this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
743 points (96.6% liked)

People Twitter

5283 readers
569 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
743
That's a really good point. (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by FlyingSquid to c/[email protected]
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hydrospanner 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

IDK why you think that "4 equal sides" is the same as "sideways square".

You can (and frequently do) have equal sided diamonds that aren't "sideways squares".

Seems like your main issue is geometry.

People would definitely want to elongate the top and bottom sides

Which is fine. As long as they elongate symmetrically (which most would do), they're still four equal sides.

There's no way a human is going to draw 4 equal lines

Yes they would. In fact most would, I'd wager.

Sounds like your concepts struggle is comprehending that "four equal sides" isn't the same as "four equal vertices".

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

Or four equal angles. A rhombus has two pairs of opposing, equal angles.

[–] Sludgeyy -1 points 10 months ago

There is no such thing as a diamond in geometry. The correct term is a rhombus.

That shape is a kite in geometry.

You ask 100 people what that shape is.

How many are going to say diamond?

Even the people that believe diamonds have all equal sides would say "It's not a perfect diamond but it is diamond shaped"

Imagine saying "It's not a perfect square, but it is square shaped" at a rectangle.