By a strict reading it is also Right.
-
-
-
I put it to you that while all right-angled triangles satisfy the Pythagorean theorem but the converse is not automatically true and this triangle does not have well-defined internal angles
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No because you need three noncolinear points to have a triangle in the first place
-
Yep. This is not a triangle.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I’m translating this as “for all x, if x is a triangle with side lengths (0,0,0), then x is equilateral”. This evaluates to true since there is no triangle with side lengths (0,0,0).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This poll makes a good point
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this triangle does not exist
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a square, but you forgot one of the sides
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Next up, three lines meet at a point. Is the triangle they define equilateral? What if they also meet at 60° angles?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think the calculation here inevitably results in 0/0, which as always has a determinable value only as a limit when you specify where you approach from. i.e.: Shrinking an equilateral triangle gives an equilateral triangle of size 0, shrinking a non-equilateral one doesn't.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.