It’s not about taking it seriously. The meme wants to be a technically correct-meme, where a thing fulfills another things definition and thereby could be deemed the other thing - which creates the absurdity the meme lives off of. But in order for that kind of humour, there cannot be obvious holes in the logic of the joke and these obvious holes are very present in this meme.
Well the text in the image of the “definition” of a square is clearly tailored to fit this joke, thats why the logic of what a square actually is doesn’t apply. Its like telling Diogenes that his chicken is not technically a human because it doesn’t have two hands and a nose.
Diogenes plucked that chicken to point out Platon’s definition of a human (being a bipedal, featherless animal) being flawed. This meme leaves out parts of the definition to enforce a joke. Two different situations.
It’s not about taking it seriously. The meme wants to be a technically correct-meme, where a thing fulfills another things definition and thereby could be deemed the other thing - which creates the absurdity the meme lives off of. But in order for that kind of humour, there cannot be obvious holes in the logic of the joke and these obvious holes are very present in this meme.
Any maths joke of this type will have obvious holes in it, that’s just how maths works
Well the text in the image of the “definition” of a square is clearly tailored to fit this joke, thats why the logic of what a square actually is doesn’t apply. Its like telling Diogenes that his chicken is not technically a human because it doesn’t have two hands and a nose.
Diogenes plucked that chicken to point out Platon’s definition of a human (being a bipedal, featherless animal) being flawed. This meme leaves out parts of the definition to enforce a joke. Two different situations.
Its similar enough, the definition is limited and therefore enables a joke to be made.
It’s not similar, it’s the exact opposite.