In my culture, rhombus is the basis of a vagina pictogram. In my culture, rhombus is every schoolboy’s favorite shape.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Czech_vulva_symbols
This is amazing and thank you for sharing. The ability of the human race to come up with different yet universally understood yonic symbols is heartening. Like no matter what place or time, we’re all in this together and we will be drawing genitalia.
Hell my dude there’s a cave people deliberately carved to look like a vag and it’s incredibly detailed.
Humans just seem to love genitals to an alarming but understandable degree
That’s even better
This is the cave btw
Researchers believe that the entrance to the cave was a slit, which was then widened by humans.
😏
It is impossible to be mature about this.
Imagine my 14yr old mind seeing and reading about this for the first time
You weren’t kidding they even got the cervix lol
sigh zip
Rhombussy
That’s actually amazing I love that just a diamond with a line in the middle is shorthand for vagina, it’s so universal too I bet if you showed that to any human they’d eventually guess the meaning.
Traditionally you can also draw hair/rays around.
Western civilization seems obsessed with cocks, we need to draw more vulvas. I’m doing my part.
<|>
Pica in brazilian Portuguese means dick.
Pičivo.jpg
That one was great 🤣
All shapes will be hunted down to extinction until the one and only remains.
Yeah, it’s pretty good. But it’s not a hexagon, which is the bestagon…
- 🐝
Looked around my room
Stacks of books
Rectangular posters with rectangles on them
Windows, curtains, televisionThen i saw the plaid shorts i am wearing and had a good laugh
And then the ceiling and the walls and the floor and the door, and the light switch…
Wait until they find out it’s all actually triangles
The only thing that’s greater than humanity’s obsession with rectangles, is computers’ obsession with triangles.
grabs tinfoil hat
If obsession with rectangles makes one human, my cats are definitely human too.
Every square you ever met is a rhombus that gave up its art career and got a boring 9-5.
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED!!1!one!!
clearly you didn’t learn, since diamonds are a pretty common shape
RhombusDelete this image now, or in 5 years, Elon Musk will release the Tesla Rhombus, and force it upon Europe!
Make it higher so it could qualify
Shit you are right, it’s just a parallelograyhound
Haven’t you guys used a kite before?
Isn’t a rhombus just what you call a diamond that’s having a bad day?
If I ever have my own home, my house will have a rhombus room.
“Don’t you mean a rumpus room?”
Bro, that’s not even a real shape.
A rhombus, otherwise known as a diamond. Its one of the more popular shapes past star, triangle, circle, and square.
Hexagon is bestagon
Hendecagon is the only one that is also a good source of protein though
Happy cake day!
Take a square. Lean it to the side. Rhombus. Take a diamond, let it fall on one of its sides. Rhombus. The world just keeps a-rhombusin, you just stopped a-noticin’
I changed my excel cells to be rhombuses
Does it still work on vertical rows and columns, or are they both diagonal now?
Fun word for you, the up-down-left-right set of directions can be referred to as “orthogonal” - think “orthodox”.
That is a good one. Thanks!
do de ca heedron
oh they don’t appear again, but its generalization, the parallelepiped, does:
it’s used to calculate volumes of curved objects. basically you chop down the object into a lot of small parallelepipeds (mentally), and then calculate the volume of each of them small things and sum over them. Done.
to calculate the volume of a parallelepipede, there’s a surprisingly simple mathematical formula. If you have the vectors for the three sides a, b, c, then the volume V = (a × b) · c, where × is the cross product and · is the dot product. it’s very simple and an effective way to calculate volumes of curved / deformed objects.
Links:
- (german) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformationssatz
- (english) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integration_by_substitution#Substitution_for_multiple_variables
Sometimes I think about parallelepipeds then when I reassociate I’m smiling and my fiance is visibly wondering what I’m thinking about. “Don’t worry hun, parallelepipeds again”
where × is the cross product and · is the dot product
pardon my ignorance but what the fuck is a “cross product” or a “dot product”? I assumed at first this was multiplication, but then I saw the dot and realized this isn’t anything I’ve ever been taught
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_product
sorry i am too tired to explain in full detail rn
that’s fine, and thanks for the links! I just don’t quite agree that this is suprisingly simple mathematics :P
yeah it’s “surprisingly simple” in the sense that there’s a well-defined algorithm to do it. a computer can do it easily, with very little time/effort. anyways, you don’t need to think about every problem specifically. “now i got this parallelepiped, how do i calculate the volume?” you can just use the same formula every time.
it’s used to calculate volumes of curved objects. basically you chop down the object into a lot of small parallelepipeds (mentally), and then calculate the volume of each of them small things and sum over them. Done.
For anyone not quite getting this (like me), to calculate the area under a curve in 2D we were taught to cut it into tiny thin rectangles and sum those up; intergration when those rectangles have a width tending to 0.
For 3D (e.g. a pond ripple) or higher curves, a simple rectangle wont cut it as the length of the rectangle might only get the top of a wave, but not capture the crest of it tangential to it. So you create slopey rectangles to approximate that space, and bring the limit to zero to get the area (I think).
My only confusion now is, if I’m deforming a rectangle from one side to approximate the curve just above it, am I not also deforming the bottom of that rectangle in the same way (for the parralel strcture to hold true), and creating a forgotten space just above the axis plane?
well, almost. it’s a bit different than that.
what you mean is this:
you approximate an integral with a lot of small thin rectangles, but if the curve’s not entirely rectangular, there’s gonna be some error, which becomes smaller as the rectangles become smaller. this can be ignored if the rectangles are thin enough. and it’s not what i meant.
what i meant is something like this:
you take a piece of elastic fabric, and paint some squares on it. now, if you stretch the fabric, the squares change shape, they become approximately parallelepipeds. this is a good approximation. now, if we want to calculate the total area of that fabric (after stretching), we can calculate the area of each of the small parallelepipeds (which is easy to do with the formula in above comment) and then sum them.
Ohh! Calculating area, not volume under the curve – I see, thank you
OOP needs to eat baklava
isn’t that one of those mask things fascists use?
No, and the word is too Eastern European to keep a meme chain going in English if that’s what you’re going for
Baklava, balaclava, ballache, idk how far you’d take this afterwards
