What sort of education teaches you that there is a word "vaguary"?
Apologies for the typo, corrected
We still have the problem that "vaguery" and "vagary" don't mean the same thing - they are not alternative spellings of the same word.
But we can't go there as well.
Isn't that what much of this is about? Why else has there been dispute?
The only dispute (or the vast majority of it), stems from your confusion.
I still don't think that you get the difference between "6 square yards", "6 yards square", and "6 squared yards".
I think you are so confused that you don't even see how there could be a difference even if you don't quite get it.
And I don't think your confusion can be rectified.
I thought this was more about describing area than shape.
The problem with the word "square" is that it can be put in front of a unit to indicate a unit of area ("a territory of 50 square miles") and after it to describe that a shape is square with sides of a particular length ("a piece of plywood 50cm square").
You use the word those ways yourself
4 inches square is a square of 16 square inches.
and then you'll turn round and write things which show that you don't get it
This shape is 4 squared, cm. OR 4² cm.
No - it is 4 cm square. And the only thing about it which is 16cm (that's what 4² cm evaluates to) is its circumference.
which is also 16, cm squared. OR 16 cm². Also known as 16, square cm.
No - nothing about it is 16cm squared. 16cm squared could be the calculation for the area of a 16x16 square -
"What's the area of that piece of silk?" "Well, it's a 16cm square, so the area would be 16cm squared, 256 square cm".
Or it could be a linear measurement -
"If I stack 16 of these 16cm cubes on top of each other, how high will they be?" "Oh, let's see... 16cm squared... that'll be 256cm high"
I have no difficulty in understanding squared as the past tense of square, why do you?
But it isn't.
If you write x²=y²+z², "squared" isn't the past tense of anything.
Sorry but I'm not quite sure you meant to write: second(s) The rug is 5minutes square second(s)
What was it you were saying about: And I'm not sure that the "terminologies in place" are subject to whims, or unpredictability.
"Vagaries" means "whims", or "unpredictability".
I'll assume (despite the common phrase: To assume makes an ass of u and me) that your intention is:
The rug is 5 feet square which works out as 25 square feet (also 25 squared feet) abreviated as 25ft²
No. There is no such thing as a "square
d foot". A "square foot" (ft²) yes, which is a unit of area, but the phrase "25 squared feet" means a number of feet equal to 25 squared, i.e. 625'.
Really?
6,500 - 7,000 square metres is not the area of a typical football pitch?
but yes I agree 70,000 metres squared or 70,000m² is sufficient.
If it's the calculation for an area, 70,000 metres squared would be 4,900,000,000 square metres, not 70,0000 square metres. Or 490,000ha/1,210,800acres/4,900km²/1,892 square miles/just under ¼ of a Wales.
However 70,000 metres square would be rather excessive
A football pitch 70,000 metres square would be a square one, 70,000m on a side, i.e. with an area as per above.
But if we kept the shape to be the same, roughly 3:2 rectangle as normal football pitches, it would be about 86km x 57km. Pitch invasions would be a thing of the past, wouldn't they.
No dispute from me that: x times x = y times y plus z times z which is the same as x squared = y squared plus z squared.
And "squared" is not:
Describing a shape.
Specifying the area of anything.
The past tense of "square".