i need help what is this shape, drawn by the cross point

File: Screenshot_125.png (5KB, 341x220px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 341x220px

here's a better pic


note: this isn't hw

>>8635429

A or B cant both stand still

Cut your pref shape and move it the same way as your project.

>you cant

>>8635429
cycloid

>>8635429
an isos triangle

>>8635429
What program is that?

>>8635429
It's a curve.

>>8635649
wtf are you trying to say?

>>8635654
doesn't really look like it

>>8635738
geogebra

Fun fact: that point is the literal 'center of gravity' of the triangle

t. Archimedes

If I had to give a name for the shape of the line, though, I suppose it would be 'parabola' because it is perfectly symmetrical and belongs in a right-angled cone

>>8635775
Scale that thing up to the size of earth, you cant have point a and b both on earth unless it is curved. Wich would mean that a or b has to move

>>8636803
it's clearly not

>>8636899
are you serious anon?
consider a triangle where two vertices are on the same point (which is what the smaller triangle approaches as the x-coordinate of the larger triangle's top vertex grows) with another triangle that has the same base but all vertices distinct. this is obvious. the shape is not an elipse.

>>8637761
yes there is; in any case, if you suspend your disbelief of their existence, my point stands

>>8637768
There isn't, though. I guess you're just being delusional at this point.

>>8637770
>being this moronic
what are "degenerate triangles" for 200, alex

>>8637773
>degenerate triangles
You mean straight lines? How's a single line a triangle? Commit sudoko, pls.

>>8637777
quads don't lie

>>8637777
i want colinear hate and exclusion to end
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_(mathematics)

>>8635856
You're really fucking dumb aren't you?

>>8637787
no it doesn't; you say three colinear vertices do not form a triangle. the article talks about them forming a special type of triangle, a degenerate triangle. it tells you how a "single line" can be a triangle, and it makes sense to consider this case because one could easily define a triangle as being three points in the plane.
are you actually this dumb, or are you just upset that you couldn't see how obvious it is that AL+BL is not constant? (>>8636803)

File: 450px-Parts_of_Parabola.svg.png (21KB, 450x368px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x368px

>>8635796
It doesn't meet the defn. of a parabola though.

>>8637796
Not an argument.

And for the last time, a "degenerate triangle" is a straightline, retard.

>>8637806
you're not even trying anymore anon
i don't mind replying to you if you put effort into your posts, but if this is how it's going to be then you're all out of (You)s

>>8637808
I am glad you finally accepted the fact you were wrong.

>>8635788
No it is not. Crosspoint of medians is.

>>8637810
Wow, you won't even reply to me?

Have you even graduated high school? You're understanding of basic geometry is pathetic.

>>8637817
It is literally just the intersection of the lines drawn from opposite angles to the lines bisecting the lines. What is your source?

>>8637830
>You're

Opinion disregarded.

>>8637799
It kind of does. Hyperbolas are always assymetrical, which is why their ordinates, or latus rectum, is always tilted. In this case, the latus rectum would be perpendicular to the diameter.

>>8637844
A parabola is defined as follows: For a given point, called the focus, and a given line not through the focus, called the directrix, a parabola is the locus of points such that the distance to the focus equals the distance to the directrix.

The object in the OP does not meet these requirements therefore it is not a parabola.

>>8637844
>hyperbola are always asymetrical
i don't think that word means what you think it means.

>>8637851
If you're using the cartesian method, sure. But there is no indication that the distance from a given line, which is not given in the image above, couldn't equal another distance to a given line, again not given in the image above.

>>8637859
come on now anon, we all understand what the picture intends to show. don't warp your perception of it to try and justify your line of thinking.

>>8637859
>>8637844
You really don't understand this do you?

>>8637854
Well no I guess Hyperbolas can be symmetrical sometimes, but I frequently see them as asymmetrical, or tilted, because they are tilted when they are described within a cone, the origin of an hyperbola.

>>8637862
So please tell me how one defines the directrix without using the cartesian method?

>>8637865
>>8637868
i don't even know where to begin
do you always go to post about things that you don't understand?

>>8637839
What you describe is really the center of mass, true. But the above point was made about crosspoint of angle bisectors, which is wrong

>>8637876
But the lines aren't angle bisectors, clearly.

>>8637873
Go ahead. This parabola isn't plotted on a graph, and a directrix is defined with one.

The origin of hyperbolas and parabolas is an intersection of a conic section.

>>8637886
They are. How else can you draw a circle with center on that line and touching adjacent triangle sides