relevant XKCD, surprisingly
- he/him-ish
Stupid thoughts and hopefully less stupid articles occasionally. Gaming and tech thoughts mostly, but I have a smattering of completely off-the-wall interests as well.
~~
hey! future me! I'm looking at you. You're gonna find some way to be nostalgic about literally anything I write here, aren't you? Knock it off and do something useful. thx bb
~~
website under construction
modulusshift.com/
You 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
