It is NOT a turn line...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,942
Location
Northern Minnesota
It is a circle, darn it!
A line would only glance off the cylinder at one point!
All of the revolver owners call that CIRCLE on the cylinder a line!
A line is straight!
Not going "around" and round and around...

This may have been posted before but I would like it see it changed!

just a prt peeve of mine...

whatever...


What do you think?
 
Since it skips the bolt notches, they are actually arcs. Also, while a line as defined in Euclidean planar geometry is unsuitable as a descriptor, a line in elliptic geometry is perfectly suitable. Similarly, on a sphere rather than a cylinder, we still have lines of longitude and latitude. But now since we've risked being pedantic, let's consider some revolvers that have no turn lines. I saw these beauties at an auction site and it stunned me:

pix875350619.jpg

When I first saw them. I didn't think much about it until I tried to understand why where was a second frizzen.
 
Take a rectangular piece of paper and, using a straight edge, draw a line on it that is perfectly parallel to one of the edges and extends all the way from one side of the paper to the other.

Look at it when you are done and satisfy yourself that it is a line.

Now take the edges of the paper that are perpendicular to the line and carefully join them with tape so that the paper forms a perfect cylinder. Is your line still a line? If it isn't, exactly when did it stop being a line?
 
If I remember my geometry, a line is defined as the shortest distance between two points. As such, by definition, it is straight.

But the geometric is not the only definition.
 
Some of my turn lines aren't straight. I really jacked up the finish on a nice Vaquero cylinder when I found out that without a cartridge supporting the loading gate, recoil can flip it open at the wrong time, and of course, the loading gate is connected to the cylinder bolt. Here's to Ruger for making recessed chambers in two of their Super Blackhawk chamberings, but not in the others? Well, at the end of the day, all my firearms are shooters, so I don't fuss too much about such things.
 
A curved or squiggly line is not still a line?

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. ;)
Again, only if I remember my geometry, and that is definitely suspect. By definition, a "line" is straight, whereas a "curve" is, well, not straight. But I'll concede the "point."

ETA: @CraigC, you are correct. I should have remembered that arcs, secants, etc. are also lines.
 
Last edited:
is the intersection of two plane still considered a line?

or a plane tangent to a cylinder?
 
It is a circle, darn it!
A line would only glance off the cylinder at one point!
All of the revolver owners call that CIRCLE on the cylinder a line!
A line is straight!
Not going "around" and round and around...

This may have been posted before but I would like it see it changed!

just a prt peeve of mine...

whatever...


What do you think?
This is what can happen to those that flunk high school geometry.
 
If I remember my geometry, a line is defined as the shortest distance between two points. As such, by definition, it is straight.

Close!

The shortest distance between two points is not a line, but a line segment. A line continues infinitely. Line and line segments are often confused with rays, which are a bit of both. A ray is a line starting at a given end point and continuing indefinitely away from that point.

A line segment is only straight in plane and the points are coplanar. If you are dealing with a sphere and points on the exterior of it, the shortest distance is never a straight line without violating the sphere.
 
It is a circle, darn it!
A line would only glance off the cylinder at one point!
All of the revolver owners call that CIRCLE on the cylinder a line!
A line is straight!
Not going "around" and round and around...

This may have been posted before but I would like it see it changed!

just a prt peeve of mine...

whatever...


What do you think?
Again, only if I remember my geometry, and that is definitely suspect. By definition, a "line" is straight, whereas a "curve" is, well, not straight. But I'll concede the "point."

ETA: @CraigC, you are correct. I should have remembered that arcs, secants, etc. are also lines.

A line is defined as a path between two points (and those two points may be co-located). No one ever said it could not be curved.

Now, which is a bigger number, the number of all points on a straight line, or the number of all points on a curved line?
 
Last edited:
Euclidean Geometry is constructive. Postulates 1, 2, 3, and 5 assert the existence and uniqueness of certain geometric figures, and these assertions are of a constructive nature: that is, we are not only told that certain things exist, but are also given methods for creating them with no more than a compass and an unmarked straightedge. In this sense, Euclidean geometry is more concrete than many modern axiomatic systems such as set theory, which often assert the existence of objects without saying how to construct them, or even assert the existence of objects that cannot be constructed within the theory. Strictly speaking, the lines on paper are models of the objects defined within the formal system, rather than instances of those objects. For example, a Euclidean straight line has no width, but any real drawn line will have. Though nearly all modern mathematicians consider nonconstructive methods just as sound as constructive ones, Euclid's constructive proofs often supplanted fallacious nonconstructive ones—e.g., some of the Pythagoreans' proofs that involved irrational numbers, which usually required a statement such as "Find the greatest common measure of

Euclid often used proof by contradiction. Euclidean geometry also allows the method of superposition, in which a figure is transferred to another point in space. For example, proposition I.4, side–angle–side congruence of triangles, is proved by moving one of the two triangles so that one of its sides coincides with the other triangle's equal side, and then proving that the other sides coincide as well. Some modern treatments add a sixth postulate, the rigidity of the triangle, which can be used as an alternative to superposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top