2787
Comments (134)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
StayGoldDonnyBoy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Of course it’s supposed to be a square, but if this were a proof, you couldn’t assume they’re right angles

2
Liberty4All 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a fair comment.

But it is also not possible for all four sides of the square (or rhombus) and both diagonals to be 6 ft in length.

If it's a square, if the sides are 6ft, then the diagonals are longer. Or if the diagonals are 6 ft, then the sides are shorter.

If it's a rhombus, it would be possible for the sides to be 6ft and one diagonal to be 6ft, but the other diagonal would be much longer than 6ft.

Tl,dr: the figure as drawn is geometrically impossible.

1
acasper 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s reasonable to assume that although the two diagonals have an incorrect value that the creators intent was to portray them as equal which supports this being a square.

2
Liberty4All 2 points ago +2 / -0

True. But your reply is perhaps better addressed to the commenter above me, as that was the person who said the figure can't be assumed to be square.

Regardless, the figure is wrong. The diagonals and the exterior sides cannot be the same length.

2
acasper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ahh my apologies!