The True Riemann Triangle - 630 degrees, not 270 deg

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

The True Riemann Triangle - 630 degrees, not 270 deg

Post by Necromancer » Mon May 01, 2017 10:55 pm

Hi! I've found a better Riemann Triangle to be 630 degrees and not 270 degrees as formerly known!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ec68b7e952
[img*]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ec68b7e952[/img*]
Image

Good? :D

Useful? I have absolutely no clue! You?

wtf
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The True Riemann Triangle - 630 degrees, not 270 deg

Post by wtf » Tue May 02, 2017 2:42 am

Can you remind us what a Riemann triangle is? It doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and surely that is the standard for requiring someone to explain it :-)

In any event whatever you're doing, 630 - 270 = 360, and angles are congruent mod 360. So you haven't done anything except run around in a circle.

ps -- On your FB page you copyrighted this? I hate to tell you, you don't have any intellectual property rights to the fact that adding 360 degrees to an angle gives you back the same angle. But I'd love to see an explanation of what all this is about.

The picture on the right looks like a kidney bean. Is that part of the plan?

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The True Riemann Triangle - 630 degrees, not 270 deg

Post by Necromancer » Tue May 02, 2017 8:58 am

Hi wtf

It is explained by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_geometry.

Which is part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry that also includes Riemann geometry!

Good? :)

Ps: Euclidean triangles are 180 degrees.

wtf
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The True Riemann Triangle - 630 degrees, not 270 deg

Post by wtf » Tue May 02, 2017 7:37 pm

You have two lengthy Wiki pages that I wasn't motivated to read. If someone says that although mathematicians think some angle is x, you've shown that it's really x + 360, I don't need to know what you're talking about to know that your idea is trivial. x and x + 360 are two real numbers representing the exact same angle.

If you can't explain in your own words what you're doing, I'm afraid I won't be clicking on links.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest