[longshadow]

Now tell me how a thing can simultaneously be both a square and a circle.

I've been waiting hours for some to ask...... actually, I assumed someone would have pointed this out long ago.

A degenerate square has sides of length = 0.

A degenerate circle has radius = 0.

As such they consist of a single point. In the degenerate sense, the point is both four sides of length = 0 AND equidistant from itself. It therefore technically satisfies the definition of BOTH a square AND a circle.

It's not a fancy trick; it's just a ramification of the definitions for square and circle. They don't exclude the dengenerate case.

[PatrickHenry]

Degenerate placemarker.

[jennyp]

It's not a fancy trick; it's just a ramification of the definitions for square and circle. They don't exclude the dengenerate case.

We don't allow degeneracy on this board!

[AndrewC]

They don't exclude the dengenerate case.

Cub Scout geometric figures?

[Heartlander]

Are you serious? I always stated a “perfect circle”. But that’s still not the point, I defined intrinsic for you and cited examples: “Do you stick square pegs in round holes? Drive on square tires or triangular tires? I guess you are one of those guys that I’ve heard about that actually believes the earth is square.”

But you pick and chose what you want and then add to it, much like those who try to prove evolution. It is appropriate that the word that was added is “degenerated”.

It seems this argument has gone full ‘circle’. (or is it square)
Methinks ‘you are’ a weasel.