I failed algebra but passed geometry with this simple trick
- she/her
hi (:
- 35
- ffxiv
- transsexual
- puppygirl
- poly
- art
- adhd
- ☭
i do stream, sometimes.....
www.twitch.tv/tit_witchmy art, on *products* (ew lol)
society6.com/emmy-chopmy work in progress neocities website
alainawastaken.neocities.org/nsfw page ;)
cohost.org/alaina-fuchsdiscord username:
fuck_dis_cord.
listen to some weird shit here, and then mysteriously buy it
vouldeen18.bandcamp.com/musicYou must log in to comment.
in reply to @mya's post:
Ok beginning to see why non-euclidean geometry might be spooky
And yeah I also do wager this is still Euclidean but then non-euclidean must be more...
the usual definition of a triangle requires "straight" edges, but what straight means can depend on geometry. (e.g. a sphere is a non-Euclidean space and triangles on a sphere have geodesic lines: straight wrt the sphrere surface but bent when looking from outside).
so i guess this is either non-euclidean or using some other definition of triangle
either way im Intrigued
Looking at this is frustrating me. It feels like I Should be able to make a proof out of this but I either don't know how to or there's just not enough information here to make a proof
If this is Euclidean I still have to make multiple assumptions, that the shortest distance between all 3 points in fig A and B are the same, that the curves in fig B are actually semicircles, because then the math checks out, it works, but I had to make these assumptions which makes this proof invalid for anything concrete in the first place
If this is non-euclidean then I'm fucked because I don't know how to prove stuff in that, but I wouldn't know that, because that information was not given to me
Either way, I need information that this figure is lacking and my head hurts from thinking this after not touching math for 2 years, I'm most likely getting things wrong with this as well