# Do parellel lines ever meet?

Watch
Announcements

This discussion is closed.

Report

#21

(Original post by

I triangle on a sphere is a stupid concept because any idiot can see (except, possibly, you) that the lines making up the triangle aren't straight. I can draw a triangle on a flat piece of paper that doesn't have straight edges but has angles that add up to more than 180 degrees. It just wouldn't be a triangle.

So I repeat: he probably didn't understand any of it.

**Pzyko**)I triangle on a sphere is a stupid concept because any idiot can see (except, possibly, you) that the lines making up the triangle aren't straight. I can draw a triangle on a flat piece of paper that doesn't have straight edges but has angles that add up to more than 180 degrees. It just wouldn't be a triangle.

So I repeat: he probably didn't understand any of it.

Since when do the lines have to be straight? And don't call me an idiot, my Maths teacher told me this and she has more knowledge than you as regards to Maths.

0

Report

#22

(Original post by

triangle - "geometric figure with 3 sides and 3 angles."

Since when do the lines have to be straight? And don't call me an idiot, my Maths teacher told me this and she has more knowledge than you as regards to Maths.

**Invisible**)triangle - "geometric figure with 3 sides and 3 angles."

Since when do the lines have to be straight? And don't call me an idiot, my Maths teacher told me this and she has more knowledge than you as regards to Maths.

0

Report

#23

You can draw three-sided shapes on curved surfaces: they do meet the technical definition of a triangle, but the shape will only have 180° on a flat plane.

To be fair though, the more I learn about physics, the less I understand about it. Every single time you explain something, more inconsistencies pop up. Is light a particle or a wave? How can it be both?

To be fair though, the more I learn about physics, the less I understand about it. Every single time you explain something, more inconsistencies pop up. Is light a particle or a wave? How can it be both?

0

Report

#24

(Original post by

You can draw three-sided shapes on curved surfaces: they do meet the technical definition of a triangle

**Squishy**)You can draw three-sided shapes on curved surfaces: they do meet the technical definition of a triangle

0

Report

#25

(Original post by

My maths teacher told me that he hated the whole concept of spherical triangles and I'm sure that he has more knowledge than both you, I and your maths teacher. I will therefore continue to hold my beliefs that you are an idiot and that the concept of spherical triangles is stupid.

**Pzyko**)My maths teacher told me that he hated the whole concept of spherical triangles and I'm sure that he has more knowledge than both you, I and your maths teacher. I will therefore continue to hold my beliefs that you are an idiot and that the concept of spherical triangles is stupid.

"Geometric shape with 3 sides and 3 angles." - It doesn't specify that the lines must be straight.

Clearly the person who made the theorem only considered straight lined triangles as we do.

"he has more knowledge than both you, I and your maths teacher." - Not enough to give any definitive answer though, and the fact that he doesn't appreciate the definition of a triangle doesn't enhance his argument any more. i.e.) "it's just stupid".

0

Report

#26

(Original post by

I can still think that it's a stupid concept.

**Pzyko**)I can still think that it's a stupid concept.

0

Report

#27

(Original post by

Your teacher thinking the idea is stupid isn't a decent answer. I'm going by the definition of a triangle.

"Geometric shape with 3 sides and 3 angles." - It doesn't specify that the lines must be straight.

Clearly the person who made the theorem only considered straight lined triangles as we do.

"he has more knowledge than both you, I and your maths teacher." - Not enough to give any definitive answer though, and the fact that he doesn't appreciate the definition of a triangle doesn't enhance his argument any more. i.e.) "it's just stupid".

**Invisible**)Your teacher thinking the idea is stupid isn't a decent answer. I'm going by the definition of a triangle.

"Geometric shape with 3 sides and 3 angles." - It doesn't specify that the lines must be straight.

Clearly the person who made the theorem only considered straight lined triangles as we do.

"he has more knowledge than both you, I and your maths teacher." - Not enough to give any definitive answer though, and the fact that he doesn't appreciate the definition of a triangle doesn't enhance his argument any more. i.e.) "it's just stupid".

0

Report

#28

(Original post by

Why though? If you drew a triangle on the ground, it would be very slightly a "spherical triangle", because the surface of the Earth is not flat. In fact, Euclidean geometry is not realistic at all. You can even have a triangle on the surface of a tennis ball that has three right angles...I think it's cool.

**Squishy**)Why though? If you drew a triangle on the ground, it would be very slightly a "spherical triangle", because the surface of the Earth is not flat. In fact, Euclidean geometry is not realistic at all. You can even have a triangle on the surface of a tennis ball that has three right angles...I think it's cool.

0

Report

#29

(Original post by

has more knowledge than

**Pzyko**)has more knowledge than

**both****you**,**I**and**your maths teacher**.
0

Report

#30

(Original post by

surely thats 3 people? maybe you cant count?

**visesh**)surely thats 3 people? maybe you cant count?

0

Report

#31

(Original post by

Maybe it was a grammatical slip up like your omission of apostrophes and capital letters?

**Pzyko**)Maybe it was a grammatical slip up like your omission of apostrophes and capital letters?

0

Report

#32

(Original post by

Curved surface of the Earth is negligible. Drawing triangles on tennis balls is stupid.

**Pzyko**)Curved surface of the Earth is negligible. Drawing triangles on tennis balls is stupid.

0

Report

#33

**Pzyko**)

Curved surface of the Earth is negligible. Drawing triangles on tennis balls is stupid.

Come on, if you're a mathematician, have a little imagination.

0

Report

#34

(Original post by

Curved traingles can still meet the definition of a triangle.

**Invisible**)Curved traingles can still meet the definition of a triangle.

0

Report

#35

(Original post by

Are you arguing against my opinion that curved triangles are a load of *******s?

**Pzyko**)Are you arguing against my opinion that curved triangles are a load of *******s?

0

Report

#36

(Original post by

You seem very against the idea of "flat" shapes on curved surfaces or curved shapes on flat ones. The curvature of the Earth's surface is negligible, but it doesn't mean we can't study it. Gauss did, and he was a brilliant mathematician. Also, understanding the curvature of space-time is a very important part of modern physics.

Come on, if you're a mathematician, have a little imagination.

**Squishy**)You seem very against the idea of "flat" shapes on curved surfaces or curved shapes on flat ones. The curvature of the Earth's surface is negligible, but it doesn't mean we can't study it. Gauss did, and he was a brilliant mathematician. Also, understanding the curvature of space-time is a very important part of modern physics.

Come on, if you're a mathematician, have a little imagination.

0

Report

#38

**Pzyko**)

Are you arguing against my opinion that curved triangles are a load of *******s?

0

Report

#39

(Original post by

No.

**Pzyko**)No.

You can argue a case, but the definition will stand irregardless.

0

Report

#40

(Original post by

Don't say "triangles" as this includes straight lined triangles drawn on a non-flat plane

**Invisible**)Don't say "triangles" as this includes straight lined triangles drawn on a non-flat plane

0

X

new posts

Back

to top

to top