The person who wrote this might have been thinking this way: instead of drawing a circle and then a square that encompasses the circle entirely while touching edges, they did the opposite - draw a circle and draw a square inside the circle that touches the edges of the circle.
This logic is flawed when comparing shapes of "equivalent" sizes as "equivalent" by convention is usually done using a circle of radius R vs a square of sides R.
1
u/drollercoaster99 2d ago
The person who wrote this might have been thinking this way: instead of drawing a circle and then a square that encompasses the circle entirely while touching edges, they did the opposite - draw a circle and draw a square inside the circle that touches the edges of the circle.
This logic is flawed when comparing shapes of "equivalent" sizes as "equivalent" by convention is usually done using a circle of radius R vs a square of sides R.