this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
280 points (83.0% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
2478 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

it’s homeomorphic to a square, so why not

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'll tell you why not! You hippie homeopaths are all the same! Science has scienced the evidence that there's no evidence for homopathic medicines otter than the libido effect.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

See, you get it

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I remember enough from geometry to know this is horseshit and be annoyed at it but not enough to actually prove why

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sides must be straight and parallel two and two.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The semi-circle is one side, then the 2 straight edges, and the arc between them is the 4th side.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's what I thought. The only way on which this has four sides is if the semi -circle is a side. But if that's the case, then I don't know wha the definition of "side" is

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Knock knock. Do you have a moment to discuss non-euclidean geometry?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

/slams door

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago

The black lines

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Someone may want to double-check my math on this one, but the length of the sides will be dependant on the radius of the smaller circle

ϴ=π+1-√(π^2+1), l=(2π-ϴ)r_1, l is the length of the sides. r_1 is the radius of the smaller circle

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I look at your diagram and see:

ϴ= L/(L+R)

And

2π-ϴ = L/R

I solved those (using substitution, then the quadratic formula) and got

L= π-1 ± √(1+π²) ~= 5.44 or -1.16

Whether or not a negative length is meaningful in this context is an exercise left to the reader

Giving (for L=5.44):

ϴ~= 0.845 ~~48.4° 

I'm surprised that it solved to a single number, maybe I made a mistake.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That lines up pretty similarly with what I found also. The angle should be a constant since there is only one angle where the relationship would be true. I just left it in terms of π because I try to avoid rounding.

Having said that, L would be a ratio of r; which I think lines up with what you found as well.

[–] [email protected] 159 points 1 month ago (5 children)

As long as we ignore the parallel sides requirement, sure.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

c/gatekeeping squares

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Take shitposts seriously and point out their obvious errors

-Carl Friedrich Gauss, probably

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The name of that Gauss?

Ampere

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Science memes is not r/shitposting? I would assume the person is serious when posting here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

gasp!!! it is c/!!!

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago

I would assume the person is serious when posting here.

This sounds like a "you" problem

[–] [email protected] 96 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And that the 90 degree angles should be interior angles.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're also not actually right angles, as the curvature starts departing from the angles origin. They may be approximately 90, down to many many small decimal places, but they are not 90.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's not accurate. If you are measuring the angle of a line intersecting with a curved surface, you measure against the tangent at the point of contact/intersection. It can be and still is exactly 90 degrees.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And that polygons should only consist of straight lines.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago

Yes sure, in Euclidean geometry, but this is clearly keyhole shaped geometry.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Polar coordinate square?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

You're no fun