What do you call nested circles that are not concentric?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The circles in the image don't have the same center, so they are not concentric. Is there a word to describe circles that overlap (completely or not) so that enclosed circles are smaller than the outer circles?
single-word-requests mathematics
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The circles in the image don't have the same center, so they are not concentric. Is there a word to describe circles that overlap (completely or not) so that enclosed circles are smaller than the outer circles?
single-word-requests mathematics
4
As you yourself called them: nested circles? That’s what I would call them. Nested, non-concentric circles if I wanted to be absolutely specific.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jun 8 '14 at 20:27
1
@JanusBahsJacquet since the question says "overlap (completely or not)" I inferred that they were interested in their eccentricity alone, rather than whether they were nested or imbricated.
– Jon Hanna
Jun 8 '14 at 20:49
The illustration given is of a set of circles with one tangent point in common, such that all circles but the largest are contained in another member of the set. This is a very special case of "nested circles that are not tangent"; to fulfil this description, the circles need not touch at all, and if they have tangent intersections, they needn't be at the same point.
– John Lawler
Jun 8 '14 at 21:36
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The circles in the image don't have the same center, so they are not concentric. Is there a word to describe circles that overlap (completely or not) so that enclosed circles are smaller than the outer circles?
single-word-requests mathematics
The circles in the image don't have the same center, so they are not concentric. Is there a word to describe circles that overlap (completely or not) so that enclosed circles are smaller than the outer circles?
single-word-requests mathematics
single-word-requests mathematics
edited Jun 8 '14 at 23:48
J.R.
54.8k582183
54.8k582183
asked Jun 8 '14 at 20:21
nachocab
2601515
2601515
4
As you yourself called them: nested circles? That’s what I would call them. Nested, non-concentric circles if I wanted to be absolutely specific.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jun 8 '14 at 20:27
1
@JanusBahsJacquet since the question says "overlap (completely or not)" I inferred that they were interested in their eccentricity alone, rather than whether they were nested or imbricated.
– Jon Hanna
Jun 8 '14 at 20:49
The illustration given is of a set of circles with one tangent point in common, such that all circles but the largest are contained in another member of the set. This is a very special case of "nested circles that are not tangent"; to fulfil this description, the circles need not touch at all, and if they have tangent intersections, they needn't be at the same point.
– John Lawler
Jun 8 '14 at 21:36
add a comment |
4
As you yourself called them: nested circles? That’s what I would call them. Nested, non-concentric circles if I wanted to be absolutely specific.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jun 8 '14 at 20:27
1
@JanusBahsJacquet since the question says "overlap (completely or not)" I inferred that they were interested in their eccentricity alone, rather than whether they were nested or imbricated.
– Jon Hanna
Jun 8 '14 at 20:49
The illustration given is of a set of circles with one tangent point in common, such that all circles but the largest are contained in another member of the set. This is a very special case of "nested circles that are not tangent"; to fulfil this description, the circles need not touch at all, and if they have tangent intersections, they needn't be at the same point.
– John Lawler
Jun 8 '14 at 21:36
4
4
As you yourself called them: nested circles? That’s what I would call them. Nested, non-concentric circles if I wanted to be absolutely specific.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jun 8 '14 at 20:27
As you yourself called them: nested circles? That’s what I would call them. Nested, non-concentric circles if I wanted to be absolutely specific.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jun 8 '14 at 20:27
1
1
@JanusBahsJacquet since the question says "overlap (completely or not)" I inferred that they were interested in their eccentricity alone, rather than whether they were nested or imbricated.
– Jon Hanna
Jun 8 '14 at 20:49
@JanusBahsJacquet since the question says "overlap (completely or not)" I inferred that they were interested in their eccentricity alone, rather than whether they were nested or imbricated.
– Jon Hanna
Jun 8 '14 at 20:49
The illustration given is of a set of circles with one tangent point in common, such that all circles but the largest are contained in another member of the set. This is a very special case of "nested circles that are not tangent"; to fulfil this description, the circles need not touch at all, and if they have tangent intersections, they needn't be at the same point.
– John Lawler
Jun 8 '14 at 21:36
The illustration given is of a set of circles with one tangent point in common, such that all circles but the largest are contained in another member of the set. This is a very special case of "nested circles that are not tangent"; to fulfil this description, the circles need not touch at all, and if they have tangent intersections, they needn't be at the same point.
– John Lawler
Jun 8 '14 at 21:36
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
In your particular picture, those circles are tangent circles (i.e., they are all tangent to each other). More specifically, they are internally tangent circles. According to Wikipedia, because they all intersect at a single point, these are also known as "kissing circles" (informally, I presume).
Of course, there is more than one way to draw circles that are "nested but not concentric":
I would call the circles in A nested circles; and the circles in B and C internally tangent circles. Because the circles in B happen to be tangent at a single point, they could also be called kissing circles. I would call the circles in D nested circles, but, because not all of them are tangent, I would not call them tangent circles.
If you want more formal terminology, perhaps math.se would be the place to ask.
1
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I'm going a bit more into maths and geometry but the circle family in the image is called a parabolic pencil. These kind of circle sets are called pencil of circles. It is also a part of Apollonian circles.
A parabolic pencil (as a limiting case) is defined where two generating circles are tangent to each other at a single point . It consists of a family of real circles, all tangent to each other at a single common point. The degenerate circle with radius zero at that point also belongs to the pencil.
Also, they might be coaxal (or coaxial) circles.
Except for the two special cases of a pencil of concentric circles and a pencil of coincident lines, any two circles within a pencil have the same radical axis, and all circles in the pencil have collinear centers. Any three or more circles from the same family are called coaxal circles or coaxial circles.
Further information:
A pencil of circles is another name for specific families of circles who all share certain characteristics within the family.
The third kind of pencil is the parabolic pencil. This is the family of circles which all have one common point, and thus are all tangent to each other, either internally or externally. Also, the orthogonal set of circles to a parabolic pencil is another parabolic pencil.
Source: http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m445w04/as/ga2/gp2/groupassign2.html
Coaxal circles are circles whose centers are collinear and that share a common radical line. The collection of all coaxal circles is called a pencil of coaxal circles (Coxeter and Greitzer 1967, p. 35). It is possible to combine the two types of coaxal systems illustrated above such that the sets are orthogonal.
A representation of Apollonian circles:
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Eccentric: Not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally.
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I just found out that in topology, this is known as a Hawaiian earring
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
If you are mostly interested in a mathematical jargon term that generalizes to other instances, I think the best term would be descending
. Whenever you see 'descending' in mathematics, it usually means something is getting smaller or is being nested in something else. Some common turns of phrase include descending sequence
or descending sequence of sets
. With your picture, I'd be able to say descending set of circles
to some colleagues and be perfectly understood (this also applies to all of the pictures in J.R.'s answer).
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
In topology (a branch of mathematics where we study such shapes), we call it the Hawaiian earring.
Source: Mathematics student, have taken courses on topology.
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Without the requirement that the circles be of decreasing size as shown, circles which overlap are simply intersecting.
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
In your particular picture, those circles are tangent circles (i.e., they are all tangent to each other). More specifically, they are internally tangent circles. According to Wikipedia, because they all intersect at a single point, these are also known as "kissing circles" (informally, I presume).
Of course, there is more than one way to draw circles that are "nested but not concentric":
I would call the circles in A nested circles; and the circles in B and C internally tangent circles. Because the circles in B happen to be tangent at a single point, they could also be called kissing circles. I would call the circles in D nested circles, but, because not all of them are tangent, I would not call them tangent circles.
If you want more formal terminology, perhaps math.se would be the place to ask.
1
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
In your particular picture, those circles are tangent circles (i.e., they are all tangent to each other). More specifically, they are internally tangent circles. According to Wikipedia, because they all intersect at a single point, these are also known as "kissing circles" (informally, I presume).
Of course, there is more than one way to draw circles that are "nested but not concentric":
I would call the circles in A nested circles; and the circles in B and C internally tangent circles. Because the circles in B happen to be tangent at a single point, they could also be called kissing circles. I would call the circles in D nested circles, but, because not all of them are tangent, I would not call them tangent circles.
If you want more formal terminology, perhaps math.se would be the place to ask.
1
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
In your particular picture, those circles are tangent circles (i.e., they are all tangent to each other). More specifically, they are internally tangent circles. According to Wikipedia, because they all intersect at a single point, these are also known as "kissing circles" (informally, I presume).
Of course, there is more than one way to draw circles that are "nested but not concentric":
I would call the circles in A nested circles; and the circles in B and C internally tangent circles. Because the circles in B happen to be tangent at a single point, they could also be called kissing circles. I would call the circles in D nested circles, but, because not all of them are tangent, I would not call them tangent circles.
If you want more formal terminology, perhaps math.se would be the place to ask.
In your particular picture, those circles are tangent circles (i.e., they are all tangent to each other). More specifically, they are internally tangent circles. According to Wikipedia, because they all intersect at a single point, these are also known as "kissing circles" (informally, I presume).
Of course, there is more than one way to draw circles that are "nested but not concentric":
I would call the circles in A nested circles; and the circles in B and C internally tangent circles. Because the circles in B happen to be tangent at a single point, they could also be called kissing circles. I would call the circles in D nested circles, but, because not all of them are tangent, I would not call them tangent circles.
If you want more formal terminology, perhaps math.se would be the place to ask.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:22
Community♦
1
1
answered Jun 8 '14 at 23:41
J.R.
54.8k582183
54.8k582183
1
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
add a comment |
1
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
1
1
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
I guess the formal version of that would be "osculating circles" ("osculate" comes from the Latin word for "kiss").
– sumelic
Feb 15 '16 at 16:40
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I'm going a bit more into maths and geometry but the circle family in the image is called a parabolic pencil. These kind of circle sets are called pencil of circles. It is also a part of Apollonian circles.
A parabolic pencil (as a limiting case) is defined where two generating circles are tangent to each other at a single point . It consists of a family of real circles, all tangent to each other at a single common point. The degenerate circle with radius zero at that point also belongs to the pencil.
Also, they might be coaxal (or coaxial) circles.
Except for the two special cases of a pencil of concentric circles and a pencil of coincident lines, any two circles within a pencil have the same radical axis, and all circles in the pencil have collinear centers. Any three or more circles from the same family are called coaxal circles or coaxial circles.
Further information:
A pencil of circles is another name for specific families of circles who all share certain characteristics within the family.
The third kind of pencil is the parabolic pencil. This is the family of circles which all have one common point, and thus are all tangent to each other, either internally or externally. Also, the orthogonal set of circles to a parabolic pencil is another parabolic pencil.
Source: http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m445w04/as/ga2/gp2/groupassign2.html
Coaxal circles are circles whose centers are collinear and that share a common radical line. The collection of all coaxal circles is called a pencil of coaxal circles (Coxeter and Greitzer 1967, p. 35). It is possible to combine the two types of coaxal systems illustrated above such that the sets are orthogonal.
A representation of Apollonian circles:
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I'm going a bit more into maths and geometry but the circle family in the image is called a parabolic pencil. These kind of circle sets are called pencil of circles. It is also a part of Apollonian circles.
A parabolic pencil (as a limiting case) is defined where two generating circles are tangent to each other at a single point . It consists of a family of real circles, all tangent to each other at a single common point. The degenerate circle with radius zero at that point also belongs to the pencil.
Also, they might be coaxal (or coaxial) circles.
Except for the two special cases of a pencil of concentric circles and a pencil of coincident lines, any two circles within a pencil have the same radical axis, and all circles in the pencil have collinear centers. Any three or more circles from the same family are called coaxal circles or coaxial circles.
Further information:
A pencil of circles is another name for specific families of circles who all share certain characteristics within the family.
The third kind of pencil is the parabolic pencil. This is the family of circles which all have one common point, and thus are all tangent to each other, either internally or externally. Also, the orthogonal set of circles to a parabolic pencil is another parabolic pencil.
Source: http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m445w04/as/ga2/gp2/groupassign2.html
Coaxal circles are circles whose centers are collinear and that share a common radical line. The collection of all coaxal circles is called a pencil of coaxal circles (Coxeter and Greitzer 1967, p. 35). It is possible to combine the two types of coaxal systems illustrated above such that the sets are orthogonal.
A representation of Apollonian circles:
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
I'm going a bit more into maths and geometry but the circle family in the image is called a parabolic pencil. These kind of circle sets are called pencil of circles. It is also a part of Apollonian circles.
A parabolic pencil (as a limiting case) is defined where two generating circles are tangent to each other at a single point . It consists of a family of real circles, all tangent to each other at a single common point. The degenerate circle with radius zero at that point also belongs to the pencil.
Also, they might be coaxal (or coaxial) circles.
Except for the two special cases of a pencil of concentric circles and a pencil of coincident lines, any two circles within a pencil have the same radical axis, and all circles in the pencil have collinear centers. Any three or more circles from the same family are called coaxal circles or coaxial circles.
Further information:
A pencil of circles is another name for specific families of circles who all share certain characteristics within the family.
The third kind of pencil is the parabolic pencil. This is the family of circles which all have one common point, and thus are all tangent to each other, either internally or externally. Also, the orthogonal set of circles to a parabolic pencil is another parabolic pencil.
Source: http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m445w04/as/ga2/gp2/groupassign2.html
Coaxal circles are circles whose centers are collinear and that share a common radical line. The collection of all coaxal circles is called a pencil of coaxal circles (Coxeter and Greitzer 1967, p. 35). It is possible to combine the two types of coaxal systems illustrated above such that the sets are orthogonal.
A representation of Apollonian circles:
I'm going a bit more into maths and geometry but the circle family in the image is called a parabolic pencil. These kind of circle sets are called pencil of circles. It is also a part of Apollonian circles.
A parabolic pencil (as a limiting case) is defined where two generating circles are tangent to each other at a single point . It consists of a family of real circles, all tangent to each other at a single common point. The degenerate circle with radius zero at that point also belongs to the pencil.
Also, they might be coaxal (or coaxial) circles.
Except for the two special cases of a pencil of concentric circles and a pencil of coincident lines, any two circles within a pencil have the same radical axis, and all circles in the pencil have collinear centers. Any three or more circles from the same family are called coaxal circles or coaxial circles.
Further information:
A pencil of circles is another name for specific families of circles who all share certain characteristics within the family.
The third kind of pencil is the parabolic pencil. This is the family of circles which all have one common point, and thus are all tangent to each other, either internally or externally. Also, the orthogonal set of circles to a parabolic pencil is another parabolic pencil.
Source: http://www.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m445w04/as/ga2/gp2/groupassign2.html
Coaxal circles are circles whose centers are collinear and that share a common radical line. The collection of all coaxal circles is called a pencil of coaxal circles (Coxeter and Greitzer 1967, p. 35). It is possible to combine the two types of coaxal systems illustrated above such that the sets are orthogonal.
A representation of Apollonian circles:
edited Jun 9 '14 at 2:01
answered Jun 8 '14 at 21:41
ermanen
45.3k23123234
45.3k23123234
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Eccentric: Not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally.
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Eccentric: Not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally.
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Eccentric: Not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally.
Eccentric: Not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally.
answered Jun 8 '14 at 20:46
Jon Hanna
47.4k192175
47.4k192175
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
add a comment |
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
Technically correct according to the first definition, but confusing due to the second definition
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:51
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I just found out that in topology, this is known as a Hawaiian earring
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I just found out that in topology, this is known as a Hawaiian earring
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
I just found out that in topology, this is known as a Hawaiian earring
I just found out that in topology, this is known as a Hawaiian earring
answered Feb 15 '16 at 16:38
nachocab
2601515
2601515
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
If you are mostly interested in a mathematical jargon term that generalizes to other instances, I think the best term would be descending
. Whenever you see 'descending' in mathematics, it usually means something is getting smaller or is being nested in something else. Some common turns of phrase include descending sequence
or descending sequence of sets
. With your picture, I'd be able to say descending set of circles
to some colleagues and be perfectly understood (this also applies to all of the pictures in J.R.'s answer).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
If you are mostly interested in a mathematical jargon term that generalizes to other instances, I think the best term would be descending
. Whenever you see 'descending' in mathematics, it usually means something is getting smaller or is being nested in something else. Some common turns of phrase include descending sequence
or descending sequence of sets
. With your picture, I'd be able to say descending set of circles
to some colleagues and be perfectly understood (this also applies to all of the pictures in J.R.'s answer).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
If you are mostly interested in a mathematical jargon term that generalizes to other instances, I think the best term would be descending
. Whenever you see 'descending' in mathematics, it usually means something is getting smaller or is being nested in something else. Some common turns of phrase include descending sequence
or descending sequence of sets
. With your picture, I'd be able to say descending set of circles
to some colleagues and be perfectly understood (this also applies to all of the pictures in J.R.'s answer).
If you are mostly interested in a mathematical jargon term that generalizes to other instances, I think the best term would be descending
. Whenever you see 'descending' in mathematics, it usually means something is getting smaller or is being nested in something else. Some common turns of phrase include descending sequence
or descending sequence of sets
. With your picture, I'd be able to say descending set of circles
to some colleagues and be perfectly understood (this also applies to all of the pictures in J.R.'s answer).
edited Jun 9 '14 at 20:58
answered Jun 9 '14 at 20:50
Robert Wolfe
1599
1599
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
In topology (a branch of mathematics where we study such shapes), we call it the Hawaiian earring.
Source: Mathematics student, have taken courses on topology.
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
In topology (a branch of mathematics where we study such shapes), we call it the Hawaiian earring.
Source: Mathematics student, have taken courses on topology.
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In topology (a branch of mathematics where we study such shapes), we call it the Hawaiian earring.
Source: Mathematics student, have taken courses on topology.
In topology (a branch of mathematics where we study such shapes), we call it the Hawaiian earring.
Source: Mathematics student, have taken courses on topology.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Tom
1293
1293
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
add a comment |
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
This was already given as an answer.
– Mitch
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
The answer says 'I just found out...'. My answer confirms from someone who works in the area and also has knowledge of names for other similar geometric shapes. 'I just found out' could mean anything, from whom, from where, who told you that, do you know what topology is etc?
– Tom
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Without the requirement that the circles be of decreasing size as shown, circles which overlap are simply intersecting.
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Without the requirement that the circles be of decreasing size as shown, circles which overlap are simply intersecting.
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Without the requirement that the circles be of decreasing size as shown, circles which overlap are simply intersecting.
Without the requirement that the circles be of decreasing size as shown, circles which overlap are simply intersecting.
answered Jun 8 '14 at 23:23
WhatRoughBeast
7,8171124
7,8171124
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
add a comment |
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
"Intersecting circles" doesn't capture the nesting requirement. They could very well intersect at more than one point.
– 200_success
Jun 9 '14 at 0:46
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f176769%2fwhat-do-you-call-nested-circles-that-are-not-concentric%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
As you yourself called them: nested circles? That’s what I would call them. Nested, non-concentric circles if I wanted to be absolutely specific.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jun 8 '14 at 20:27
1
@JanusBahsJacquet since the question says "overlap (completely or not)" I inferred that they were interested in their eccentricity alone, rather than whether they were nested or imbricated.
– Jon Hanna
Jun 8 '14 at 20:49
The illustration given is of a set of circles with one tangent point in common, such that all circles but the largest are contained in another member of the set. This is a very special case of "nested circles that are not tangent"; to fulfil this description, the circles need not touch at all, and if they have tangent intersections, they needn't be at the same point.
– John Lawler
Jun 8 '14 at 21:36