This is a triangle

>but are not contained in the same line
This bit seems unnecessary and redundant.

You call them a single line because you don't see them as two different ones.

Painting makes it easier to understand.

Look at this picture, these lines are clearly different. One is red, the other is blue. Together they meet and form a 180 degrees angle.

The same could be said about a lot of other things in our daily life.

Can't you think of any instances where something straight turns into a different material, yet it keeps the same direction? Like the barrel of a gun and the trajectory of its bullet.

Forgot picture.

>This bit seems unnecessary and redundant.

No it isn't because if it weren't then something as retarded as a triangle with angles 0,0 and 180 would be a valid concept... and it is not.

180 degree angles do not exist in geometry, for that matter neither do 0 degree angles or >180 degree angles

Angle measure is a function from the set of all angles to the interval (0,180), not closed. Angles at the limits of that interval do not make sense and angles beyond that (like 270) are redundant.

But the concept of a measure of 180 degrees and >180 degrees do come up but as the sum of angles that actually exist.

>Look at this picture, these lines are clearly different. One is red, the other is blue. Together they meet and form a 180 degrees angle.

Color does not exist in geometry.

If two lines contain exactly the same points then they are the same line. In fact, if you can find that two lines share at least two points, then you know it is the same line. Those lines share plenty of points.

And by the way, your lines, and all of the lines in this thread are not actually lines, but segments.

I thought this board was 90% math majors, I cannot believe that all of you study math but yet never studied actual geometry. I am calling bullshit on Veeky Forums, you are all high school students posing as math majors.

Then where's the third side of the triangle?

>No it isn't because if it weren't then something as retarded as a triangle with angles 0,0 and 180 would be a valid concept... and it is not.

Nice circular logic.

It is circular logic but what do you want me to do? A 180 degree angle is a retarded idea and so is a triangle with angles 0,0 and 180.

I have the rigorous definition on my side, and you have shit.

But I can try to keep showing you why it is retarded and why mathematicians defined angles that way.

Tell me what is the difference between a 0 degree angle and a 180 degree angle?

First of all, I don't have a Maths major but I won San Francisco's County chess championship even though I had not played in a whole year let alone studied against a bunch of chesstards.
And yes, I did go to highschool, but I'd get straight As on Maths even thought I skipped 1/4 of classes, always slept during class and rarely took my time to study anything but Spanish.

Now now, if there are infinite points in a line then points do not occupy space at all. If points do not occupy space at all, and if there is no time in Mathmatics, then points cannot exist in time and space, and thus, do not exist at all. So unless used as mere tools for geometrical space reference as in , then points are pointless. This itself throws your whole argument down the toilet, and I could prove you with infinitely different numbers trough higschool formulas of sine, cosine and tangent that 0 degrees and 180 degrees angles do exist and to me it's really stupid to claim they don't.

These lines could occupy the same space.

This is just a secondary thought, but maybe they're on the same 2D axis, but these lines could extend over to a 3D axis as well, in such a way that described, however the lines wold be parallel on the 3D axis rather than two diagonals and one parallel to 2D axis. (read 3D as Z and 2D as Y/X).

>occupying the same space
But mr chess champion, just as my queen cannot be in the same square as yours, two objects cannot occupy the same space.

Instead of acting like a insolent, petulant child you could offer some actual justification for this definition. You've given no reason to disallow OPs triangle aside from "I don't like it".

>Tell me what is the difference between a 0 degree angle and a 180 degree angle?
180 degrees.

>literally le smart but lazy with no qualifications meme

>hehehehehehehehe two bobojects cannot occupy the same space i'm so smart hehh

Holy shit are you logically retarded, holy fucking shit re read what you just typed and ask yourself what you're doing in this board, you're making a negative claim, you're applying concepts of physics to maths, and not only that, you also have the

burden of proof
>burden of proof
burden of proof
>burden of proof
burden of proof
>burden of proof
burden of proof
>burden of proof

Did you get that right? It's the BURDEN OF PROOF. Fuck off!

>I have a degree in a expensive college mommy paid me
>I openly admit that I stand by definitions that can only exist thanks to circular logic, one of the most stupid logical fallacies ever

>Tell me what the difference between a 0 degree angle and a 180 degree angle

Holy shit are you stupid. I'm starting to lose it.
Do you really have a maths major?

Your entire second paragraph is a train fucking wreck.

> if there are infinite points in a line then points do not occupy space at all.

What? How are you going from A to B. By the way, the plane that contains a line is also infinite.

>then points cannot exist in time and space

So you think that space in physics = space in math. Good to know you are retarded.

>sine, cosine and tangent

These functions do not exist in euclidean geometry, and euclidean geometry is the geometry of the triangles lines and angles we are talking about.

Those functions only make sense in a "generalized" analytic geometry that only even serves a purpose in calculus, they literally say nothing about the definition of a triangle.

Those functions are derived from triangles, not the other way around.

>you could offer some actual justification for this definition

But I have. Lets bring some deeper contradictions

Say you have angle ABC, with vertex B.

The space inside the angle ABC is the semiplane cut from BC that contains A intersected with the semiplane cut from AB that contains C.

Now imagine your 180 degree triangle, which is a straight line --A---B---C

Cut that to get the two semiplanes. You see what is wrong here? None of those semiplanes contain either A or C... or B for that matter. So then this angle literally has nothing inside of it, even though you claim it has a longer angle measure than say a 30 degree triangle.

All of geometry breaks down man, do you fucking see?

Maybe not smart, rather, autistic, but I'm really sadened that Veeky Forums cannot see the beauty of my beautiful gorgeous degenerate triangle.
Maybe one day I'll win the equivalent of the nobel in maths because of my discoveries in Veeky Forums.

Serious question, how can I write and publish a thesis, scientific paper whatever to be published by a magazine and refuted by the scientific community?

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

I like my argument so I will re use it again.

Draw me what the space inside the 180 degree angle is?

NONE. It is fucking empty set. Because of you shitting all on geometry's rules set by the geniuses throughout history, we have come to a conclusion that leads to an angle having the empty set for its entire space. Good fucking job there man.

>Lets bring some deeper contradictions
You haven't posted any contradictions.

I'm not even sticking to OPs example - there may very well be good reasons to exclude it. But you have, so far, proven pretty shit at constructing an argument, let alone a proof.

Veeky Forums is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, user straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.

That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

this pasta needs to die

Don't OD on your euphoria, man.

The contradiction is that you have constructed an angle that has literally 0 points inside of it.

But you know, why the fuck am I even debating the nature of angles? We can debate the nature of triangles.

The rigorous definition of a triangle: Given 3 non collinear points A,B,C the triangle ABC is the union of the segments AB, BC and AC.

In those 3 points look very fucking collinear to me, therefore they are not a triangle.

>What? How are you going from A to B?
1) Get a pencil
2) Get a ruler
3) Get a blank sheet of paper
4) Write "A" and "B" anywhere on the paper
5) Draw a fucking line

There, it's done. I did it. Also, the sheet of paper is not infinite. A4 paper comes in the dimensions of 21x14cm. Thank you.

>sine, cosine, tangent do not exist in Euclidean geometry
>Euclidean geometry is about triangles, angles and lines

Good to know Euclides is a retard.

>draw me what the space inside the 180 degrees is

>NONE!

Wrong, it's painted in red as in the picture.

You were saying?

the empty set is a lot of things because of vacuous conditions.

I would also like it to be a triangle.

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

Now I know you are trolling, thanks for making it obvious.

But just in case you are actually a retarded underage highschooler then if you are so interested in geometry, pick up an actual geometry book.

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

Nice argument.

[math]This post is intentionally left blank[/math]

YEHA UR DUM TOO AND UR MUM TO HEHEHE I FIGHT ON THE INTERNET LOOK MUM ZOZZLE

>ITT: Euclides and Mathfags literally BTFO by autists with internet

ONE DOLLAR
N
E

D
O
L
L
A
R

>First of all, I don't have a Maths major but I won San Francisco's County chess championship even though I had not played in a whole year let alone studied against a bunch of chesstards.
And yes, I did go to highschool, but I'd get straight As on Maths even thought I skipped 1/4 of classes, always slept during class and rarely took my time to study anything but Spanish.
New pasta?

Actually this is a rhombus. 2 0 degree angles, 2 180 degree angles.
Fucking faggot learn to count the number of angles.

>this is a polygon of as many sides you want
no

I dunno about you but this looks like an irregular hypertetrahedron to me

>Tell me what is the difference between a 0 degree angle and a 180 degree angle?

>requiring a definition that produces uniqueness for all cases
That's nice and all, but there's nothing stopping user from producing his own shitty definitions.

That was a good meditation focus.
For a unit tetrahedron the center distance is sqrt(1/2).

bump

Only if you're a degenerate.

nurbana-software

By definition of triangle, the three points cannot be on the same line.

>Tell me what is the difference between a 0 degree angle and a 180 degree angle?
a 0 deg angle continues in a straight line and a 180 deg angle turns back on itself

pretty simple concept tbqh

This isn't /pol/ ...