# Circles and Triangles

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » Circles and Triangles

Fri 12 Dec, 2008 11:12 pm
I'm in the mood for this. Can anybody prove to me that circles and triangles are the same thing?

Mind boggling I'd say but would a triangle with 3 right angles be a circle?:deep-thought:

No0ne

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 01:51 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
I'm in the mood for this. Can anybody prove to me that circles and triangles are the same thing?

Mind boggling I'd say but would a triangle with 3 right angles be a circle?:deep-thought:

:detective:All geometrical shapes are composed of "angles", a TRI-"angle" allways has three angles, thats why it is called a Tri-angle.

Im not anybody, but just cut your self a piece of pie and you'll know why.
_____________________________________________________________

(*Note another can say you can turn a pie into triangles, but I can say my hand full of triangles can turn into a pie.)
(*Note the biger or rounder or more 3D your pie is, the more tri-angles compose the pie, or can be made out of the pie.)

Joe

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 02:46 am
@No0ne,
If you take an Equilateral triangle and make it rotate fast enough, what would you be looking at?

xris

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 06:31 am
@Joe,
a triangle going very fast..

Joe

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 06:43 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
a triangle going very fast..

ha. that is very true. I think This idea is a great example of how we can look at something differently to understand exactly what are the boundaries of the universe. Creative thought is truly where genius minds develop.

by the way, that triangle would appear to be a circle.:bigsmile:

xris

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 06:51 am
@Joe,
If you have two lines bound by a third line and allow the bound line to be of any length and you allow the two lines to rotate about the point of their connection you go from a straight line till they eventually create a circle..its two lines with a described angle of 360 degrees with a defined line of its circumference..

Catchabula

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 06:55 am
@xris,
Imho a circle has an infinite number of angles, while a triangle has only three (but wasn't that said before). Seems I just squared the circle

If philosophy does not enable us to connect the finite with Infinity there is always mathematics. The gods invented mathematics, humans invented philosophy.

Booo

Joe

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 07:17 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
If you have two lines bound by a third line and allow the bound line to be of any length and you allow the two lines to rotate about the point of their connection you go from a straight line till they eventually create a circle..its two lines with a described angle of 360 degrees with a defined line of its circumference..

rotate at their point of connection while still adjacent to the third line? Sorry Im trying to get an accurate picture in my head.

oh wait, I think i understand. the two lines would be leading the third, into to what would eventualy turn 360 degrees. Correct me if im wrong.

... but that seems like it still would be a triangle within.
that bothers me for some reason.

xris

Sat 13 Dec, 2008 07:51 am
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
rotate at their point of connection while still adjacent to the third line? Sorry Im trying to get an accurate picture in my head.

oh wait, I think i understand. the two lines would be leading the third, into to what would eventualy turn 360 degrees. Correct me if im wrong.

... but that seems like it still would be a triangle within.
that bothers me for some reason.
Its the best i could do..the third line would be expanding and contracting...so many triangles describing a circle or a circle describing an infinite amount of triangles...

Zetherin

Fri 19 Dec, 2008 03:24 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
If you have two lines bound by a third line and allow the bound line to be of any length and you allow the two lines to rotate about the point of their connection you go from a straight line till they eventually create a circle..its two lines with a described angle of 360 degrees with a defined line of its circumference..

And how does this prove a circle is a triangle? A triangle has 3 sides, equaling 180 degrees. A circle, as you know, has 360 degrees.

Anyway, to answer this question, things may be more clear if we were able to view objects in the 4th dimension. At the second dimension, shapes cannot even be visualized, just lines and dots. At the third dimension we are able to visualize shapes, but only from one two dimension viewpoint at a time. At the fourth dimension we can see the three dimension object from all viewpoints, inside and out. If we were able to see a circle in the fourth dimension, it may clarify this issue. That is, we may be currently blinded, just as a flatlander (two dimensional world) would be, and simply need to "shine the light over" to be able to fully understand. My hypothesis would be that we would discover things are much more complex than a line, side, edge, point. Instead, we would realize that the circle isn't a circle after all, it just is.

So, my advice is to find out how we can tap into the fourth dimension. Do it by next Wednesday also, it'd be awesome to have the ability by Christmas.

Thanks.

xris

Fri 19 Dec, 2008 08:00 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
And how does this prove a circle is a triangle? A triangle has 3 sides, equaling 180 degrees. A circle, as you know, has 360 degrees.

Anyway, to answer this question, things may be more clear if we were able to view objects in the 4th dimension. At the second dimension, shapes cannot even be visualized, just lines and dots. At the third dimension we are able to visualize shapes, but only from one two dimension viewpoint at a time. At the fourth dimension we can see the three dimension object from all viewpoints, inside and out. If we were able to see a circle in the fourth dimension, it may clarify this issue. That is, we may be currently blinded, just as a flatlander (two dimensional world) would be, and simply need to "shine the light over" to be able to fully understand. My hypothesis would be that we would discover things are much more complex than a line, side, edge, point. Instead, we would realize that the circle isn't a circle after all, it just is.

So, my advice is to find out how we can tap into the fourth dimension. Do it by next Wednesday also, it'd be awesome to have the ability by Christmas.

Thanks.
My moving triangle described a circle your fourth dimension only imagined a triangle...nurrr so there...

Zetherin

Fri 19 Dec, 2008 04:34 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
My moving triangle described a circle your fourth dimension only imagined a triangle...nurrr so there...

Except for the fact that a moving triangle isn't the only shape that can describe a circle. Try spinning a square in the same manner - circle.

And in the fourth dimension, it wouldn't be imagining. Instead it would be realizing that what meets the eye at this dimension, sure doesn't meet the eye on the next. Unless of course you mean we are imagining the circle even existing, which would be closer to my hypothesis.

Holiday20310401

Fri 19 Dec, 2008 10:05 pm
@Zetherin,
What about a triangle with three right angles equaling a circle?

paulhanke

Fri 19 Dec, 2008 10:54 pm
@Holiday20310401,
... sounds like that equals a square with a missing side ...

nameless

Sat 20 Dec, 2008 01:31 am
@Holiday20310401,
Sooo, has no one read 'Flatland'?
Take a circle, a square, a triangle and every other geometric shape of which you can conceive, 'lay it down' into a two dimensional world and they all become points and lines from the two-dimensional Perspective of the observer. Can a 'circle' be a line? Of course! Depends on Perspective! Can a 'line' be a circle or a triangle? Sure! Simple logic.
The 'Flatlander' might argue this, due to the fact that he has no experience or concept of any other world than the two-dimensional world in which he lives (and tends to egoically identify with it, so there is need to 'defend'...).
Kinda like us, in our little worlds...

xris

Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:24 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
Except for the fact that a moving triangle isn't the only shape that can describe a circle. Try spinning a square in the same manner - circle.

And in the fourth dimension, it wouldn't be imagining. Instead it would be realizing that what meets the eye at this dimension, sure doesn't meet the eye on the next. Unless of course you mean we are imagining the circle even existing, which would be closer to my hypothesis.
Look trying to be rational on this subject defies reason...I did not spin my triangle if you bothered to read it, i described a circle with a flexible hypotenuse hypothesis...

Holiday20310401

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 11:48 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Sooo, has no one read 'Flatland'?
Take a circle, a square, a triangle and every other geometric shape of which you can conceive, 'lay it down' into a two dimensional world and they all become points and lines from the two-dimensional Perspective of the observer. Can a 'circle' be a line? Of course! Depends on Perspective! Can a 'line' be a circle or a triangle? Sure! Simple logic.
The 'Flatlander' might argue this, due to the fact that he has no experience or concept of any other world than the two-dimensional world in which he lives (and tends to egoically identify with it, so there is need to 'defend'...).
Kinda like us, in our little worlds...

Exactly, so when a triangle has two right angles it is from the perspective of a 3D plane where the lines can be curved, making it possible. And a triangle with 3 right angles might just look like a circle from a different perspective.

nameless

Tue 23 Dec, 2008 02:45 am
@Holiday20310401,
^^^ Just a matter of Perspective...

xris

Tue 23 Dec, 2008 08:33 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Sooo, has no one read 'Flatland'?
Take a circle, a square, a triangle and every other geometric shape of which you can conceive, 'lay it down' into a two dimensional world and they all become points and lines from the two-dimensional Perspective of the observer. Can a 'circle' be a line? Of course! Depends on Perspective! Can a 'line' be a circle or a triangle? Sure! Simple logic.
The 'Flatlander' might argue this, due to the fact that he has no experience or concept of any other world than the two-dimensional world in which he lives (and tends to egoically identify with it, so there is need to 'defend'...).
Kinda like us, in our little worlds...
A line has no depth or width only length as far as i can remember...we should not be even able to see it..so no perspective..

Holiday20310401

Tue 23 Dec, 2008 10:14 am
@xris,
The viewer of a 2D perspective would have to be 2D as well so I'm assuming that changes things, right?

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » Circles and Triangles