You can't make a 3 sided object with 4 sides. It's no longer a triangle and is a square. It's the definitions themselves. Non-euclidian geometry would allow the angles to equal more than 180°, but not to "add a side".
Mathematicians dont want to to know this one strange trick, hide a secret corner of 180 degrees in any triangle to instantly make it a quadrilateral, without even changing the shape!!
Incase that is still a mystery to you, that means that the drawing is visually inconsistent with the finished part. That 180 degree 'corner' is effectively a straight line, if drawn to scale.
Technically you are “right” but you are also being obtuse (pun intended).
If you could bare to stretch your mind, and realize “not to scale” means “trust the numbers, not the graphic” you could in turn, realize that it is, in fact, 3 sided.
Every side of every shape is made up of infinite 180 degree angles and 2 angles that are different. Every. Single. One.
My school used to put a right angled triangle in the test and then say "not to scale" and then the angles would actually make it an isosceles or whatever. I agree with you that scale should keep proportions but yeah for some reason It's not common knowledge.
I know, shitpost and all, but this is possible in non-Euclidean geometry
A triangle with 90° angles, yes.
But not a four sided TRIANGLE. That itself is a contradiction.
One of the angles is 180 though so imagine what the two sides joined there would look like. After all this isn’t to scale.
You can't make a 3 sided object with 4 sides. It's no longer a triangle and is a square. It's the definitions themselves. Non-euclidian geometry would allow the angles to equal more than 180°, but not to "add a side".
Mathematicians dont want to to know this one strange trick, hide a secret corner of 180 degrees in any triangle to instantly make it a quadrilateral, without even changing the shape!!
Stop revealing my topology secrets!
I am ungovernable
"Not to scale"
. .
Incase that is still a mystery to you, that means that the drawing is visually inconsistent with the finished part. That 180 degree 'corner' is effectively a straight line, if drawn to scale.
Lmao that IS NOT how "scale" works. Proportions stay the same.
Technically you are “right” but you are also being obtuse (pun intended).
If you could bare to stretch your mind, and realize “not to scale” means “trust the numbers, not the graphic” you could in turn, realize that it is, in fact, 3 sided.
Every side of every shape is made up of infinite 180 degree angles and 2 angles that are different. Every. Single. One.
My school used to put a right angled triangle in the test and then say "not to scale" and then the angles would actually make it an isosceles or whatever. I agree with you that scale should keep proportions but yeah for some reason It's not common knowledge.
Why does it have to be non-Euclidean geometry? It seems like it would work fine as a regular (normal? Euclidean?) 30-30-60 triangle.
Edit: I can't read. 30-60-90 triangle.
60 ノ༼ ຈل͜ຈノ ༽ here you dropped this
my head hurts
Sum of interior angles of a triangle should be 180° so this is not a triangle. It is a square or maybe 2 triangles
The 180° angle is just a (really weird) way of representing a long, straight, line. The rest of the angles add up to 180°.
This is on a computer. 2 triangles obviously.