That blade is not infinitely long unless you measure the same part over and over again.
Fr, what happened to 2πr?
I have used a pizza cutter to cut more than one pizza. I have also wielded a sword, (Ren Fair and fought a dual), and cut pizza with it. I have also field dressed a couple of deer and cut a few pizzas, (along with apples and sandwiches) with a Victorinox Classic keychain pocket knife over the years.
Of the 3 pieces of cutlery, I find the Victorinox Classic to be the most useful.
A sword by definition has a “pointed blade” accordingly any object with an infinitely long blade cannot be a sword. Rather, it’s a blade ray.
I was going to define this as an axe
it does have a point. look at the blade from the side.
pointy bit goes into the pizza.
Instructions unclear, pizza cutter stuck in pants and now I am circumferenced
Circumcized?
Circumnavigated
If she’s doing it right
Im not sure what defines a strike but im pretty sure you wouldnt thrust a pizza cutter. If we’re being technical, it doesnt meet the whole definition.
I have used it this way to cut through some really crusty pizza.
strikes are possible.
No that’s a pretty finite length, even if you have to measure the atoms to do it.
It’s also not length but circumference.
You don’t need to leave the kitchen, just need a pi
Diogenes has entered the chat
Yo. New Diogenes just dropped.
This is not a parallelogram and is therefore not a square
This image makes me angrier than it should. Those 4 “right angle” designations are all lies. You cannot have a curved line attached to anything and call it a “right angle”. It’s not. Like, factually. I don’t care if it’s 2 feet long, or 200,000 miles, it will never be exactly 90°, which invalidates the entire thing.
If it’s not a right angle, then what is it? Wouldn’t you just measure the angle between the tangent of the curve and the line? Working with the tangents is how you find the angle between two curves as far as I know. You say it will never be exactly 90 degrees, but it would be 90 degrees at exactly that point. That’s not a weird thing to say from a math perspective.
I think a bigger issue with this figure is that they’re using some internal and external angles for their count of 90 degree angles. (And that this is just a ridiculous twist on a square, lol.)
OK. Walk in a straight line for a couple of metres and stop. Rotate left or right by exactly 90°. Now take a curved path in any direction.
Did you or did you not turn 90°?
That doesn’t make the resultant diagram 90° at those vertices. That’s just empiricist stupidity.
OK, then what angle is it?
ah yes, ignoring that it should actuality be a polygon, implying a closed shape with straight sides much like this ignores the “weapon” and “used for thrusting or striking” parts of the definition.
not hard to make strange things fit a definition when you just ignore parts of it.
Let me introduce you to the Non-Euclidean surfaces to bend your concept of straight lines
something tells me neither of these are genuine attempts at properly using the definitions but rather clever subversions with deliberately obtuse interpretations in pursuit of… checks notes… humor.
Relax, take a deep breath<3
No. You can’t just put little boxes in the corner and call them right angles THERE ARE RULES WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY
But that’s correct in the image there - they are perpendicular or as you in the US call it “level”, they are all 90° and pweze pweze don’t forget you’re trying to be pedantic in a comments section of a stolen meme in a community called shitposting like just chill c:
It’s not pedantry, you just don’t know elementary level geometry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_angle
Right angles must be comprised of two straight lines, and by also by similar definition a curved line can’t be perpendicular to fucking anything.
That angle can be 90 degrees at the point of intersection because of how angles in this case are measured but it is not a right angle or perpendicular. This why the definition of right angle is more complex than “a 90 degree angle.”
The idea isn’t literal, it’s to show that our language is entirely just noises that we’ve made into increasingly complicated levels of agreed-upon abstraction. We don’t mine words out of the Earth, we develop them to create clear explanations that we can all agree on, and yes, the more you peel away or dig in, the more challenging it can be to create words that encompass all variations of an idea.
A weapon ❌
Used for thrusting and striking ❌
Long metal blade ❌
Tell that to pro wrestler, Nick Gage!
I see you’ve never been penetrated by a pizza slicer
It specifically says for thrusting or striking. That’s where the pizza cutter fails to pass as a sword. 😔
IDK maybe they’re just really bad at cutting pizza.
No fucking way dude, that’s slashing damage.
Also if the pizza is really hot, it does burn damage to the roof of your mouth.
You put the sharp edge on a surface and push forward to cut pizza. That IS thrusting.
I thought slashing but you might be right.
Thrusting or striking, you can definitely strike with a pizza sword so it match at least one definition.
And the sheath
How can one sheath the unsheathable
A kid in the show Happy Face tries to bring one to school as a weapon. The parents talk about it after he leaves and think it’s funny he considered that to be a weapon.
I was going to ask which squenix protag this was, but your alt text answered that for me.
Why do they all have a certain look to them?
If it rains, their socks are pure funnels to get water into the boots
That’s not infinitely long, it’s infinitesimally long.
Well it’s not infinitely long. It’s pi D’s long. With D being… well, let’s just say my “peanits”
