And I'm still awaiting your presentation of how my example contradicts the definition of a square and a circle.
You do realize that you are arguing a square is actually circle – equal to? And you criticize me for disagreeing?
Actually, I don't recall critisizing you at all, and I don't recall you actually disagreeing; you've just been making lots of disparaging remarks, and as yet have not offered a disproof of my assertion that a square with side length equal to zero is the same as a circle of radius equal to zero.
If I am as wrong as you seem to be implying, it should be "trivial" for you to offer a disproof of my assertion.
BTW, for the record, the implications of this Mathematical question with regard to the larger philosophical issue you are discussing has no bearing on the Mathematics. The philosophical point you wish to make with your "square circle question" doesn't change the answer to your question.
Lastly, let me try another approach to see if you can see what I'm getting at. What I am saying is equivalent to this: The intersection of the set of all squares and the set of all circles is NOT empty. The intersection contains the square of side length = 0, and the circle of radius = 0, which are identical, namely, a single point.
But if you still disagree, I eagerly await your refutation. Please specify the length of the side of my square that is non-equal, and the points in my circle that are NOT equidistant. That should suffice.
If you show someone a picture of a square they will not say, “nice circle”. A square is known by its ‘squareness’ and a circle ‘roundness’.
Now we can argue this all night but I will need to open the ‘rectangular’ door to my refrigerator and get a ‘cylindrical’ can of beer.