Also, all numbers are rational, otherwise they do not make sense
17 1 Replywhat about the number whose square is -1
4 0 ReplyRoses are red, Euhler's a hero, e^iπ+1=0
18 0 ReplyYou're just imagining it
6 0 ReplyPermanently Deleted
1 0 Replyas far as the rationals are concerned, this is the same as the number whose square is 2. (ℚ(i) and ℚ(√2) are isomorphic as fields.)
what we can gleam from this is that complete rationality can blur the line between what’s real and what’s imaginary
2 1 Reply
But Pythagoras hated triangles with irrational hypotenuses. A triangle with leg lengths of 3 and 4 units? Beautiful. A triangle with two 1 unit legs? Die
7 0 ReplyAnd not a right triangle in sight. I forget, did Pythagoras develop Pythagorean theorem or the law of sines?
5 0 ReplyBottom right, the 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5 checker boards forms Pythagorean Triple Triangle.
12 0 ReplyOh yeah! I see, you're right.
3 0 Reply
When it came to taking credit ... he had all the angles covered
7 0 ReplyWell, he popularized it, but the Pythagoran theorem was something ancient civilizations had already figured out.
5 0 ReplyDocumenter that documented their document gets the document credited to documenter
8 0 Reply
"Every tryangle...", says man holding a prisma
4 0 ReplyThat's not a prism, it's a tetrahedron, the most triangular of the solids!
5 0 Reply