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.
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.
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.
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.
Relax, take a deep breath<3
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.
Let me introduce you to the Non-Euclidean surfaces to bend your concept of straight lines
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.
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?
This is not a parallelogram and is therefore not a square