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:

a triangle going very fast..

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...