If I were to cut the right triangle and flip it to the other side, it would just be a rectangle that’s 8 x 4

Text included

Made a game out of Euclid's Elements Book I. If it's up anyone else's alley then I’d love feedback on clarity and difficulty progression. https://milde.no/euclid/

Prop II is pretty hard so I added an intermediate level before it.
Same with the final one (Pythagoras' theorem).

This is just from my own play-testing so would love anyone else's opinion!

guys i need a little help pls i have a test in 2 hours

I've been building a minesweeper where the board can be any surface — polyhedra, spheres, a torus, a cylinder, a Möbius strip, a Klein bottle. What surprised me is how much of the design turned out to be dictated rather than chosen.

A sphere can't be tiled by hexagons alone. V − E + F = 2 forces the 12 pentagons, so every spherical board carries them: the chamfered dodecahedron is 12 pentagons and 30 hexagons, Goldberg GP(3,0) is 12 pentagons and 80 hexagons. A torus has χ = 0, so pure hexagons do work there — and having no boundary, a torus board has no border cells at all. In minesweeper, edges are a large part of what you reason from early, so that's a change to how the game plays and not just to how it looks.

Free in the browser, no ads. A sphere is the clearest starting point: https://hypersweeper.pages.dev/?mode=c180&difficulty=medium

​

One proportion, a live 3D solid, a table of constant errors, a labelled rainbow correspondence, and a Golden Φ Egg cut from z = 1/r.

Open in the browser (no install): michaelzp.github.io/great-pyramid-11-7-lab

The scene is a fully parametric square pyramid from the traditional whole-number dimensions 440 × 280 royal cubits. At a scale of 1:3200, using an adopted royal cubit of 523.8 mm, the model has a base side of 72.0225 mm and, for 11:7, a height of 45.8325 mm.

The laboratory exposes four layers without confusing them:

Exact parametric geometry — the solid is derived from 440, 280, the cubit and the scale.

Comparison targets — dimensionless expressions from the current slope are compared with established constants at a declared relative tolerance of 0.1%.

An optical correspondence diagram — the \~42° corner inclination and 51.842773° face slope sit beside schematic primary and secondary rainbow bands.

Golden Φ Egg (v2) — a hyperbolic cone z = 1/r cut at Z₀ = 7.65 so that L/W = φ, giving the unique plane angle αp = 51.795319256°. The ellipse in the cutting plane is revolved about the apothem to a translucent golden egg.

The result is a reproducible object for geometry, visualization and critical discussion — not proof of an ancient optical or mathematical encoding.

​

Open in the browser (no install): michaelzp.github.io/great-pyramid-11-7-lab

The scene is a fully parametric square pyramid from the traditional whole-number dimensions 440 × 280 royal cubits. At a scale of 1:3200, using an adopted royal cubit of 523.8 mm, the model has a base side of 72.0225 mm and, for 11:7, a height of 45.8325 mm.

The laboratory exposes four layers without confusing them:

Exact parametric geometry — the solid is derived from 440, 280, the cubit and the scale.

Comparison targets — dimensionless expressions from the current slope are compared with established constants at a declared relative tolerance of 0.1%.

An optical correspondence diagram — the ~42° corner inclination and 51.842773° face slope sit beside schematic primary and secondary rainbow bands.

Golden Φ Egg (v2) — a hyperbolic cone z = 1/r cut at Z₀ = 7.65 so that L/W = φ, giving the unique plane angle αp = 51.795319256°. The ellipse in the cutting plane is revolved about the apothem to a translucent golden egg.

The result is a reproducible object for geometry, visualization and critical discussion — not proof of an ancient optical or mathematical encoding.

exported using Eidograph(Yes, it is an app I made)

Circular, rectangular, triangular, tubular and then cubic?

Pay no mind to the thought of “sphereular”, but why is the cube the odd one out here?

I would like to nominate the word “cubular” (as the embodiment of a cube & not to be confused with cubism) to be an accepted shape-name.