/sci/ - Science & Math

>>>/g/26470698

you suck

16, since it's not mentioned that it's a three dimensional image, we need to assume its to dimensional, so only the 4 on each side and the 8 clustered in the middle

>>4910611
What about the 2 squares that the 8 squares in the middle make up?

16

>>4910613
They don't count

40.

>>4910621
What the fuck does that mean they "don't count"

Why don't you post the picture here for clarity?

there are no squares, its just 1s and 0s

>>4910622
Look at this idiot. Explain it faggot. He asked for the amount of squares not the amount of squares that the squares make up

>>4910628
Still 16

>>4910630
LOL

you have 10 dicks
you put them all in you're ass
they don't make up 1 xboxhueg dick
just 10 dicks pounding your tight ass

>>4910636
sounds about right

16, it's just like the retarded triangles picture, you dumbfucks think that for some reason we should interpret 2D images as 3D

>>4910611
DIMENSIONS DON'T FUCKING HAVE ANYTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH THAT.

If I make a cubical house, it's still a cube, even if you divide the interior into rooms. It's exactly the same.

>>4910636
Don't use physical examples to talk about mathematics. Just don't. It doesn't work.

There are 40 squares.

>>4910630
>Explain it faggot.
A square is a regular quadrilateral with four equal sides and four right angles. Polygons like the complete image or the top left quadrant, which you seem to be discounting, are such quadrilaterals. The fact that other squares exist whose area partially overlaps with them does not stop them being a square, as squares are not about areas in any way - they are about quadrilaterals, which are defined in terms of line segments only.

>>4910648
But that's not a square that's a 6 sided irregular polygon

>>4910604
Just one: John Howard. Pictured within three rectangles.

>>4910649
>>4910622
>>4910644
>>4910648

>I'm wrong so I think I'll same fag about it so more people think I have the majority

>>4910630
Except the squares that the squares make up ARE STILL FUCKING SQUARES. YOU JUST CALLED THEM SQUARES.

>>4910654
Why? How am I supposed to know that the six sided 2 dimensional figure which has a square connected to it is supposed to represent a square?

>>4910658
Read the definition of a square 9001 times, maybe you'll get it.

>>4910654
Why don't you count the pixels then ?

>>4910653
>>4910658
Stop trolling, idiot

>>4910650

I don't think the figure in red having 6 sides anywhere.

>>4910665
It a small square next to a 6 sided polygon.
In a 2 dimentional world, you cant stack shit up on the depht dimention, otherwise it'd mean it's 3D.

>>4910665
(picture)

>>4910664
>I'm wrong he must be trolling

>>4910662
I don't know what a square is

>>4910663
What's a pixel. I didn't remember to encounter such a term in any math textbook. Care to give a mathematical definition?

>>4910650
>>4910658
If this were an actual 3D scene, how many cubes would there be? 1 or 3?

>>4910681
Probably how ever many there would be if the scenario was real. How ever the original image is a 2 dimensional plane

>>4910678
>I don't know what a square is
Well you obviously don't. I suggest wikipedia.

>>4910678
But you're talking about the wrong figure. That is not a square but we aren't talking about that one.

>>4910682
>In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral. This means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90-degree angles, or right angles)[1].

Nope nothing about 6 sided figures and interpreting 2-dimensional fields as 3-dimensional. I checked though because that comeback was so witty.

>>4910687
Wait what? Are you arguing 16? Yeah 16 is wrong. I've been posting all this time assuming you've been arguing 20

>>4910676
We're not stacking things. You don't need an extra dimension to say that two figures overlap.

If you divide a cube into four cubes, the bigger one is still a cube, dammit!

>>4910690
Nice. So now that you found this. Do you understand what a line segment is and that (as a set of points) can have a subsegment (which is another segment)?

>>4910690
Nobody is talking about 6-sided figures or dimensions but you shithead. I'm talking about this square: >>4910665

>>4910697
My posts here are >>4910648, >>4910664 and >>4910687, I'm arguing there are 40 squares. And honestly I think you're trolling.

>>4910701
You can't have overlapping figures in 2-dimensional fields though you fucking intellectual light weight. All you'd have to do is say that we're assuming it's 3-dimensional and you'd be right

>>4910690
It also does not disallow intersecting lines

No circles here I guess.

>>4910707
>You can't have overlapping figures in 2-dimensional fields
Care you share a good reference on that?

>>4910707
This 10 thousand times !

>>4910701
>>4910707
>>4910708
>>4910711

>>4910711
Care to*

>>4910712
Nope

>>4910715
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-dimensional_space

I have this source in a few other languages if you'd like

>>4910707
Before you keep repeating that "dimensional" shit, why don't you realize that you can do the same in 3 dimensions? (>>4910644 >>4910681)

>>4910707
>overlapping
you keep using this word, and are using it to infer an implied third dimension; the proper term is intersecting, which does not imply depth

>>4910716
I also know it's 40, so there's two of us.

>>4910653
>>4910716
Stop being an idiot.

>>4910716
>>4910701 here, I'm not OP.

>>4910721
Where in this wikipedia's article does it say that planar object can't intersect?

>>4910729
What is the definition of intersect?
Can a two planes on the same plane truly intersect?

and also, can two line segments on the same line "intersect"?