Stemfags BTFO by philosophychads once again
What is the surface area of that thing if its sides are one unit?
It's not convex
>>16956025Not a parallelogram
>>16956025Philosophy"chads" are so embarrassing...
>>16956025On what metric space are those sides parallel?
It is impossible to get an actual 90 degree angle off the circle like that. It will never truly be 90
>>16956177so, what you're saying is, that 0.999... is not equal to 1?
>>16956180I have always said that because x is not y and I'm not 'educated' enough to try and spin it any other way.0.9999 is not 1, 1 is 1 and if its not 1 it's not 1. Same as the angle off that circle is not 90 so its not 90
>>16956025the curved sides is actually a ton of small sides
>>16956025dude
>>16956180well 0.999... is equal to 1, but 0.999...9 is not.
>>16956025the opposing sides are not parallel and equidistant to each other so not a square.
>>16956025>I found a counterexample to your square definitionNo, you are lacking a necessary condition for said plane figure definition, your curve isn't a polygonal chain:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_chain
>>169566839 does equal 1
>>16956680that has 5 right angles
>>16956025If this is a square, you should be able to combine four with the same dimensions into a square with four times the dimensions.
>>16956025Squoids BTFO
>>16956025No, a square doesn't have four "sides" of equal length, it has four lines of equal length and you used arcs instead of lines.
>>16956025All you've proven is that Philosophy is Talmudic in nature.No, God is not fooled by your loophole.
>>16956429>>16956034>>16956130>>16956177>>16956137>>16956429>>16956787>>16957675>>16957767>>16957857>moving goalpostsyikes
>>16956025the sides must be straight, clearly unlike OP
>>16957904>durr presenting the correct definition instead of accepting a retarded attempt to redefine basic geometric concepts is moving goalposts
>>16957911the straights are blockaded
