• 0 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 1st, 2024

help-circle
  • That’s exactly my point, there are two different colloquial ways of talking about angles. I am not claiming there is a mathematical inconsistency.

    Colloquially, a “triangle has 180 degrees” and a “circle has 360 degrees.” Maybe that’s different in different education systems, but certainly in the US that’s how things are taught at the introductory level.

    The sum of internal angles for a regular polygon with n sides is (n-2pi. In the limit of n going to infinity, a regular polygon is a circle. From above it’s clear that the sum of the internal angles also goes to infinity (wheres for n=3 it’s pi radians, as expected for a triangle).

    There is no mystery here, I am just complaining about sloppy colloquial language that, in my opinion, doesn’t foster good geometric intuition, especially as one is learning geometry.


  • I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.

    If you take a circle to be the limit of a polygon as the number of sides goes to infinity, then you have infinite interior angles, with each angle approaching 180deg, as the edges become infinitely short and approach being parallel. The sum of the angles is infinite in this case.

    If you reduce this to three sides instead of infinite, then you get a triangle with a sum of interior angles of 180deg which we know and love.

    On the other hand, any closed shape (Euclidean, blah blah), from the inside, is 360deg basically by definition.

    It’s just a different meaning of angle.

    See, for example, the internal angle sum, which is unbounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_polygon


  • Triangle, “has 180 degrees,” subtends 360 degrees.

    Circle, “has 360 degrees,” the sum of the interior angles is infinite.

    (I’m not actually confused, it’s just that “a circle has 360 degrees” and “a triangle has 180 degrees” is a little annoying in that they use different definitions.)




  • The thing that fascinates me is that every single digital microwave I’ve ever used behaves the same way, and allows the “seconds-place” to be 0-99.

    My best guesses are

    • There’s some ASIC that’s been around forever and everyone uses it (a cockroach chip like the 555)
    • The first digital microwave did this and all subsequent ones followed
    • There’s actually some implementation reasons why this is way more sensible.

    Writing it in software, there are different ways that folks would probably implement it, for example, “subtract one, calculate minutes and seconds, display” seems reasonable. But nope, every one I’ve ever used is just the Wild West in the seconds department.


  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.websiteto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonestruggle rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    A dishwasher is a total quality of life thing for us.

    It sucks that some places don’t offer them. They’re not even very expensive, it’s just the kitchen real estate/installation that sucks.

    A place I loved in after college had a full size unit on wheels that you hooked up to sink to use—worked fine, just took up space. They also make countertop units, but I have no idea how well those work.