At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
not really. Some mathematicians have called such objects "degenerate" squares, but you can exclude those kinds of answers when they pertain to physical objects.
I remember myin's "degenerate circle" question :)
That reminds me of a question I asked about circles. Can a "circle" with radius zero still be considered a circle? (x-h)^2+(y-k)^2=r^2 (x-h)^2+(y-k)^2=0 So in other words, can a single point on a graph be seen as a circle with radius 0.
lol. We were thinking the same thing.
Yes, I borrowed Zarkon's answer because I liked it :)
whom are you calling a degenerate?
If a point has 0 area, then the point doesn't cover any area... but a point still covers *some* area right?
Like infinitesimal, but still, I don't agree with the point that a point has zero area. :p
It's not a fair point.
i don't gt why \(x^2=2x\) @ParthKohli
a square has two dimensions
I have studied something like that \(x^2=x \times x\) \(2x=x+x\)
@jiteshmeghwal9 See the top-line of my question.
a point has no are as it is zero-dimensional, and squares (at least non-degenerate ones) require two dimensions as @UnkleRhaukus said
Ohh ! im so stupid i gt it Okay :)
So 0 is not a solution for \(x\)?
in the purely mathematical sense, I would say "yes it is a solution", but as a "square" in the normal sense of the word, or as a physical object, the answer would be "no".
if a side length is zero it is not a square
Okay, I'm talking about this question. So, yes, 0 is not an answer to the word problem?
@UnkleRhaukus @Zarkon termed such objects "degenerate". I think this is a sketchy question, they should have included the condition that \(x>0\) to avoid the subtleties in the philosophical mathematical implications of a zero-by-zero square.
yes zero is not an answer to word problem, however it does solve the equation
Math is so idiotic.
maths is a tool,
True.^ Professional mathematicians throw out useless concepts just because they are such. They also make their own theorems and definitions depending on what they feel is called for in a given situation. For example, many great mathematicians have \(defined\) \(0^0=1\) there is no objective mathematical proof of this, but sometimes it is convenient to do such things. These guys just make it up as they go along basically :P