Re: OT: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)

Tristan McLeay wrote at 2006-01-08 10:54:33 (+1100)
 > Mark J. Reed wrote:
 > > On 1/7/06, Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:
 > >
 > >>I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "rectangular"
 > >>and "oblong"; the two words are effectively synonymous to me.
 > >
 > >
 > > Rectangular objects have corners; oblong ones don't.  The
 > > archetypical oblong shape is a circle cut in half and extended
 > > via straight lines between the previously-connected endpoints of
 > > the semicircles; the result is not an ellipse, but a different
 > > form of "stretched circle".
 >
 > I would've called that an oval, even if it isn't proper.
 >
 > The "proper" definitions I learnt for rectangle vs oblong is that a
 > rectangle is a four-sided shape with the angles being 90 degrees,
 > whereas an oblong is a rectangle where two sides are of different
 > lengths to two others. (A square is a rectangle with all sides
 > equal.)  No-one uses these definitions normally, when a rectangle
 > is an oblong and no-one talks of oblongs.
 >

Yeah.  Pragmatically, calling a particular rectangle a "rectangle"
implicates that it isn't a square, i.e. it's oblong.  That's what I
meant by "effectively synonymous".  I don't know if I was ever taught
a specific definition for "oblong", but oblongs were definitely
rectangles in school.

Incidentally, the Wikipedia page for "Oblong" is a redirect to
"Rectangle".

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