Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
So using your 'dot product' math there comes a contradiction to the geometry of the situation...
Hmm...
So using your 'dot product' math there comes a contradiction to the geometry of the situation...
Hmm...
As I said, some of the lines are not at 90 degrees to each other. In fact, I'm not sure any of them are.
You need to realise that the plane EBCH is NOT a square, it's a rectangle. If you want me to explain further, I can, just ask.
~200 posts~
Last edited by Twipply (Aug 6 2011 9:02:01 am)
Oh wow... I can't believe I missed this.
The diagonals for the faces are not equal to the edges, thusfore they produce rectangles...
Wow I was ompletely wrong.
But could you imagine, 4 perpendicular lines, LOL.
EDIT: But then that doesn't account for all the other rectangles... How can there be rectangles if it's a regular cube?
Last edited by TrappedTime (Aug 6 2011 9:05:17 am)
Oh wow... I can't believe I missed this.
The diagonals for the faces are not equal to the edges, thusfore they produce rectangles...
Wow I was ompletely wrong.But could you imagine, 4 perpendicular lines, LOL.
EDIT: But then that doesn't account for all the other rectangles... How can there be rectangles if it's a regular cube?
It's alright. If you read the Wikipedia page on 3D space, you can see that it only has 3 orthogonal lines. In fact, it's probably called 3D space for that very reason.
As for your edit, I don't know what you're asking. There's rectangles inside the cube because there just is. Take the plane EBCH and it's just a rectangle. Take a plane through a sphere and you'll get an ellipse.
Nevermind, as long as all the edges of the rectangles are equal, it creates a cube.
I got confused
Updated Second Post.
Last edited by Pike270 (Aug 6 2011 6:43:32 pm)
Think up a transparent cube. Now connect each corner with it's opposite corner to form lines. You get... 4 lines! Now, using some statements about how diagonals in squares are perpendicular, you can use that multiple times to prove all lines are perpendicular.
^ I believe that you are referring to that (orthogonal lines shown in red). Those are orthogonal lines, but in a different context. As shown in the original post, we are talking about perpendicularity.
There are many definitions of "orthogonal": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orthogonal
Last edited by Pike270 (Aug 6 2011 10:45:37 pm)
[ Started around 1738498336.7898 - Generated in 0.043 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.46 MiB (Peak: 1.58 MiB) ]