This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Euclidean geometry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 1 year |
Euclidean geometry was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Some people say that Euclid's book don't contain axioms; I have no reason to argue that, not knowing Ancient Greek. But we are in 21st century, and more than one set of axioms of Euclidean Geometry is available, and I am sure must be either listed or refered. Any Mathematicians present here? I could write a section describing an axiomatic Euclidean Geometry, as it is what people expect from a geometry theory. Using a set-theoretical model of geometry is not enough for describing a theory. First, I hope at least some people know that there's more than one set theory; second, we are talking here about a theory, not about models, right?
I'd love to hear your opinion. Vlad Patryshev ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions Playfair's axiom, perhaps you could develop that. You can also expand the logical basis section Lbertolotti ( talk) 23:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What are postulates ? 103.170.68.3 ( talk) 14:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Picture_euclidean_geometry_123.png Fausto!'20045 ( talk) 00:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
According to the current article:
I think the main idea being conveyed here is basically correct, but as these sentences stand, they're not very well-written.
I would point out a few problems:
1. The language used here is very strong, probably too strong: "For more than two thousand years...no other sort of geometry had been conceived." If somebody here thinks this language is appropriate, can they cite a source for keeping the current wording? The SEP makes the point that I think is trying to be made here in a more measured way: "The epistemologically convincing status of Euclid’s Elements was uncontested by almost everyone until the later decades of the 19th century."
2. Similarity, "any theorem proved from [Euclid's postulates] was deemed true in an absolute, often metaphysical, sense" is not well-written. Deemed by whom? And what is the "absolute, often metaphysical sense" being spoken of in this sentence? There were lots of competing systems of metaphysics in the ancient world and likewise in the Medieval world. In whose "metaphysical sense" were the theorems of Euclidean geometry deemed absolutely true? Again, the SEP makes the point that I think is trying to be made here, but in language that is a lot clearer: "Euclid’s treatment of geometry has, through the ages, been celebrated as a perfect deductive presentation of a science, and certainly Euclid made great efforts to obtain a most careful logical chain of truths." DefinitelyNotAnExtraterrestrial ( talk) 02:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
In "System of measurement and arithmetic" I have just changed "congruent" to "equal", and in the Edit Summary I twice tried to say "Hasn't an earlier sentence just said that 'congruence' applies to the entire figure?"
While editing the Edit Summary I have now learned the hard way that pressing Enter does not go to a new line, it IMMEDIATELY SUBMITS the edit, before I was ready.
I am using a tablet and I suppose that mobile editing works differently to what (I hope) the WP creators intended. If anyone with more WP knowledge can get the system changed so it doesn't do that, please do. 203.220.1.139 ( talk) 13:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Euclidean geometry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 1 year |
Euclidean geometry was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Some people say that Euclid's book don't contain axioms; I have no reason to argue that, not knowing Ancient Greek. But we are in 21st century, and more than one set of axioms of Euclidean Geometry is available, and I am sure must be either listed or refered. Any Mathematicians present here? I could write a section describing an axiomatic Euclidean Geometry, as it is what people expect from a geometry theory. Using a set-theoretical model of geometry is not enough for describing a theory. First, I hope at least some people know that there's more than one set theory; second, we are talking here about a theory, not about models, right?
I'd love to hear your opinion. Vlad Patryshev ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions Playfair's axiom, perhaps you could develop that. You can also expand the logical basis section Lbertolotti ( talk) 23:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What are postulates ? 103.170.68.3 ( talk) 14:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Picture_euclidean_geometry_123.png Fausto!'20045 ( talk) 00:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
According to the current article:
I think the main idea being conveyed here is basically correct, but as these sentences stand, they're not very well-written.
I would point out a few problems:
1. The language used here is very strong, probably too strong: "For more than two thousand years...no other sort of geometry had been conceived." If somebody here thinks this language is appropriate, can they cite a source for keeping the current wording? The SEP makes the point that I think is trying to be made here in a more measured way: "The epistemologically convincing status of Euclid’s Elements was uncontested by almost everyone until the later decades of the 19th century."
2. Similarity, "any theorem proved from [Euclid's postulates] was deemed true in an absolute, often metaphysical, sense" is not well-written. Deemed by whom? And what is the "absolute, often metaphysical sense" being spoken of in this sentence? There were lots of competing systems of metaphysics in the ancient world and likewise in the Medieval world. In whose "metaphysical sense" were the theorems of Euclidean geometry deemed absolutely true? Again, the SEP makes the point that I think is trying to be made here, but in language that is a lot clearer: "Euclid’s treatment of geometry has, through the ages, been celebrated as a perfect deductive presentation of a science, and certainly Euclid made great efforts to obtain a most careful logical chain of truths." DefinitelyNotAnExtraterrestrial ( talk) 02:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
In "System of measurement and arithmetic" I have just changed "congruent" to "equal", and in the Edit Summary I twice tried to say "Hasn't an earlier sentence just said that 'congruence' applies to the entire figure?"
While editing the Edit Summary I have now learned the hard way that pressing Enter does not go to a new line, it IMMEDIATELY SUBMITS the edit, before I was ready.
I am using a tablet and I suppose that mobile editing works differently to what (I hope) the WP creators intended. If anyone with more WP knowledge can get the system changed so it doesn't do that, please do. 203.220.1.139 ( talk) 13:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)