I have a different solution for the defining of a circle; It can be seen as the shortest distance between 2 points where those points remain an "equal" and "opposite" distance from each other from "a" to the origin of "b" and from "b" to the origin of "a". It could stand as a secondary definition because it is true undoubtedly

Question

I have a different solution for the defining of a circle; It can be seen as the shortest distance between 2 points where those points remain an "equal" and "opposite" distance from each other from "a" to the origin of "b" and from "b" to the origin of "a". It could stand as  a secondary definition because it is true undoubtedly

anonymous · Answer

what is your question

bibby · Answer

Entirely unnecessary

anonymous · Answer

I  believe that simple teachings like this can be very significant generations down the line, but to ask if anyone else agrees with this is my question??

bibby · Answer

It's not a traditional definition, it's vague, and the definition of the radius serves this exact purpose

anonymous · Answer

...when working with particle physics, there are major differences with simple definitions, because some very intricate particles do not have a point at the center of the themselves and their equilibrium is based on balances that have no central point. It's like getting a tetrahedron to spin at an angle where the four surface points revolve to give the image of a sphere. I am not a professional, but I love studying algebra and math, thanks for your answers...