Mercury said:
No, it's not. For further info, I'd like to refer you to my friend Pythagoras.
Edit: More info: In fact, you'd need to have 4 17"s to have 1 34", assuming the same proportions.
No one said assuming the same proportion at first?
Good point you are saying if I hear you correctly, measure a 17" and than put another 17" on the top right corner of the screen and you will get 34, so I am right, however your top right area is no empty as is your bottom right, so if you fill those in, you will then have 4 17". which would mean we are both right, 2 17" =34" two ways diagonal, way 4 17= 34 four ways diagonal.
Of course i could argue proportions, resolutions, pixels,wide or standard format, all play equally. it can be any where from 1-10 17"'s. as there are 17"crt's at least that can display up to1920x1080 to as little as 640X480, I dont know if there are 34", but Apple's 30" can show very low resolutions, lower than the 17" or very high resolutions, So unless you give a specific formula for the computation, it can be all over the place.
NICE PLAY ON WORDS in technicality. but you can just take a tape measure and measure each seventeen inch monitor, i guarantee if you then add those to together you will get 34!
know i do get your point that a single 34" monitor would have roughly 3-5 times the pixels because it would scale in width and length.
Just like Apples 30" has roughly 4 times the pixels as a 17" and twice the pixels of (77%) the 23".
But that can be played the opposite way also. the IBM 221 is 22.2" and has 9.2 million pixels. The Apple displays are 30" and have 4 million pixels, so 30"+30" does not equal 22.2 using that same equation.
So I stand by my first statement, 17"+17" diagonal equal 34" diagonal when asked in the simplest way. However if you are comparing the two by pixels or two screens to one or adding anything or ratio like screen length etc. to the formula, you can custom make any legitimate answer.
It all depends on how the question is ask and what formula you used, and you never gave us a formula you just said two 17's do not equal 34, so the ones like me that took that at it's simplest terms, disagreed and rightfully so, but your point is true, depending on how the sum is arrived at.
