What is the surface area of that thing if its sides are one unit?

It's not convex

>>16956025
Not a parallelogram

>>16956025
Philosophy"chads" are so embarrassing...

>>16956025
On what metric space are those sides parallel?

It is impossible to get an actual 90 degree angle off the circle like that. It will never truly be 90

>>16956177
so, what you're saying is, that 0.999... is not equal to 1?

>>16956180
I have always said that because x is not y and I'm not 'educated' enough to try and spin it any other way.
0.9999 is not 1, 1 is 1 and if its not 1 it's not 1. Same as the angle off that circle is not 90 so its not 90

>>16956025
the curved sides is actually a ton of small sides

File: sqaure.jpg (31.7 KB)

31.7 KB JPG

>>16956025
dude

>>16956180
well 0.999... is equal to 1, but 0.999...9 is not.

>>16956025
the opposing sides are not parallel and equidistant to each other so not a square.

>>16956025
>I found a counterexample to your square definition
No, you are lacking a necessary condition for said plane figure definition, your curve isn't a polygonal chain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_chain

>>16956683
9 does equal 1

>>16956680
that has 5 right angles

>>16956025
If this is a square, you should be able to combine four with the same dimensions into a square with four times the dimensions.

>>16956025
Squoids BTFO

>>16956025
No, a square doesn't have four "sides" of equal length, it has four lines of equal length and you used arcs instead of lines.

>>16956025
All you've proven is that Philosophy is Talmudic in nature.
No, God is not fooled by your loophole.

>>16956429
>>16956034
>>16956130
>>16956177
>>16956137
>>16956429
>>16956787
>>16957675
>>16957767
>>16957857
>moving goalposts
yikes

File: file.png (19.7 KB)

19.7 KB PNG

>>16956025
the sides must be straight, clearly unlike OP

>>16957904
>durr presenting the correct definition instead of accepting a retarded attempt to redefine basic geometric concepts is moving goalposts

>>16957911
the straights are blockaded