• Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.)

    • letsgo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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°?