Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 16 Online
OpenStudy (loser66):

@ganeshie8 How can I write a definition of a square in terms of points, lines, parallel, perpendicular and congruence? Please, help I don't want to describe it.

OpenStudy (loser66):

I have "incidence" also.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Haha! I don't want to either. But that's not a good reason to ask others to do it for you.

OpenStudy (loser66):

@ospreytriple If I don't know how to, I am a right to ask. A bunch of definition on internet, right?

OpenStudy (loser66):

and I am not as good as you to know everything. :)

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Sorry if I offended you @Loser66 . I was commenting on your statement "I don't want to describe it."

OpenStudy (loser66):

Yes, you did offend me. hehehe... but I am cool because you point out how stupid I am and it is true.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

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.

OpenStudy (loser66):

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?

OpenStudy (loser66):

hahaha.... my bad English!!

ganeshie8 (ganeshie8):

teamviewer?

OpenStudy (loser66):

again? yes.

OpenStudy (bloomlocke367):

I already helped you with this question..

OpenStudy (loser66):

@BloomLocke367 I appreciate what you did but I didn't satisfy with it.

ganeshie8 (ganeshie8):

|x| = a and |y| = a does that work

ganeshie8 (ganeshie8):

if not, may i know what exactly are you looking for

OpenStudy (loser66):

if you say |x|, then I must define the | | term.

OpenStudy (loser66):

We have "congruence" is undefined term on our definition.

ganeshie8 (ganeshie8):

go ahead define them shouldnt be hard

OpenStudy (loser66):

so, before giving out the definition of a square, I must add the definition of | | term, rightg?

OpenStudy (loser66):

if so, why not a quadrilateral or a rhombus? It is quite easier, right?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

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?

ganeshie8 (ganeshie8):

let me just tag @Concentrationalizing

OpenStudy (loser66):

Thanks

OpenStudy (loser66):

|dw:1441560226473:dw|

OpenStudy (anonymous):

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?

OpenStudy (loser66):

I did for a circle, it is a set of points whose equidistant from a fixed point

OpenStudy (anonymous):

You might want to constrain your circle definition to a 2-dimensional figure. Otherwise, you'll end up with a sphere.

OpenStudy (loser66):

|dw:1441560688148:dw|

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!