Post #2712468
2026-03-01 19:16 UTC
@sibrosan@mastodon.social
The post you were replying to was about the missing explicit requirement for conic cuts. With conic cuts one doesn't need any thickness limits or approximation as we have seen. (Or have you mixed up my remarks on "wrong" with my remarks on "negligible"?)
If you are not able or not willing to distinguish between
- plain wrong statements and
- oversimplified and thus technically incorrect, but easily repairable statements,
then we will not find a common ground.
Have a nice week!
Replies (1)
-
@sibrosan@mastodon.social 2026-03-02 06:48
@hcschuetz@mastodon.social When I first responded it was about planar sliced cuts claimed to have the same weight, no mention of conical cuts and no approximation caveats. Otherwise I would not have taken exception. The claim, as it was, was faulty, as could be demonstrated. That's just a simple fact. Don't shoot the messenger. Anyway, thanks for explaining how it *is* correct with the conical cuts.