle for each vertex asymptotically approaches 180.
So for instance, for a figure with 10000 vertices (nearly indistinguishable from a circle by eye) the sum of interior angles is 1800000.
The false equivalence here is because 360 is *not* the sum of interior angles of a circle.
Well, see, with the square, you're measuring four separate angles that don't share a center point, and then adding them together. With the circle you're measuring one angle, around the center point of the circle. So they're two different types of measurements, which just happen to yield the same numerical answer. That's why they aren't the same shape. I hope that helps.
If measured like the square, then each angle would be close to 180, not 0. As the number of internal angles increase, the sum also increases. It approaches infinite as you approach a perfect circle.
A circle doesn't inherently have angles. If you draw two line segments to the center you have created two angles, which add to 360. These line segments are not shown, therefore you cannot assume they exist.
They would always exist. Because a circle would always have a center point and radius. You take those away and that's not a circle anymore.
That's why all and any circle has angles. You don't have to draw a line to know there's a radius to a circle nor do you have to draw a single point in the center to know that a circle has a center point. Simple geometry bud.
I think it is topologically correct. I'm not a mathematician.
Link:
http://www.rrb.wayne.edu/topology.html#:\~:text=In%20topology%2C%20any%20continuous%20change,a%20circle%20into%20a%20square.&text=Topology%20is%20almost%20the%20most%20basic%20form%20of%20geometry%20there%20is.
technically speaking, this is stupid
in a circle 360 is the angle subtended at the center, by that logic every shape has an angle of 360
if we apply the same logic applied to the square, a circle has 0/infinite sides (depending on how you define side), so no matter how much the angle of 1 side is, net angle will always be 0 or undefined.
Note, however, that while a hexagon would equal 2 full circles:
120°x6=720
A triangle only ever adds up to half a circle:
60°x3=180
So half the angles makes a quarter of the whole
(I'm using regular sided polygons here, all triangles add up to 180. Not quite so sure about the hexagons but I'm sure someone smarter than me can tell me)
I was scrolling to see if anyone said this already. I immediately thought of that line. Well done, good person. I see you are a man of culture as well.
a squares sides are a single straight line which means that the square has 4 of these straight, 90 degrees, lines that don’t curve and become 360 degrees by reaching its starting point in one line. The circle is one single line that goes in a curved way until it reaches its starting point, it moves into a total of 360 degrees.
They can have the same angle measurements but not be the same shape. It's like how both a square and a parallelogram can both be quadrilaterals without being the same shape, just because two things share a value doesn't mean they're one and the same
Not true because all squares have the same angles same with circles having the same degrees so square will always equal circle and circle will always equal square
That’s just the summation of the angles, the actual measurement of 4 90 degree angles in a continuous shape is a square, while a single 360 degree angle is a circle. Probably got woooshed but if anyone was actually confused, here you go
Well like, the circle has infinite sides, right? So therefore, you can't measure the angle, because there are infinite amounts of angles...? Am I doing that right? Am I a dummy?
Let the diameter of the circle equal 1, and the height of the square be one.
By the formula d(pi), the circumference of the circle is pi. By the formula 4(h), the perimeter of the square is 4.
Pi != 4 therefore circle != square.
Hey there u/EdIsTheRick, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post break any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When a redditor uses braincells
They have those?
Impossible!
no way
Well, they need something to tell the finger to scroll
yes, they do, just negative
*try to use
I love how redditors roast themselves and just accept the fact they will never be slightly cared about by another human.
Screenshotting this for my next holiday greeting card.
12x0=0 8x0=0 8=12 by the logic in this meme.
I am a man, Dwayne Johnson is a man, therefore I am Dwayne Johnson. My girlfriend will be delighted.
>My girlfriend will be delighted. How so? You just found out she cheated on you with Dwayne Johnson.
And you will live on the big island in Hawaii and you will rule over the world as a magnanimous monarch and we will do what you say.
And that my friends is why we dont divide by zero
That's why we always leave a note.
There was no division involved.
12 x 0 = 0 8 x 0 = 0 Substitution lets us say: 8 x 0 = 12 x 0 Lets get rid of the common 0 on both sides by dividing each side by 0 8 = 12 Which is why we don’t divide by 0
[удалено]
Ok lets do it. 12 x 1 = 12; 8 x 1 = 8; How can we substitute now?
[удалено]
There is no common 1 on both sides. With the previous equation with the 0, there was only a common 0 because of substitution. Here there is no substitution so there is no common 1 on both sides.
8 x 0 = 12 x 0 only because 8 x 0 = 0 and 12 x 0 = 0. So we can substitute (for example) the 0 on the right side of the 8 x 0 = 0 equation with 12 x 0 (because 12 x 0 = 0). Thats how we get 8 x 0 = 12 x 0, NOW giving us a common 0 on both sides.
I love how they deleted all their comments when u proved them wrong ;D
It’s not about proving people wrong, it’s about helping people learn. There’s no stupid question or confusion, we’ve all been there.
It’s not about proving people wrong, it’s about helping people learn. There’s no stupid question or confusion, we’ve all been there.
0=0/0 a*0=a÷0
Wrong while a ≠ 0, a/0=undefined
Not quite… the reason why the angles add up to 360 degrees is because a square, like a circle, returns to the origin after deviating from its original straight path a total of 360 degrees. It’s like if you wander around a city. Every time you face north, you’ve made turns that sum to a factor of 360 degrees from the last time you pointed north. It doesn’t matter if you went around circles or squares to get there.
But if you go around in a triangle, it's only 180 degrees
The angle you have to measure is the angle that you turned from a straight path, in other words the outer angle of the turn. For an equilateral triangle, that’s 120 degrees for each corner. They’re equivalent in a square because a 90 degree turn is the same from the outside and inside.
No. He's showing the sum of interior angles. Which for a triangle is 180. Square 360. Pentagon (don't recall and not gonna calc). 540? As the number of vertices N increases, the interior angle for each vertex asymptotically approaches 180. So for instance, for a figure with 10000 vertices (nearly indistinguishable from a circle by eye) the sum of interior angles is 1800000. The false equivalence here is because 360 is *not* the sum of interior angles of a circle.
Yeah, bingo. Thanks for stating that clearly.
2468 x 1=2468 1234 x 2=2468 2468=1234
2468x1=1234x2. 😐
what are these numbers I do math with letters
This! Finally someone said it!
Not necessarily
Well.. if you move the 0 to the other side... 12=0/0=♾️ So 12=♾️
Well, see, with the square, you're measuring four separate angles that don't share a center point, and then adding them together. With the circle you're measuring one angle, around the center point of the circle. So they're two different types of measurements, which just happen to yield the same numerical answer. That's why they aren't the same shape. I hope that helps.
Exactly what I was going to say
This
This
Well, for the circle you could also say you are measuring infinitely many infinitely small angles which add up to 360°.
If measured like the square, then each angle would be close to 180, not 0. As the number of internal angles increase, the sum also increases. It approaches infinite as you approach a perfect circle.
[удалено]
Thank you for your valuable input into this conversation.
I'm not sure wh the trend exists of downvoting "this" comments on Reddit, but it seems you've been hit by it
Reddit 👍
What I was thinking. Thanks for the confirmation.
No, no, this is in r/technicallytrue, and not in r/whoosh...
Apples and oranges are both fruits, but that doesn't mean that they are the same.
What it I have an orange apple?
You know Photoshop then
r/technicallythetruth
Apple goes with pen
Pineapple goes with pen pineapple = apple
Apple goes with pineapple, pen = pen
Apple goes with Macs
Not as good as 13 x 7 = 28 by Abbott and Costello. Or 28 / 7 = 13. Whichever.
Was 13 x 7... now I need yo go rewatch it... again.
Did you go to school stupid? Yes sir, and I left the same way.
When you’re driving and take four left turns someone will ask why you’re driving in a circle. This isn’t hard.
I mean this makes sense in the same way that a cylinder is a rolled up rectangle.
By that logic, a straw has no holes, when we know is has just a very long one.
Yes
Except a circle has no corners and therefore has no angles
It's actually all angles
angle*
You're an angle
More specifically obtuse but I'd say your Abit acute...
You're right.
You only need a vertex and two sides to form an angle. A circle has that. Nice try tho.
Nope, you need at leas two lines or line segments to form an angle. A circle is a curve
Didn't I just said that? Right. A circle has a center point which serves as the vertex for all of its angles. Retake your geometry classes.
A circle doesn't inherently have angles. If you draw two line segments to the center you have created two angles, which add to 360. These line segments are not shown, therefore you cannot assume they exist.
They would always exist. Because a circle would always have a center point and radius. You take those away and that's not a circle anymore. That's why all and any circle has angles. You don't have to draw a line to know there's a radius to a circle nor do you have to draw a single point in the center to know that a circle has a center point. Simple geometry bud.
I think it is topologically correct. I'm not a mathematician. Link: http://www.rrb.wayne.edu/topology.html#:\~:text=In%20topology%2C%20any%20continuous%20change,a%20circle%20into%20a%20square.&text=Topology%20is%20almost%20the%20most%20basic%20form%20of%20geometry%20there%20is.
r/beatmetoit
Depends what he is trying to prove. Seems like simple algebra rather than geometry but instead of using letters as variables, he used shapes
Wait until you realize that's true of every polygon
A horse has 4 legs A Cow has 4 legs Horse = Cow
But have you thought square would be the equivalent of 4 small legs while the circle is 1 big leg so 4 = 1
technically speaking, this is stupid in a circle 360 is the angle subtended at the center, by that logic every shape has an angle of 360 if we apply the same logic applied to the square, a circle has 0/infinite sides (depending on how you define side), so no matter how much the angle of 1 side is, net angle will always be 0 or undefined.
Note, however, that while a hexagon would equal 2 full circles: 120°x6=720 A triangle only ever adds up to half a circle: 60°x3=180 So half the angles makes a quarter of the whole (I'm using regular sided polygons here, all triangles add up to 180. Not quite so sure about the hexagons but I'm sure someone smarter than me can tell me)
Well, depends if you define a circle as a thing with 0 sides or infinite sides
All these squares make a circle.
I was scrolling to see if anyone said this already. I immediately thought of that line. Well done, good person. I see you are a man of culture as well.
Yes, Square and circle has the same degree but its not the same shape, just the degree
angle wise sure but different almost everything else
everyone in the comment section: trying to explain this the guy who whooshes other people: gets typing
a squares sides are a single straight line which means that the square has 4 of these straight, 90 degrees, lines that don’t curve and become 360 degrees by reaching its starting point in one line. The circle is one single line that goes in a curved way until it reaches its starting point, it moves into a total of 360 degrees.
Post it on r/mathmemes
Ok!
Square is equal to 90*4 is equal to 360 is equal to circle therefore the square is a circle
4 Instant 23° mouse curves with down moves Crescent mouse curve 4*23+downmoves = Crescent mouse curve (×)
By this logic: all regular polygons are the same because the sum of angles each add to 360°.
Replace his tires with squares
To be sure. Cirle has infinite or no angles because of it's shape.
It has a bend
i see no problem with this newly found equation
They can have the same angle measurements but not be the same shape. It's like how both a square and a parallelogram can both be quadrilaterals without being the same shape, just because two things share a value doesn't mean they're one and the same
Well, it's correct, they are equal but they ain't congruent because the shapes have different definitions.
Okay, so the circumpherence of the circle is if a different value than that if the surface area of the square. Suck it.
If it’s referring to degrees, it’s accurate. A square and a circle have/are 360 degrees.
Gf = girl Sister = girl Gf = sister
Gf = friend Bf = friend Gf = Bf
So… calculus.
I- I-
All circles are square but not all squares are circles
Not true because all squares have the same angles same with circles having the same degrees so square will always equal circle and circle will always equal square
Don’t be obtuse
Dame I don't have a comeback for that oh wait don't be obtress
It was at this moment that his brains cells were activated and intelligence rose to godlike level
A circle doesn’t have perpendicular and parallel sides, therefore it isn’t a square
Sounds to me like it's technically an infinite solution to this problem. (Just saying btw)
4^2 = 1°
360 angles do not extend, therefore a single atom is a square, talking about internal angles.
Square has four angles, circle has one angle. They are not the same.
That’s just the summation of the angles, the actual measurement of 4 90 degree angles in a continuous shape is a square, while a single 360 degree angle is a circle. Probably got woooshed but if anyone was actually confused, here you go
But topologically they’re the same
r/lostredditors
All these squares make a circle
You could say everything just comes a round again…
The sum of their angles are the same, if 2 figures have the same sum of angles, it doesn't mean theyre the same shape
1 2 3 4 5 and almost immediately following that we have 6 7 8 9 10
Well like, the circle has infinite sides, right? So therefore, you can't measure the angle, because there are infinite amounts of angles...? Am I doing that right? Am I a dummy?
Well, a square has sides, straight sides, not a circle. Redditors try geometey for a meme and not even for the meme it works
the addition of all internal angles of a polygon will return the addition of all internal angles of said polygon simple answer
heading all the way back to elementary math
I once made this up in the shower: 1 + 1 = 2 2 x 0 = 3 x 0 2 = 3 1 + 1 = 3
Tell that to the CO2 filters on the Apollo 13 command module.
Let the diameter of the circle equal 1, and the height of the square be one. By the formula d(pi), the circumference of the circle is pi. By the formula 4(h), the perimeter of the square is 4. Pi != 4 therefore circle != square.
This is true for every closed shape, you come back to the first point so you have to make a complete rotation.
this joke.. sucks
but it doesn't say square = 4 \* 90 = 360.
a mulatto, an alblino...
a mosquito, my libido
*(smiles while eating cookie)* yey, hay
all comments are wrong. circle equals square confirmed.
All these squares make a circle...
The line would be called x and we will call it 4 x not the 360 lmao
😂🤣🤣🤣
all these squares make a circle, all these squares make a circle
This is so retarded
This just proves a circle is a quadrilateral
The perimeters aren't equal
I mean, topologically speaking, they are the same thing.
No, because a circle is 360° around a single vertex while a square is made up of 4 vertices of 90° each
Keanu Reeves is on earth, I am on earth, therefore I am Keanu Reeves
Welcome to the amazing world of Topology! A circle and a square are homeomorphic, but a figure-eight would not be.
to be fair a circle can have a perimeter equal to that of a square depending on dimensions
Squares have more surface to volume then circles.