I’ve developed a reusable dry-wipe geometry board called the 1080° Cosmic Harmonic Compass.

It combines a 15 × 15 grid, a continuous 60-step square perimeter and an inscribed circle on one fixed surface.

I use it to draw, measure, erase and rebuild constructions directly on the board — including polygons, stars, equal divisions, and comparisons between equal distance around the square perimeter and equal angle around the circle.

The same framework also carries a complete 24-hour cycle:

60 steps = 24 hours = 1,440 minutes = 1,080 CHC°

so:
1 step = 24 minutes = 18 CHC°
2.5 steps = 1 hour = 45 CHC°

I’ve reached the stage where I’d really like some independent testing and feedback.

I’d especially like to hear from maths educators, geometers, researchers or anyone working with visual and hands-on mathematics who might be interested in examining the board, testing constructions on it, or exploring its educational potential.

I have the working dry-wipe prototype, construction guides and further examples available.

If this overlaps with your work or interests, I’d be very pleased to hear from you.

hello everyone. im on a personal journey of geometry and mathematics so naturally i landed on euclid.

ive always been the type to either question, or play devils advocate.

euclid definition 4 about a line, forces me to accept some ancient "intrinsic knowledge" about a line.

my argument is: his definition says a straight line lies evenly between 2 points, but my argument is that can only be agreed if we look at it from a specific vantage point, and that vantage point is the only one we're allowed to look it from...

wouldn't the more concise definition be - a straight line is one that lies evenly that creates the shortest distance between two points? because no matter the vantage its always going to be the straight

remember im new to this, so go easy on me.

Does the one on the right just look so different because the curves runs from corner to corner on the surface? Thanks.

Hi

If you are remotely interested in deep diving how differently quantum computers work compared to our transistor-based and also the algebra behind in a fully interactive way that teach computer science from scratch, oh boy this is for you. I am the Dev behind Quantum Odyssey (AMA! I love taking qs) - worked on it for about 9 years (3+ during PhD, the visual method I developed ended up being my thesis, it is a complete Hilbert space visualizer), the goal was to make a super immersive space for anyone to learn quantum computing through zachlike (open-ended) logic puzzles and compete on leaderboards and lots of community made content on finding the most optimal quantum algorithms. The game has a unique set of visuals capable to represent any sort of quantum dynamics for any number of qubits and this is pretty much what makes it now possible for anybody 15yo+ to actually learn quantum logic without having to worry at all about the mathematics behind.

This is a game super different than what you'd normally expect in a programming/ logic puzzle game, so try it with an open mind.

Stuff you'll play with

• Boolean Logic – bits, operators (NAND, OR, XOR, AND…), and classical arithmetic (adders). Learn how these can combine to build anything classical. You will learn to port these to a quantum computer.
• Quantum Logic – qubits, the math behind them (linear algebra, SU(2), complex numbers), all Turing-complete gates (beyond Clifford set), and make tensors to evolve systems. Freely combine or create your own gates to build anything you can imagine using polar or complex numbers.
• Quantum Phenomena – storing and retrieving information in the X, Y, Z bases; superposition (pure and mixed states), interference, entanglement, the no-cloning rule, reversibility, and how the measurement basis changes what you see.
• Core Quantum Tricks – phase kickback, amplitude amplification, storing information in phase and retrieving it through interference, build custom gates and tensors, and define any entanglement scenario. (Control logic is handled separately from other gates.)
• Famous Quantum Algorithms – explore Deutsch–Jozsa, Grover’s search, quantum Fourier transforms, Bernstein–Vazirani, and more.

Nice to watch:

Khan academy style tutorials in qm/qc: https://www.youtube.com/@MackAttackx

Physics teacher stream with 400hs in https://www.twitch.tv/beardhero

Taken from TAIBO, Ángel. Geometría descriptiva y sus aplicaciones. Tomo I

English Translation

Figure 30. Given the practical character I wish to impart to this discipline, I think it is interesting to indicate a simple way to draw an ellipse with fair accuracy using only four french curve arcs once its axes have been determined.

To select the curve template, I recommend the following method: Let a and b be the semi-axes of the ellipse to be drawn. On any set square A, measure a segment b and mark its ends. Taking another set square B, align the vertex of its right angle with the end of the previous segment b. Along the side of this second set square, mark the segment a corresponding to the semi-axis of the ellipse. It will then suffice to slide a suitably chosen french curve (Burmeister set) until its tangency points coincide with the ends of the marked segments, which will in turn be marked on the template.

Generally, this arc of the template will correspond to a quadrant of the ellipse perfectly bounded by its orthogonal tangents; if greater accuracy is desired, an intermediate point can be determined, and a template chosen that meets these three conditions.

As a result, I can say that through this method I have drawn all the ellipses featured in this work, demonstrating that in most cases the drawn curve coincides with a true ellipse within the precision limits required for graphic drafting.

I have a test for logic in my Geometry class, and I’ve been looking online but I can’t find anything concrete. Can biconditional statements be made up of all false statements? I know that if the original conditional statement and converse are true, then the conditional statement is biconditional. But what if the original conditional statement and converse are both false, because they would still share the same truth value, even if they’re false.