I don't think either of those are necessarily true. Math, like so many other things, is not a unitary thing that writes its definitions in stone for all time. Yes, a point can be defined that way. There are other definitions, some more general, some very different. And a square has alternate definitions, too. Just because you have 1 you like does not mean it can't be defined in a different way.
I really like defining square in terms of right angles, myself. That allows me to know what my woodworking friend is asking for when he asks me to hand him the square. He has many different squares of different side lengths (one of which is shorter than the other!), made of different materials, having different widths, etc. But one thing is constant, they all have that 90° angle staring you in the face. On 7/23/20 3:09 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > The mathematical concept of a point in R^2 is that a it is completely > determined by the values of its coordinates. Same coordinates, same point. > A square per se Is determined by the length of its side(s). There is no > information about it's location. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
