A quick puzzler

[Keef]

My first attempt sucked; it was the same as danoff's first, just turned to the side. So here's my new-and-improved version. I know it follows the rules, and I studied to make sure it wasn't telated to anyone else's drawing, but I still feel funny about it for some reason:

EDIT: Never heard that definition of line before. I've always heard something like this:

Originally posted by Math.com
A straight set of points that extends into infinity in both directions.

You could interpret that as being a straight curve, but the main idea of a line is that it is perfectly straight, which cancels out the "straight curve" part of your definition. Why can't a curve be a curved straight line, instead of a line being a straight curve? Hmmmm?

 

[Danoff]

Keef,

You feel funny about it because while yours uses a pair of parallel lines, and two pairs of perpendicular lines, it also uses another random slanted extra line that you're not allowed to use.

 

[Keef]

Ahhh, I see. No angles other than 90 degrees, no contact points other than perpendicular. But I did use exactly what I was supposed to use, I just interpreted the word "exactly" wrongly.
But I don't feel dumb, Famine messed up, too, at least according to the non-made up definition of "line". See my edit.

 

[Danoff]

Ahhh, I see. No angles other than 90 degrees, no contact points other than perpendicular. But I did use exactly what I was supposed to use, I just interpreted the word "exactly" wrongly.
But I don't feel dumb, Famine messed up, too, at least according to the non-made up definition of "line". See my edit.

Well, you're allowed contact points other than perpendicular - but the line has to eventually intersect something perpendicularly. Both of my earlier attachments have non-parallel contact points, but the lines that do that are perpendicular to each other.

 

[Keef]

I get it. But if I made the simple and necessary modification I'd have three sets of perpendicular lines. Now that's a Tuffy.(R)

 

[Famine]

Ahhh, I see. No angles other than 90 degrees, no contact points other than perpendicular. But I did use exactly what I was supposed to use, I just interpreted the word "exactly" wrongly.
But I don't feel dumb, Famine messed up, too, at least according to the non-made up definition of "line". See my edit.

You're defining "straight line", not "line".

Nevertheless:

A line, or straight line, can be described as an (infinitely) thin, (infinitely) long, perfectly straight curve (the term curve in mathematics includes "straight curves").

 

[Keef]

Okay, I give in. I've always said a line could be curved or whatever, but my math teachers disagreed. Anyhow, I dig your solution, and I don't want to prove it wrong. But, then again, you're Famine (dare I use his signature font color?), how could you be proved wrong? :sarcasm: Or is it?

 

[Small_Fryz]

Famine could you draw your shape to be the actual shape with out any lines in the middle, and also fill it in with colour. Im trying to see what is the outline of your shape and what is just lines that arnt part of it.

 

[Famine]

The square in the middle is the quadrilateral, which, by necessity, is composed of two pair of perpendicular lines. The whole image is made by drawing a single pair of parallel lines, continuously, from the bottom up, round to the left and down through 270 degrees and off to the right.

 

[TigJackson]

IMHO, this crossed quadilateral, or butterfly as it is often called, is the only solution that meets the requirements stated without having to resort to 'bending the rules'.

 

[Danoff]

Here's another curved line solution.

 

[Keef]

Well hell, if you can use curved lines you could make the shape out of a sinlge line, and just curve it around all over the place. Or would that defy the "Multiple sets of perp lines" rule, since it is the same line? I think it would, so that idea sucks. It wouldn't be parallel to anything, either. Wow, that was a completely pointless post....Wasn't it?