/sci/ - Science & Math

>Can a 2-5-8 triangle exist in non-Euclidian space and if so how?
What have you tried?

>>10084502
Nothing because I don't know much about non-Euclidian space. Trying to resolve a disagreement on a /pol/ thread about pic related

>>10084505
Just draw a diagonal from top left to bottom right and find the area of the triangles created and add them
There's no reason to assume that the 12 and 16 segments are parallel

>>10084512
I know it's possible to find a range of possible solutions to the shape and I have done so. But it spawned a separate question: Could a 2-5-8 triangle exist in non-Euclidian space?

>>10084519
if you tried make a triangle with these side length with angles of 0,0, and 180 degrees it'll look like the top image
as you make angle AB bigger, the length required for side C to be a triangle increases

In hyperbolic space. Anything is possible

>>10084566
claim: 1=0
proof: hyperbolic space

implies x=1x=0x=0 for all x
bam math you guys done
1/x = 1/0 = infinity = infinity/1
1=infinity
infinity = 1
2-1 = 1 = infinty -1 = infinity = 1

DONE!!!

>>10084490
2-5-8 has the unfortunate property that 2 + 5 < 8 so this violates the triangle inequality
so if you want that to be a triangle are not living in a metric space but something more fucked up
this means the standard positive (spherical) and negative (hyperbolic) curvature spaces are out of the question
you can try lorentzian spacetime maybe, using the spacetime interval as length

>>10084571
>Implying 1/0 is a valid, properly defined operation

>>10084519
> range of possible solutions
yeah, well since the figure is off, the range of possible solutions is essentially infinite. If 12 and 16 are not parallell, as the picture implies, then what's to say that that the angle between 5 and 16 is a right one; or, given the standards here, that 5 actually connects with both 8 and 12 (where they meet) and not just "somewhere nearby". This is 100% retardation.

maybe the correct answer is "whatever you feel it is". i'm guessing a woman made this.

>>10084585
You’re retarded. The curvature of the surface can do this even if the intrinsic distance is 2,5,8. Just use a different metric.

>>10084818