To All Those People That Say That One Cannot Fit A Square Peg Into A Round Hole... (Off Topic)

[Renegade343]

I would like to say: 

 

Wrong. You can fit a square peg into a round hole, as long as the square peg has a length of ≤ √2 x radius of the circle. 

 

Proof? Just draw a circle with radius r, draw out one random sector such that the angle of the sector is 90˚, then draw a chord between the two points of the sector. Then, it should be obvious. 

[TheErebus.]

And who exactly has said this?

[(PSN)Legolegend144]

I was just thinking about this yesterday...

[Renegade343]

And who exactly has said this?

Ever heard of the idiom "fitting a square peg into a round hole", or its variants?

[Senketsu_]

Lol I had to think of this In my university placement tests. I didn't get that answer right :P

[TheErebus.]

Ever heard of the idiom "fitting a square peg into a round hole", or its variants?

Nop.

[MrPie5]

Eventually, the square peg will wear through the edges of the circle. Or break it. Depends on how patient you are.

[Renegade343]

Nop.

See: 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_peg_in_a_round_hole

[LABAL]

One could not only fit a square peg in a round hole, but also make it stay there by pouring water on it, assuming that the peg is wooden and dry enough.

Edited April 16, 2015 by LABAL

[GunDownGrace]

One could not only fit a square peg in a round hole, but also make it stay there by pouring water on it, assuming that the peg is wooden and dry enough.

hasnt anyone thought of the more expedient solution?

 

make sure you object with the round hole is larger,and simply use a hammer to beat the square peg in

[Grander.Alderman]

I would like to say: 

 

Wrong. You can fit a square peg into a round hole, as long as the square peg has a length of ≤ √2 x radius of the circle. 

 

Proof? Just draw a circle with radius r, draw out one random sector such that the angle of the sector is 90˚, then draw a chord between the two points of the sector. Then, it should be obvious. 

 

Wrong. You can insert a square peg into a round hole, but it will not fit.

A square peg in a round hole, or vice versa, will not carry out its function in an equally effective way as one that has an optimal design for that purpose.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Grander.Alderman

[Renegade343]

Wrong. You can insert a square peg into a round hole, but it will not fit.

In which the word "fit" also has the definition: 

 

To install something into place, which would be the case if the length of the square is exactly √2 x radius of the circle, for it would be held in the hole by the force of friction (with a lot of materials, of course, for some materials have a very low coefficient of friction and would make it slide a small bit or out). 

 

Disclaimer: Not exactly √2, for √2 is an irrational number, and will go on infinitely without a pattern (not to mention that in real life, it would be very difficult to obtain exact lengths due to uncertainties). So, a length very, very close to √2 x radius of the circle. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Renegade343

[DecapitatingJim]

I'm too impatient for all that mathematical bollocks, hammers were invented for those sorts of things. 

[Grander.Alderman]

In which the word "fit" also has the definition: 

 

To install something into place, which would be the case if the length of the square is exactly √2 x radius of the circle, for it would be held in the hole by the force of friction (with a lot of materials, of course, for some materials have a very low coefficient of friction and would make it slide a small bit or out). 

 

Disclaimer: Not exactly √2, for √2 is an irrational number, and will go on infinitely without a pattern (not to mention that in real life, it would be very difficult to obtain exact lengths due to uncertainties). So, a length very, very close to √2 x radius of the circle. 

 

The definition you used is a very loose one and one of several (In the dictionaries I looked at that used it, it's not even the first definition.). Not to mention that, since the word "fit" can have several different meanings depending on how it is used, it is the wrong one in this context, as it describes the action a person does, rather than the ability of the peg to fit the hole.

 

The proper definitions I found:

(to) Be of the right size, shape, or number to occupy a particular space. (This one is the most contextually accurate in this case.)

(to) Be compatible or in agreement with; match.

(to) Be suitable or appropriate for. 

 

In the case of the peg and hole, to fit the hole, the peg has to be able to occupy the shape of that hole, meaning it would have to be round (and also of the same size). If a square peg was inserted into a round hole, it would hold, yes, but the points of friction would be limited to the four corners that come into contact with the hole walls, whereas if the peg was the same shape it would be along the entire perimeter, making any other shape vastly inferior to the one that is "fitting". 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Grander.Alderman

[Sixty5]

If you have a big enough hammer, then any peg can fit into any hole.

[Renegade343]

The definition you used is a very loose one and one of several (In the dictionaries I looked at that used it, it's not even the first definition.). Not to mention that, since the word "fit" can have several different meanings depending on how it is used, it is the wrong one in this context, as it describes the action a person does, rather than the ability of the peg to fit the hole.

The second definition is also widely used in conversation, and that is part of the point of the original post: 

 

A: Showing that mathematically, a square peg can fit into a round hole. 

B: Playing with word definitions on the word "fit". 

C: Taking the idiom apart literally. 

 

That is the thought process I have placed while typing out the original post. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Renegade343

[DecapitatingJim]

If you have a big enough hammer, then any peg can fit into any hole.