fair use
noun
noun: fair use; plural noun: fair uses

    (in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.

I don't have the time nor the energy to rephrase the excerpts that is being used for teaching and research purposes.  The excerpts are not stolen and falls under fair use, and is not plagiarism as you wrongly asserted.  Also, the formula of d_t = |x₂ - x₁| + |y₂ - y₁| is an in-line image on the website, and I choose not to copy this image, but to type it out.   I find it interesting how you throw plagiarism at me for exposing your deliberate misdirection in one of your previous posts.  You have now exposed your immaturity and how you are a very vindictive person.  Also, this is totally off-topic, and is not a mathematical or scientific rebuttal in any sense.

Gravock

Taxicab geometry only fails one of the axioms or postulates of Euclidean geometry, ... wait for it... and this is not one of them.

Gravock

LOL.  Funny how you are drawing Euclidean circles and saying that you are measuring them in taxicab geometry.  I'd warn the neighbors about those pants of yours.

Are you asserting euclidean circles drawn in taxicab geometry is the one postulate of Euclidean geometry in which it fails?

Gravock

Another wrong assertion and misdirection made by you.  Plagiarism is not a failure to attribute.  Plagiarism is wrongfully appropriating (borrowing without permission) and stealing and taking credit for someone else's work as your own.  According to the fair use act, brief excerpts do not need permission to be used for teaching or for research purposes, thus it does not fall under wrongful appropriation and/or stealing.  I also didn't take credit for someone else's work as my own.  It is you who don't want to read and this is another psychological projection made by you.  This is nothing more than another distraction to the main purpose of this thread.

Gravock

LOL, you've buried yourself with your own words.

There isn't a person alive who has testified against me in open court.

Quote from: gravityblock on April 28, 2014, 07:08:51 AM

There's no need for any person alive to testify against you, for you'll convict yourself in an open court by your own words.

Gravock

Once again, taxicab geometry has traditionally included elements that are not native to the geometry. The primary example is Euclidean angles. Since angles are defined as arc length along a circle and the taxicab circle is quite different than the Euclidean circle, native taxicab angles are not Euclidean. Pure taxicab geometry uses angles that are native and natural to the geometry.  I have already stated many times prior to this in regards to the diagram of sarkeizen that there was both euclidean and non-euclidean geometry in it.  You're not telling me anything I do not already know.  So, how can a euclidean circle in taxicab geometry fail one of the postulates of euclidean geometry?

Gravock