• Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    People would definitely want to elongate the top and bottom sides because they do not want to draw a sideways square, which is a rhombus, parallelogram, diamond too.

    There’s no way a human is going to draw 4 equal lines

    No one at the end is going to be like “yeah but you have to be sure all sides are equal” when they have some kind of weird kite shape.

    There’s people out there that wouldn’t count a sideways square as a diamond

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      IDK why you think that “4 equal sides” is the same as “sideways square”.

      You can (and frequently do) have equal sided diamonds that aren’t “sideways squares”.

      Seems like your main issue is geometry.

      People would definitely want to elongate the top and bottom sides

      Which is fine. As long as they elongate symmetrically (which most would do), they’re still four equal sides.

      There’s no way a human is going to draw 4 equal lines

      Yes they would. In fact most would, I’d wager.

      Sounds like your concepts struggle is comprehending that “four equal sides” isn’t the same as “four equal vertices”.

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        There is no such thing as a diamond in geometry. The correct term is a rhombus.

        That shape is a kite in geometry.

        You ask 100 people what that shape is.

        How many are going to say diamond?

        Even the people that believe diamonds have all equal sides would say “It’s not a perfect diamond but it is diamond shaped”

        Imagine saying “It’s not a perfect square, but it is square shaped” at a rectangle.