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
5277 readers
1033 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
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.