Fuck caltrop d4s, all my homies hate caltrop d4s (it's me, I'm all the homies)

The edge of a coin is a 3rd side though

every other die has sides that aren't counted if you're doing that.

dice are just flattened spheres. they only have one weirdly shaped side

A side in this case is a specific area that allows for differentiating outcomes

This website looks like it was made in 1999, but it documents a project from this year. I love it. It loaded nearly instantly on my phone.

It has two outcomes, hence is a d2

I love his commitment to the bit. True dedication

Thanks, not sure why my comment is not showing as deleted to you. I deleted it just after posting after realizing I misread what the previous post was saying.

I brought this up in maths class once. The teacher agreed that the edge was a possibility and since he was involved in football, they used to flip the coin and let it land on the ground. More than once it stuck in the mud in the edge. Then told us to ignore that possibility.

the flattening is what makes them not spheres and have sides. If we applied this "logic" then literally everything is just anything but in a different form - which makes no sense

https://youtu.be/b6S5gHjuN48

A die can land and stand on a corner if you do it precisely enough.

There are 4 stable orientations and 2 unstable equilibria

This is correct. It's a d4 that's just as cleanly a d4 as a regular d4 with rounded corners. Both have parts that don't belong to the sides, since there's no defined outcome where the dice comes to rest on one of the rounded non-side parts.

An ideal coin is perfectly flat.

It needs a designation, why is said what i said. You don't call side on a coin flip because your only choices are heads or tails

And I was argueing in your favour and you downvoted me for it.

You were? No one said anything, and you replied to me with a "flaw" in what I said? Why would you just not agree? Or upvote? It's weird that you would say I was wrong then say you were doing it to support my statement.

Oh great, a contrarian. "Every time someone replies to me, it necessarily must be an attack that I need to squash with full force." An awesome character trait. The original point you were answering to was: A coin has 3 sides, because there are 3 potential areas where a coin can land. Your point was: Only that it can land on an area doesn't mean that that point is a side (as in a side that counts as a result). I said: Yes, even on a die there are areas where the die can stand that are not counted as sides. Now the question to you, mister contrarian: How was that a flaw to your argument? Please tell me, how a thinking human being that can read can seriously interpret that as me pointing out a flaw to your argument? I hate small ego contrarians who feel the need to constantly find attacks from all sides and if they don't find them, they make them up. It's the online equivalent of a teenager going "What are you looking at?"