@Fido,
A cone has a circular base and one rounded face that comes to a point. And the area is pi * the radius sqared. I forgot the circumference. I'm good at math. I always have been.
@Fido,
"Fido" wrote: It is a point missed by many cic, that different names point to different concepts...
Exactly. Isn't that what I have been saying. It's not possible forsomething to not be what it is. (Excuse my double negative, but that was the only way I could put it.)
@Fido,
It is a concept understood universally. A pyramid is a pyramid until it changes its shape. Nobody can deny it, because they can't prove otherwise. It is what provides us with our perception of reality.
LOL could it be as simple as the word pyramid have others meanings such as a marketing pyramid that is surely not a pyramid in the physical sense of the word?
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
LOL could it be as simple as the word pyramid have others meanings such as a marketing pyramid that is surely not a pyramid in the physical sense of the word?
That was covered on page 1, Billy
@mark noble,
I am a peer amid this group. But I am no pyramid.
What else is a pyramid going to be? An English Springer Spanial?
@cicerone imposter,
What makes him less of a pair Cic ?
wrong road there.
@Fil Albuquerque,
Doesn't make any difference.
@cicerone imposter,
We all can make a difference time to time, it very much depends on the stimuli around...
@JazzMinnie,
JazzMinnie wrote:
A cone has a circular base and one rounded face that comes to a point. And the area is pi * the radius sqared. I forgot the circumference. I'm good at math. I always have been.
Isn't pi an angle... I mean, that is the way it was explained to me, that in finding the ratio of the cirmference to the diameter, a portion of the circumference is reduced to the point where it resembles a straight line, the angle of that arc to a line perpendicular to the diameter...Or something like that.. Methods of finding areas of triangles and cones are similar with the cone as the limit...
@JazzMinnie,
JazzMinnie wrote:
"Fido" wrote: It is a point missed by many cic, that different names point to different concepts...
Exactly. Isn't that what I have been saying. It's not possible forsomething to not be what it is. (Excuse my double negative, but that was the only way I could put it.)
That is not what I am saying..
@Fido,
Then you've lost me again.
Witty comments.
It really has to do with perspective. A pyramid is not a pyramid in the 2nd dimension, though in the third dimension it's still a pyramid, and the non-pyramid in the second dimension is not the non-pyramid in the first dimension, though its still a pyramid. It is very possible to be something your not at the same time. Now lets go outside our dimensions- outside the 4th dimension, anything can be opposite at the same time. In the fourth dimension you are existing in both the beginning and the end. Tree A is not Tree B, but after 80 years of the miracle of life, Tree A has died and regrown as Tree B, and existing at the same time in the 4th dimension.
Bu if that doesn't make any sense, we can dive into arguments of definition. It isn't what it is unless it is in accordance with the definition. But consider not the definition, but more the area of location. When is a star not a star? When it is gas, because gas isn't a star, and not all stars are gas, though a clump of exploding gas in space is a star, but not always.
@ConnorBerge,
Any two dimension view lacks true perspective; most people understand that simple rule. Looking at pictures in a magazine is much different than looking at a person who is within view. That's true of all objects, and that includes pyramids.
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
Hi All!
When is a pyramid not a pyramid?
And why?
Thank you, have a splendid everything!
Mark...
when you don't see it three dimensionally
What?
When you don't see it 3-dimensionally???
Then I assume we are looking at a picture of a pyramid?
Ergo - when is a picture of a pyramid NOT a picture of a pyramid?
A picture of a pyramid is NOT a pyramid, it is a picture.
How can something not be what it is, or be what it isn't?
Mark...
@cicerone imposter,
No.
How about when viewed from directly above?