[Heartlander]

OK, let me put it a different way:
If you are saying that my argument has no bearing on your argument; and I am saying that your argument has no bearing on my argument (that is mathematics vs. philosophy) would you not agree that we are arguing about two different things?

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.

[longshadow]

If you are saying that my argument has no bearing on your argument; and I am saying that your argument has no bearing on my argument (that is mathematics vs. philosophy) would you not agree that we are arguing about two different things?

I'm arguing over the answer to YOUR question: can a square be perfectly circular and still be a square? I'm also pointing out that your philosophical argument that is "illustrated" by your question doesn't affect the answer to your question.

I'm saying the (Mathematical) illustration you used in your philosopical argument is flawed (assuming you want to be able to say "apples can't be both apples AND oranges" or something like that). Thus it DOES affect your philosophical argument. But the opposite is NOT true: your philosophical argument doesn't affect the Mathematics of your "can a square be a circle" question.

So, once again, I suggest you find a better illustration for your philosophical argument.

BTW, since you haven't provided any counter evidence to my example of a square with side length = 0 being identical to a circle of radius = 0, I assume you are now in agreement with me that there is, in fact, one case where a square can be both a circle and a square. Right?

And, if not, you'll post specific details pointing out how my example violates the previously provided definitions of "square" and "circle," right?