@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 year agoTrickflationlemmy.worldimagemessage-square189fedilinkarrow-up11.02K
arrow-up11.02KimageTrickflationlemmy.world@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square189fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink6•1 year agoThat can’t be true. Consider a cylinder cut in half, giving a circular cross section. Cover each new circular gap with new aluminum. Now you’ve enclosed the same volume in cylinders, with a different surface area.
minus-squarePsychadelligoatlinkfedilinkEnglish8•1 year agoYou also created 2 cylinders where once there was one, which is not what was being discussed. You even mention that you added material: Cover each new circular gap with new aluminum I could have said “2 cylinders of the same volume” but I felt context made that clear
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink5•1 year agoYes I did say that I added material. That’s the point: you cannot do this transformation without adding material. But you’re saying this is only with two cylinders?
That can’t be true.
Consider a cylinder cut in half, giving a circular cross section. Cover each new circular gap with new aluminum.
Now you’ve enclosed the same volume in cylinders, with a different surface area.
You also created 2 cylinders where once there was one, which is not what was being discussed. You even mention that you added material:
I could have said “2 cylinders of the same volume” but I felt context made that clear
Yes I did say that I added material. That’s the point: you cannot do this transformation without adding material.
But you’re saying this is only with two cylinders?