Comments on: Circular reasoning http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/ Glen and Rachel Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:42:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5 by: EYC http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-743 Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:47:53 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-743 They get away with a technicality - when people think of 'shape', they assume a regular shape. Stoopid people... I think that you should write to them and threaten them with Danica McKellar (whatever happened to her, anyway?). They get away with a technicality - when people think of ’shape’, they assume a regular shape. Stoopid people… I think that you should write to them and threaten them with Danica McKellar (whatever happened to her, anyway?).

]]> by: Glen http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-744 Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:55:09 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-744 No, but that's not the issue. Their shapes, no matter how odd (no pun intended, since the number of sides must be odd), do just fine as manhole covers. The issue is their use of the word "diameter". So I'm catching them on a technicality. No, but that’s not the issue. Their shapes, no matter how odd (no pun intended, since the number of sides must be odd), do just fine as manhole covers. The issue is their use of the word “diameter”. So I’m catching them on a technicality.

]]> by: EYC http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-745 Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:47:36 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-745 Okay, I see. Regardless, they're whack. Okay, I see. Regardless, they’re whack.

]]> by: Mike http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-746 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:03:24 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-746 I assume this was brought on by this review?<br /> <br /> This sounds like a good read actually... I may pick it up. I assume this was brought on by this review?

This sounds like a good read actually… I may pick it up.

]]> by: Kanishka http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-747 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:48:23 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-747 What about a 2-d torus? Or is that just a variation on a theme of circle? What about a 2-d torus? Or is that just a variation on a theme of circle?

]]> by: Em http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-749 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:22:40 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-749 Gwendolyn, did you click on "Danica McKellar's Website" on the solution page? Some bad things happened, and I may no longer be employed.... Gwendolyn, did you click on “Danica McKellar’s Website” on the solution page? Some bad things happened, and I may no longer be employed….

]]> by: Nick http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-750 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:34:40 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-750 You are absolutely correct. The general definition for diameter is "A line passing from side to side of any body through the centre" (ref. OED). The 'definiton' they're working with is false. You are absolutely correct. The general definition for diameter is “A line passing from side to side of any body through the centre” (ref. OED). The ‘definiton’ they’re working with is false.

]]> by: Glen http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-751 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:26:56 -0400 http://www.aerogeek.org/blog/2003/04/23/circular-reasoning/#comment-751 Mike: Damn, you're good.<br /> Kanishka: I should have been more specific and specified a 2D convex shape.<br /> Em: Yes, and the results were unfortunate.<br /> Nick: That's what I'm saying! Mike: Damn, you’re good.
Kanishka: I should have been more specific and specified a 2D convex shape.
Em: Yes, and the results were unfortunate.
Nick: That’s what I’m saying!

]]>