4 ms·
We're just talking plain Euclidean space here. It's still not a basic geometry problem as the parent was suggesting.
by wfunction 10y ago
We're just talking plain Euclidean space here. It's still not a basic geometry problem as the parent was suggesting.
- m00n 10y agoSince the notion of curved path (maybe aside from circular arcs) is not discussed in basic geometry, the problem would be impossible to state. If you assume given the notion of arc-length as the least-upper-bound on lengths of piecewise-linear paths between the two points, then the triangle inequality of basic geometry suffices. This seems not more hand-wavy a proof as something about "light-travelling-at-constant-speed" analogies.
- wfunction 10y ago> Since the notion of curved path (maybe aside from circular arcs) is not discussed in basic geometry, the problem would be impossible to state. >> It's still not a basic geometry problem seems we're in agreement?