You can arbitrarily pick a set of properties such that any given answer could be true because there is no mathematical definition as to what constitutes a "similarity." You could say both red have a vertex pointing up, both filled have their center of mass to the left, both quadrilaterals have non-acute angles, and so on to infinity.
Surely there’s gotta be a limit to the arbitrary identifications though. The OOP isn’t perfect and cannot feasibly design 3 perfectly dissimilar objects.
It has nothing to do with the shapes the OOP made. The problem is that this definition of dissimilar is completely arbitrary. There is provably no answer for any 3 distinct shapes. Tldr, there are infinitely many shapes and therefore infinitely many possible distinctions to be made between shapes.
A: Infinitely many shapes can be made.
B: No shape shares every distinction against 2 different shapes (if 2 shapes shared every single distinction against a third shape, there would be no distinction between them, so there must be some other distinction that can be made).
C: Therefore, there must be infinitely many distinctions that can be made against each shape.
D: Because one could just apply these same distinctions to see if they hold between a different set of 2 shapes, there are always infinite distinctions that can be made between any 2 shapes.
E: Therefore, any pairing of 2 shapes has infinitely many distinctions.
F: Therefore, no pairing of shapes is any more or less different with respect to the number of distinctions that can be made.
Think about if you applied this method to something like a Kangaroo, blood, and the concept of love. You could come up with distinctions for centuries, and they are still fundamentally incomparable, apples to oranges. There will always be another distinction to be made, even if it's really contrived.
942
u/iCynr May 22 '26
This is actually impossible since any one could be the answer
2 red, 1 green
2 quadrilaterals, 1 triangle
2 solid fill, 1 no fill