739
That's a really good point.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
739 points (96.6% liked)
People Twitter
5274 readers
572 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square
Same with rhombus and diamond
A rhombus is a diamond, but a diamond isn't necessarily a rhombus
Rhombus has to have four equal sides, a diamond does not.
I think most people would say a 2D shape that they'd call a diamond would have 4 equal sides.
I don't think very many at all would call an elongated parallelogram a "diamond".
If I took a traditional diamond shape and elongated just the bottom sides.
I feel like most would call it a diamond still. Specific term would be a kite. Many wouldn't come up with that, though. It's not an elongated parallelogram. It is not a rhombus.
"Diamonds" on bicycle playing cards have curved edges. They are not a rhombus because sides are not parallel. Most agree that it's the classic diamond shape, though.
If you give someone paper and a pencil and ask them, "Please draw a diamond shape."
Most will draw a 4 sided shape with 4 equal sides.
People would definitely want to elongate the top and bottom sides because they do not want to draw a sideways square, which is a rhombus, parallelogram, diamond too.
There's no way a human is going to draw 4 equal lines
No one at the end is going to be like "yeah but you have to be sure all sides are equal" when they have some kind of weird kite shape.
There's people out there that wouldn't count a sideways square as a diamond
IDK why you think that "4 equal sides" is the same as "sideways square".
You can (and frequently do) have equal sided diamonds that aren't "sideways squares".
Seems like your main issue is geometry.
Which is fine. As long as they elongate symmetrically (which most would do), they're still four equal sides.
Yes they would. In fact most would, I'd wager.
Sounds like your concepts struggle is comprehending that "four equal sides" isn't the same as "four equal vertices".
Or four equal angles. A rhombus has two pairs of opposing, equal angles.
There is no such thing as a diamond in geometry. The correct term is a rhombus.
That shape is a kite in geometry.
You ask 100 people what that shape is.
How many are going to say diamond?
Even the people that believe diamonds have all equal sides would say "It's not a perfect diamond but it is diamond shaped"
Imagine saying "It's not a perfect square, but it is square shaped" at a rectangle.
Kites have 2 edges the same length, as do trapezoids, but they aren't touching. A Rhombus has 4 equal edges.
For me the shape I was thinking of was if you take a simplified 2D version of this 💎, with there being 4 sides, 2 pairs of equal sides but not 4 equal sides
I imagine what people are talking about here is this ♦️ sort of diamond.
I blame me not being a native speaker for thinking of diamon diamond
That shape in 2D has five sides though.
True, I didn't pay enough attention but I though the two upper sides touched each others at the top, so it would have just 4 sides
In practice, diamonds have equal sides.
In practice, diamonds are rocks.
They're not rocks. They're minerals, Marie
In practice, diamonds are dirt paths with rubber vertices.
Whut?
When most people draw a "diamond" shape, they draw it with equal sides.
💎 what I'm thinking
♦️what I imagine is meant by diamond here