Generic term for geometrical elements intersecting or one enclosed by the other
in [Math]
|
Prev: Goldbach proof by the easiest Mathematical Induction #5.27 Correcting Math
Next: Piecewise linear SDE
From: quasi on 12 Aug 2010 15:02 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:37:32 +0200, Christian Hackl <hacki(a)sbox.tugraz.at> wrote: >Hello! > >I wondered what was the correct word to use for the case when a >geometrical element intersects *or* completely encloses another element. > >For example, let's say you have a rectangle and two line segments in 2D >like this: > > +----------+ > | | > | ---- | > | | | > +--|-------+ > | > | > >Now what's the generic mathematical term for the relationship between >the rectangle and both line segments (the horizontal one not >intersecting the rectangle but being enclosed by it)? Your phrase "enclosed by" seems fine to me. Alternatively ... For the horizontal line segment: "The rectangular region covers the horizontal line segment." Or ... "The horizontal line segment is contained in the rectangular region." Or ... "The horizontal line segment is contained in the region bounded by the rectangle." For the vertical line segment: "The rectangular region intersects but does not fully cover the vertical line segment." Or ... "The vertical line segment intersects but is not fully contained in the rectangular region." quasi
From: Ken Pledger on 12 Aug 2010 17:05
In article <i41100$5o9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Christian Hackl <hacki(a)sbox.tugraz.at> wrote: > .... > I wondered what was the correct word to use for the case when a > geometrical element intersects *or* completely encloses another element. > .... Would the words "not entirely outside" catch your meaning? Ken Pledger. |