Post #2712469
2026-03-02 06:48 UTC
@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.
Replies (1)
-
@hcschuetz@mastodon.social 2026-03-02 14:46
@sibrosan@mastodon.social Nobody criticizes your initial response from Saturday~7am (CET). divbyzero even acknowledged your point on Saturday~3:30pm when he realized that you were assuming planar cuts. But the end of your Sunday~8am post sounds to me like finger-pointing at divbyzero, just because he didn't mention the conic cuts initially. As a matter of taste, I prefer cooperative and productive discussions where people try to understand each other instead of finger-pointing at (repairable) inaccuracies.