If something is "unparalleled", woudn't that really be "perpendiculared"?

[SugarSugarplum]

[CVNT5]

babe, i wanna do the "perpendicular" with you🤤💦💕

[BCRanger10]

You, madam, have blown my mind.

[BCRanger10]

Thank you for MHO 🙌

[SueShe]

No, it could also be angled. There are an infinite number of angles possible and not just 90 degrees.

Also, why is that question placed under the "Sexuality" topic? Did GaG again believe this has something to do with pornography?

It is really becoming a serious issue with GaG and its bad habit to place every single question in the pornography topic of this site. If you are not cautious about it, that's where it is going to land.

You can contact any moderator and ask them to have the question moved into the topic you originally intended it to be.

[abc3643]

No. Not at all. Perpendicular is not the opposite of parallel.

[SugarSugarplum]

But you have to admit that perpendicular is as "not parallel" as you can get.

[abc3643]

In 2-dimensional geometry. In various other geometries, you can have both.
For instance, in spherical geometry...
Imagine the 0° longitude line (a "meridian") that runs through Greenwich UK. Now, imagine the 90° West meridian, 1/4 of the way around the world and which is not far from my home.
These meridians are parallel because if you draw a line perpendicular (*) to either meridian, that line is also perpendicular to the other meridian. However, they also meet at the North Pole and South Pole and, at the poles, they intersect perpendicularly.

(*) Those lines that are perpendicular to meridians are lines of latitude and they are called "parallel". For instance, the "38th Parallel" was what divided North and South Korea before the Korean War. (I live not far from the 38th Parallel as well.)

So, as you see, those two meridians are parallel, but are also perpendicular at the poles.

[ohsheeT]

Do you have 3D glasses on or maybe when I closed you can only have or see that in a three-dimensional way or maybe even at a different view but I don't think so

[AviatorTom]

Parallel and perpendicular only applies to 2-dimensional Euclidian space. Since we live in 3-dimensions (or more), a better term would be needed, maybe "non-intersectional".

[elaphe]

You sound like you have training in engineering, Tom.

[ProbablyClueless]

No. Perpendicular specifically describes lines that collide at a 90 degree angle. Lines only need to intersect at some point in order to be not parallel.

[jshm2]

No as it's largely a defunct world for "having no equal," and we would commonly say "unrivalled" in this day and age.

[slatyb]

No, it wouldn't. The lines in this symbol "<" are neither parallel nor perpendicular.

[NathanDavis]

I'll say juxtapossible...

[Anonymous]

That probably sounded funnier in your head.🥴

[Anonymous]

LOL... funny question. But I think it has to do with something that can't be compared to anything else

[Astarlessnightsky]

only on a 2D plane.