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.
I have "incidence" also.
Haha! I don't want to either. But that's not a good reason to ask others to do it for you.
@ospreytriple If I don't know how to, I am a right to ask. A bunch of definition on internet, right?
and I am not as good as you to know everything. :)
Sorry if I offended you @Loser66 . I was commenting on your statement "I don't want to describe it."
Yes, you did offend me. hehehe... but I am cool because you point out how stupid I am and it is true.
You know what a square is. I would start b y writing something out in plain English and then working the mathematical terminology into it.
A pair of parallel lines perpendicular to another pair of parallel lines at 4 points with equidistant sides forms a geometry called a square. right?
hahaha.... my bad English!!
I already helped you with this question..
@BloomLocke367 I appreciate what you did but I didn't satisfy with it.
|x| = a and |y| = a does that work
if not, may i know what exactly are you looking for
if you say |x|, then I must define the | | term.
We have "congruence" is undefined term on our definition.
go ahead define them shouldnt be hard
so, before giving out the definition of a square, I must add the definition of | | term, rightg?
if so, why not a quadrilateral or a rhombus? It is quite easier, right?
How about defining the four vertices as \((x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2), (x_3, y_3), x_4, y_4)\) such that \(x_1=x_3\), \(x_2=x_4\), \(y_1=y_2\), and \(y_3=y_4\). Then you have to add the appropriate line segment connecting the correct vertices. That do it?
let me just tag @Concentrationalizing
Hate to be a nitpicker, but the sides of a square are line segments, not lines.|dw:1441560429401:dw|Is line segment not permissible in the definition?
I did for a circle, it is a set of points whose equidistant from a fixed point
You might want to constrain your circle definition to a 2-dimensional figure. Otherwise, you'll end up with a sphere.
ok, thanks for the tip. I will add 2D and 3D in
Think of my definition of a square? I am not a native American so that It is hard for me to jot down the definition of something. hehehe....
@Loser66 do you have enough now or do you still need more?
Surely I need as much as possible.
what I had before a square is a set of 4 points such that when they are connected by lines creates 2 sets of parallel lines that are perpendicular to each other and all 4 segments are the same lengths.
Thank you so much.
Couple of issues I can see:|dw:1441562290366:dw|Four points connected by line segments? Also, is a square really a set of four points? Or is it a set of four line segments?
4 points when connected by lines is that what you disagree with ?
Yes. Which points are connected to which other points?
a square is the shape of the figure produced when ....
You might consider beginning with " a 2D geometric figure consisting of four congruent line segments..."
the segments you get after you have the points and connect them
@ospreytriple Yes, I did. I constrain them in 2 D, so that the parallel lines are in the same plane and they don't turn to the skew lines in 3D
very good to include it is a 2D figure produced when.....
is @ospreytriple the only one who did not see a square from my description?
"...arranged such that each endpoint is connected to exactly one other endpoint and each line segment is perpendicular to the two line segments to which it is connected." What do you think?
@triciaal I don't think so, he is just figure out how a reader can critique your definition. That is the way we project a geometry.
oh, my bad, I got you
I have to go now. If you guys have another guidance. please, let it here. I will pick it later. Thanks in advance.