I told you to use a different metric. The supremum metric.
And I told you how the measurement works. Take a refresher course in basic geometry. Or not. Either way: you’re incorrect. It’s just that simple. I provided the definitions for you. End of discussion.
Okay.
There is an entire universe behind “basic geometry”.
Yes.
circle of radius 0 = square of sides 0.
That’s a point, not a polygon or circle.
A point fits the definition of any polygon sides = 0.
poly = more than 1.
0 = none.
How can it fit the definition of polygon?
Yeah. On the empirical/inductive level, we cannot prove anything (positively or negatively) with certainty. For example, we cannot prove there isn’t a teacup orbiting the earth. However, on the logical/deductive level, we can prove things with certainty, e.g. no square circles. Or with the case of God, we can prove that God qua omnipotent and omniscient diety is impossible and doesn’t exist. Of course, if you define God differently, that’s a whole different story.
I meant “sides length”.
Zero-length is a point, essentially.
yes, and as I was saying, a point can be considered an n-gon with sides of lenght 0.
You can’t have zero-length for a side, though. A side has to have some measurement greater than 0. That’s just part of what a “side” is.
so sin(0) ought not return an answer then? since at 0 radians, the opposite side would be equal to 0, and thus could no longer be considered a side.
Radians is an angle measurement, not a side measurement. sin(0) merely means you’re trying to find the sine function answer when you plug in a horizontal line as the argument.
Right, but at 0 radians, the opposite side is length 0. Which it cannot be if it is to be considered a side.
And the sin function is (opposite side) / (hypotenuse). But if a side is not a side if if it has a length of 0, then the paramaters do not meet the function requirements (since the opposite side would be 0 and thus not a side and the sin function defines a relationship between sides) and no answer would be returned.
And it’s not at that point. Are you being daft for a reason? Are you seriously trying to commit the egregious blunder of saying that because you can plug in “0” for the fuction, that means a side can be 0 length?
No, I’m saying that 0 can be considered a length of a side, and because of that, it is a parameter which has a defined output in a sine function, if you say otherwise, a sine function cannot be defined if there is a side length 0.
You have a muddled grasp of the function and what a “side” is. The sine function is simply defined as a ratio, and you’re confusing that with a specific instance.
Is this conversation really happening? I think this might be the most incredible instance of thread hijacking I’ve ever seen in my life. Of course, the conversation that was going on here before this one was completely off topic as well, but this one is just impressive!
It takes a lot of talent to threadjack this well.