It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is only a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except for this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, on account of its uniqueness, we can allow an additional subclass of rectangle for the extreme shape "square."
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
Consider not the one who speaks the truth, but the truth that is said
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
The definition of a definition maker is: an expert or a student in definition making. I take some classes in this field sometimes, thus making me a definition maker, completely destroying your argument.
Consider not the one who speaks the truth, but the truth that is said
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being." No, I am a human being.
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
The definition of a definition maker is: an expert or a student in definition making. I take some classes in this field sometimes, thus making me a definition maker, completely destroying your argument.
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being."
Well rectangles and squares are both parallelograms but only rectangles are quadrilaterals
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
The definition of a definition maker is: an expert or a student in definition making. I take some classes in this field sometimes, thus making me a definition maker, completely destroying your argument.
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
Yes, it is suddenly a different shape, a square instead of a rectangle. That's the one and only difference between them
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being."
Well rectangles and squares are both parallelograms but only rectangles are quadrilaterals
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
The definition of a definition maker is: an expert or a student in definition making. I take some classes in this field sometimes, thus making me a definition maker, completely destroying your argument.
That's not the true definition, cite your source
It is as I am a definition maker. I dont find it less credible than your definition of a mathematician
Consider not the one who speaks the truth, but the truth that is said
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
The definition of a definition maker is: an expert or a student in definition making. I take some classes in this field sometimes, thus making me a definition maker, completely destroying your argument.
That's not the true definition, cite your source
It is as I am a definition maker. I dont find it less credible than your definition of a mathematician
Well I used Google, if you can't cite source you officially lose
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being."
Well rectangles and squares are both parallelograms but only rectangles are quadrilaterals
fightinfrenchman wrote:The definition of a mathematician is "an expert in or student of mathematics." I take math classes sometimes so I am a student in the field, thus making me a mathematician. And because I disagree with your definition it is not universal, completely destroying your argument.
rofl So no definition is universal because whatever the definition is about, you will find at least 1 random person on Earth who tooks classes in the field sometimes and disagree with what all experts agree about
The definition of universal is: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. So you misused the word then
I disagree with this definition of universal. So the definition of universal is not universal.
Well you're not a definition maker so your opinion on it doesn't count
Of course it does because I took classes in this field sometimes
No that's the part of the definition of a definition maker
The definition of a definition maker is: an expert or a student in definition making. I take some classes in this field sometimes, thus making me a definition maker, completely destroying your argument.
That's not the true definition, cite your source
It is as I am a definition maker. I dont find it less credible than your definition of a mathematician
Well I used Google, if you can't cite source you officially lose
Google is not a source. It is a search engine. Source: Wikipedia
Consider not the one who speaks the truth, but the truth that is said
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
Yes, it is suddenly a different shape, a square instead of a rectangle. That's the one and only difference between them
Because we are discussing polygons I will limit the definition of a shape to a polygon.
Technically then, by that logic, every infinite variation of a single polygon is a "different shape." Two oblong rectangles whose sides are of different proportions are still rectangles to you, no? We must define shapes by their geometric properties (or else we must name every infinite variation of shape) - under which a square is a rectangle - and which, because of its non-similar singularity, a property unique to squares and not to other rectangles, we can name it further.
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
Yes, it is suddenly a different shape, a square instead of a rectangle. That's the one and only difference between them
Because we are discussing polygons I will limit the definition of a shape to a polygon.
Technically then, by that logic, every infinite variation of a single polygon is a "different shape." Two oblong rectangles whose sides are of different proportions are still rectangles to you, no? We must define shapes by their geometric properties - under which a square is a rectangle - and which, because of its non-similar singularity, a property unique to squares and not to other rectangles, we can name it further.
Well yes technically I would say all shapes are different, even if they're just different sizes. Just a waste of time to come up with names for all of them, so we have to stop at some point
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
Yes, it is suddenly a different shape, a square instead of a rectangle. That's the one and only difference between them
Square is just the word for a rectangle with all equal sides. Be there, or be rectangular.
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
Yes, it is suddenly a different shape, a square instead of a rectangle. That's the one and only difference between them
Square is just the word for a rectangle with all equal sides. Be there, or be rectangular.
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being."
Well rectangles and squares are both parallelograms but only rectangles are quadrilaterals
this is just blatantly false
It's blatantly true
Consider the following:
i)A quadrilateral is a polygon with four sides ii)A square has four sides iii)Therefore, a square is a quadrilateral
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being."
Well rectangles and squares are both parallelograms but only rectangles are quadrilaterals
this is just blatantly false
It's blatantly true
Consider the following:
i)A quadrilateral is a polygon with four sides ii)A square has four sides iii)Therefore, a square is a quadrilateral
Jam wrote:Two different rectangles are different from each other in the same way that a square is different than a rectangle.
No, all types of rectangles fit under the rectangle category. Squares all fit in the square category.
They all just differ by the lengths of their sides. Squares just have all equal sides. If a rectangle has side pairs different by the golden ratio is it suddenly a different shape or is it just a type of rectangle to which I've applied a significance to it's side lengths.
Yes, it is suddenly a different shape, a square instead of a rectangle. That's the one and only difference between them
Because we are discussing polygons I will limit the definition of a shape to a polygon.
Technically then, by that logic, every infinite variation of a single polygon is a "different shape." Two oblong rectangles whose sides are of different proportions are still rectangles to you, no? We must define shapes by their geometric properties - under which a square is a rectangle - and which, because of its non-similar singularity, a property unique to squares and not to other rectangles, we can name it further.
Well yes technically I would say all shapes are different, even if they're just different sizes. Just a waste of time to come up with names for all of them, so we have to stop at some point
The "some point" being geometric properties which tie together large groups of polygons. Within the context of this discussion, that means we can classify infinite quadrilaterals into a handful of groups. Grouping all quadrilaterals with four right angles is a logical classification which we call "rectangles," under which the square also falls. It follows then that a square is a rectangle.
deleted_user wrote:It wouldn't make sense for a square to not be a part of the rectangle class. The rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. There are infinite amounts of non-similar rectangles. There is a single non-similar square. You cannot say "this is a rectangle - it is is a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles - except fore this one whose sides are of all equal lengths, even though it is still a quadrilateral bounded by four right angles." It simply doesn't make sense.
Quadrilateral is just a wannabe parallelogram
All parallelograms are quadrilaterals. Meanwhile, not all quadrilaterals are parallelograms - you're going backwards. It's like saying "Callen is just a wannabe human being."
Well rectangles and squares are both parallelograms but only rectangles are quadrilaterals
this is just blatantly false
It's blatantly true
Consider the following:
i)A quadrilateral is a polygon with four sides ii)A square has four sides iii)Therefore, a square is a quadrilateral
I didn't say anything about polygons
substitute "polygon" with "shape" (which you've been discussing a great deal) and the conclusion is the same.
I love rectangles. My home is a series of overlapping rectangles. Rectangles are great. I'm in love with a rectangle. I want to know everything about rectangles. I want to be a rectangle.