What's the solution /b/?

>Sphere is revolved circle
>Rectangle is extruded square
The cylinder can fuck right off.

You could argue a cylinder is simply a rectangle that's been folded around.

A revolving square?

>>736177594
>>736177853
>>736177853
>>736177955


draw it you fucking faggots.

>>736177594
>Cylinder is extruded circle

>>736178256
Then what extrusion made the sphere?

>>736178354
A sphere isn't an extruded circle, a sphere is a revolved circle.

>>736177508
there's an error in your premise

sphere = circle x circle
cube = square x square
cylinder = circle x square

>>736178354
Are you retarded?

>>736178468
Beautifuly said

>>736178468
Wtf does that mean?

A cylinder is just circles stacked on eachother.

>>736177508
no wonder none of you fags got into an engineering school.

The answer is also a square (or a rectangle if the cylinder was taller than it is wide).

Left side is obviously how the item looks if seen from in front. Ignoring shadows, the cylinder would look just like the cube

>>736178931
What if you rotate the cylinder so that the top is faced towards you?

File: Capture2.jpg (50KB, 1571x515px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1571x515px

>>736178931

>>736178468
it means to get a 3d circle, you times the circle by the circle
to get a 3d square you times the square by the square

to get a 3d cylinder, you need to times the circle by the square

File: main-qimg-4c9b29ee2703d8c6466ad7e2d7c37e8a.gif (109KB, 602x376px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 602x376px

Circle =/= sphere
Circle =/= cylinder
Circle = torus, which is both cylindrical and spherical.

>>736178722
>Circles have 3d space

>>736179162
circle is 2 dimensional

torus is 3 dimensional

your comparing an apple to a pinapple fritter there buddy

>>736178468
This. Simple, but elegant

>>736178722
You could also argue the same but for rectangles if you could do infinitesimal amount of slices.

>>736179162
tfw you cant draw that in 4D

>>736179188
So tell me then, how does multiplying 2d objects get you a 3d object?

>>736179277
yfw animating it into motion can make it 4d....

>>736179328
you times an object from the 2nd dimensional plane, with another 2 dimensional object, because you now have an extra dimension to work off (one being the common factor) it is now 3 dimensions.

>>736179227

You fucking retard, the question is stating that the 3d equivalent of a circle is a sphere, and a 3d equivalent of a rectangle is a cube.

It's asking what the 2d equivalent of a cylinder is.

>>736177594
Cylinder = extruded circle... or revolved rectangle.

Covfefe.

>>736179419
circle x circle = circle^2(squared)

square is a 2d shape.

>>736179333
holy schmucks, someone who understand that time can be the 4th dimension

File: 103666044-RTX2AQXH.530x298.jpg (20KB, 530x298px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 530x298px

>>736179588

>>736179162
THICC

>>736179609

not even trolls are this retarded, please correct yourself.

>>736179588
good night sweet prince, also this is not a get thread

>>736177955
>>736178177
>>736178722
>>736179277
>>736179333
>>736179588
>>736179722

>>736179800
At least I have an argument going, you're just spewing some weird shit about how multiplying 2 object get you an object of a higher dimension. WTF does even "multiplying shapes" mean? How do you multiply a circle by a circle? You multiply numbers not shapes.

>>736179472
because my post relates to op's discussion and not the post its linked to....

>>736179914
>never took calculus

>>736179914
l2 algerbra

a circle is just numbers you fucknut.

>>736179955
Which is what I was talking about. OP is asking what the 2d equivalent of a cylinder is.

>>736179855
>not a get thread
Oh the irony.

>>736180107

and your stating its a torus ?

you need to clear the air here buddy.

File: Capture2.jpg (33KB, 455x342px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 455x342px

>>736180032
Sweet, There's a number growing on this man's head

>>736180213
No.

Please reread >>736179162

I'm saying that OPs premise is incorrect.

a piece of spaghetti.

>>736180277
hair is a circle

circle has dimensions

so yes, and those numbers will relatively be fixed because his head is not growing.

you really need to learn math.

File: circle-numbers-abstract-background-red-31127799.jpg (26KB, 400x283px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x283px

>>736180032
>>736179914
yeah dumdum, learn to math

>>736180032
A circle isn't number, a circle is a set of properties.

A circle = a shape that consists of an infinite amount of points, each point being an equal distance from the center.

When you say circle x circle, which numbers exactly do you think you're multiplying.

Let's say circle a radius = 5, circle b radius = 3

what will be the solution to a x b?

File: 1486980272052.jpg (5KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x250px

>>736180486

>>736180497
that's not true. If you consider plank's distance then the number of points in a circle can't be infinite, thus a circle would have a finite number of points

>>736180032
I know that circle = 0 that's not what I mean at all.

>>736180719
A circle is a mathematical object not a physical one though.

>>736180907
a physicist would disagree.

>>736180719
But there are an infinite number of locations that *could* be points on that circle, line or whatever.

>>736180951
When you use math with physics you usually assume that the shape is perfect in your calculations to simplify, even though that is impossible in the real world.

>>736181027
doesn't matter. once you put a plank sized point there's still a finite number of points that would make the circle and you can't put other points in between those points without creating another plane

>>736181425
You can put an imaginary point. And a circle = imaginary points, because it's a mathematical concept not a physical object.

>>736179914

(x – h)^2 + (y – k)^2 - r^2 = 0

Since h,k are the coordinates of the centre of the circle, put them in the square/rectangle formula somehow:
x * y = A

(x - h)(y - k) * 4 = A

Somehow find a way to multiply by the first expression.

Voilà: square x circle.

Okay good, that was the first step.

Now show me how you're gonna express the result as a 3d shape.

>>736181505
I guess my doughnut is imaginary then

>>736181412
In high school level physics you do. In college you don't. if you approximate a number you better make sure it's reflected in the result (i.e. indicate that there may be some sort of variation)

>>736181901
a doughnut isn't a perfect shape, it's not imaginary. You can zoom in to it and eventually you'll come to some fundamental particles.

You can call your doughnut a circle if you want to, because it is very similar to a circle, but by definition a circle is a geometrical object.

File: plane-dog-meme-1.jpg (63KB, 649x453px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 649x453px

>>736177508

an oval. Jesus, how difficult was that?

>>736181901
It's in the shape of a circle but it's not a circle.

>>736182109
Lol so when you're calculating some effect on a ball, you take into account every single atom that it consists of?

>>736182253
For any calculation that includes mass you are.

>>736182253
trust me, if some atoms were behaving erratically when you bounce a ball, you would know by now (yes, physicists go to those lengths).

Calculating how many times it will bounce, at what point in time it will touch the ground, etc. is all high school level physics.

>>736177508
Square and circle.

No. 1 and 2 are cross sections

>>736182441
How can you measure the mass of an object down to the atom?

The ball also loses atoms every moment, do you take that into account too?

>>736182152
>geometrical
= can be measured. I can measure my doughnut therefore it is geometrical.

even if the doughnut is not perfect, at least some particles within it will still make a circle

>>736182525
high school level physics, as in taught in high school, obviously physicists still solve those kinds of problems.

>>736182683
The particles can't make a circle because the definition of a circle is that it consists of an infinite amount of points. There cannot exist a physical shape with an infinite amount of points, which is why a circle is not possible in the real world.

>>736177508
That glass is entirely empty. Quiz says I'm a realist.

>>736182637
>How can you measure the mass of an object down to the atom?
Take the mass of the ball, divide it by the mass of the atoms that make up the ball

>The ball also loses atoms every moment, do you take that into account too?
and you know it loses atoms because??? Bingo, a physicists

To get off of /b/ and get a life.

>>736178722
hahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahh holy shit i this is actually best laugh all day thank you

>>736177853
You could also argue that it's a circle that has pulled itself up by its own bootstraps.

>>736179162
circle=circle asshole

>>736182156
<nobody takes the b8
<nobody likes your "plane dog meme 1"
<nobody likes you

File: 1495073276383.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

>>736183256
>anon can't greentext
>mfw

>>736177508
A square and 2 circles.

>>736183058
A ball will consist of more than one type of atoms/molecules. How do you know exactly how many atoms of each type are there in the ball?

>>736183161
I think he meant when converting from 2d to 3d.

>>736183256
>nobody takes the b8

>implying that OP isn't just trolling and everyone took the bait.

File: am i the only one around here.gif (1014KB, 500x261px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 500x261px

>>736183426
kill yourself holy shit everyone and their little sister can greentext you faggot fucking summerfag get off my board
>mfw underage b&

>>736182926
I call your definitions bullshit
If there are an infinite number of points, then a subset of that would be 2 points. There must exist a distance between those two points.

A more believable theory would be that the circle itself is a point (i.e. you can zoom in forever and you would not find a gap)

But then, if the circle is a point, your argument that you can't multiply to circles together is mute

>>736183454
I'm not saying you do. I'm saying if you make a precise enough measurement of the balls mass and use that in a calculation you are in effect taking into account every atom because atoms have mass so you are just weighing all the atoms. And yes given the right instruments we can measure the mass of objects that precisely.
Look at proposed definitions for standards of what the mass of one gram should be using a precise number of silicon atoms.

>>736183550
>not seeing that i was replying to someone other than op
>being this new

>>736183495
yes i see this now makes sense

>>736183454
There are only ever 6000 atoms in any object, one for every year the world has existed.

>>736183452
Two parallel lines and two ovals

>>736183454
spectrometer.
but yes, we are limited by technology. But then it takes me back to the point I made earlier, we don't assume anything, you'd give a margin of error, but you don't do it to "simplify"

>>736183713
Yes you can, but you usually don't, you make assumptions. Which was my initial point.

>>736184329
It's not assumptions. You'd indicate the error in measurements so that someone that applies it can understand variations. But you don't do it for simplicity as you said before

No clue

>>736183426
>>736183256
>>736183550
>>736183634
>>736182156
youre all a bunch of fucking newfag fucks

>>736186568
You're

File: C-mNXALXUAA37WW.jpg (165KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 900x1200px

>>736186568

File: rectangle.png (223KB, 488x285px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 488x285px

>>736177508
perpendicular cross section of a cylinder

File: thread.png (17KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x300px

>>736177508
/thread

>>736177508

There is no clear transition from a 2D object that tranforms to a cylinder in 3D.
they are not even compatible. this is just an illusion and some insight of the complex human which tries to make sense of 2 abstract shapes in order to imagine something new. after all different dimensions can NEVER compare to eachother

>>736187632
Isn't the left a 1D shape, and the right a 2D representation of a 3D object.
So there is no 1 dimensional counterpart to a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 Dimensional cylinder.

>>736177508
A circle or a square, depending of the 2d projection .