the flattening is what makes them not spheres and have sides. If we applied this “logic” then literally everything is just anything but in a different form - which makes no sense
Oh great, a contrarian. “Every time someone replies to me, it necessarily must be an attack that I need to squash with full force.”
An awesome character trait.
The original point you were answering to was: A coin has 3 sides, because there are 3 potential areas where a coin can land.
Your point was: Only that it can land on an area doesn’t mean that that point is a side (as in a side that counts as a result).
I said: Yes, even on a die there are areas where the die can stand that are not counted as sides.
Now the question to you, mister contrarian: How was that a flaw to your argument? Please tell me, how a thinking human being that can read can seriously interpret that as me pointing out a flaw to your argument?
I hate small ego contrarians who feel the need to constantly find attacks from all sides and if they don’t find them, they make them up.
It’s the online equivalent of a teenager going “What are you looking at?”
The edge of a coin is a 3rd side though
every other die has sides that aren’t counted if you’re doing that.
dice are just flattened spheres. they only have one weirdly shaped side
the flattening is what makes them not spheres and have sides. If we applied this “logic” then literally everything is just anything but in a different form - which makes no sense
congrats on getting the joke
And a very very funny joke, at that
indeed
A side in this case is a specific area that allows for differentiating outcomes
A die can land and stand on a corner if you do it precisely enough.
It needs a designation, why I said what I said. You don’t call side on a coin flip because your only choices are heads or tails
And I was argueing in your favour and you downvoted me for it.
You were? No one said anything, and you replied to me with a “flaw” in what I said? Why would you just not agree? Or upvote?
It’s weird that you would say I was wrong then say you were doing it to support my statement.
Oh great, a contrarian. “Every time someone replies to me, it necessarily must be an attack that I need to squash with full force.”
An awesome character trait.
The original point you were answering to was: A coin has 3 sides, because there are 3 potential areas where a coin can land.
Your point was: Only that it can land on an area doesn’t mean that that point is a side (as in a side that counts as a result).
I said: Yes, even on a die there are areas where the die can stand that are not counted as sides.
Now the question to you, mister contrarian: How was that a flaw to your argument? Please tell me, how a thinking human being that can read can seriously interpret that as me pointing out a flaw to your argument?
I hate small ego contrarians who feel the need to constantly find attacks from all sides and if they don’t find them, they make them up.
It’s the online equivalent of a teenager going “What are you looking at?”
An ideal coin is perfectly flat with no thickness.
Sir, what who describe looks more like a piece of paper than a coin.
Ideal coins are inflexible.
Ok, so a thin layer of adamantium is an ideal coin, but not a tiny disk of metallic alloy engraved with pictures, texts and values ! 📝
Well, an ideal cow is a perfect sphere, so.
then use a freaking fortune fish