Apology of Euclid

S. S. Kutateladze

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0507205

2005-07-11

General Mathematics

Abstract:This is a short apology of the style of the Elements by Euclid and Bourbaki.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Euclid After Computer Proof-checking

Michael Beeson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2022.2069985

2021-03-17

Abstract:Euclid pioneered the concept of a mathematical theory developed from axioms by a series of justified proof steps. From the outset there were critics and improvers. In this century the use of computers to check proofs for correctness sets a new standard of rigor. How does Euclid stand up under such an examination? And what does the exercise have to teach us about geometry, mathematical foundations, and the relation of logic to truth?

History and Overview
Euclidean rigor and the curious case of the (missing) reflex angle

Anand Ekbote

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.08.002

2024-09-24

Abstract:I examine a known case of undergeneralization in Euclid's Elements arising from Euclid's non-cognizance of the reflex angle. Sir Thomas Heath (1956) attributed the undergeneralization to Euclid's lack of awareness, an assessment that I dispute. Non-recognition of reflex angles also leads to Proclus' four-sided triangles which violate an essential property of triangles. I show that these issues are resolvable. However, the question as to why Euclid did not acknowledge the reflex angle remains. I claim that the best explanation is that Euclid was guided by reasons of rigor. I argue that the propositional role of diagrammata in Greek mathematics as expounded by Netz (1998,2003) and Euclid's view of the reliability of sense perception impose a crucial representational constraint that governs how diagrams could be used in the Elements. I show that the missing reflex angle, and the careful crafting of definitions in the Elements are evidence that the representation constraint was indeed meticulously followed, even at apparent cost. I argue that alternative explanations for the missing reflex angle are not tenable. In sum, Euclid was aware of the limitations of diagrams, and worked assiduously within their limitations to preserve rigor.
On the Notion of Equal Figures in Euclid

Michael Beeson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13366-022-00649-9

2022-04-03

Abstract:Euclid uses an undefined notion of "equal figures", to which he applies the common notions about equals added to equals or subtracted from equals. When (in previous work) we formalized Euclid Book~I for computer proof-checking, we had to add fifteen axioms about undefined relations "equal triangles" and "equal quadrilaterals" to replace Euclid's use of the common notions. In this paper, we offer definitions of "equal triangles" and "equal quadrilaterals", that Euclid could have given, and prove that they have the required properties. This removes the need for adding new axioms. The proof uses the theory of proportions. Hence we also discuss the "early theory of proportions", which has a long history.

Logic,Logic in Computer Science,Metric Geometry
Geometry in the twentieth century: A return to Euclid -- The work of Herbert Busemann

Athanase Papadopoulos

2024-06-03

Abstract:This is a point of view of the work of Herbert Busemann (1905-1994), seen as a return to the geometry of Ancient Greece. The importance of this work, its recognition and its relation with other works are discussed. The final version of this paper will appear in the Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Mathematical Practice, ed. Bharath Sriraman, Springer, 2024.

History and Overview,Metric Geometry
It is not "Bézout's identity"

Andrew Granville

2024-06-22

Abstract:Given two non-zero integers $a$ and $b$ there exist integers $m$ and $n$ for which $am-bn =(a,b)$. An increasing number of mathematicians have been calling this `Bézout's identity', some encouraged by finding "identité de Bézout" in Bourbaki's \emph{'Eléments de mathématique}. Moreover the observation that if $\gcd(a,b)=1$ then this is an `if and only if' condition, is sometimes called the "Bachet-Bézout theorem". However this is all in Euclid's work from around 300 B.C., when his writings are interpreted in context. So why does he not get credit? Some authors learned the name "Bézout's identity" and have perhaps not consulted Euclid, so copied the misattribution. Others, like some Nicolas Bourbaki collaborators, have perhaps browsed Euclid's results, but in a form written for the modern mathematician, and missed out on what he really did (though certainly others, such as Weil, did not). In this article we will carefully explain what Euclid's arguments are and what his approach was. We will also share Kowalski's guess as to the reasons behind Bourbaki's misnomer. To appreciate Euclid, you need to read his work in context: Lengths are the central object of study to the geometer Euclid, though he brilliantly developed the theory of the numbers that measured those lengths. Today's mathematicians read his number theory results as being about abstract numbers not measurements. However the correct interpretation changes how these results are perceived; Euclid's proofs make clear Euclid's intentions. These misperceptions reflect recent discussions about difficulties faced by indigenous people when learning mathematics. We discuss how some indigenous groups may learn numbers in certain practical contexts, not as abstract entities, and struggle when curricula assume that we all share abstract numbers as a basic, primary fully-absorbed working tool.

History and Overview,Commutative Algebra,Number Theory
Decoding Book II of the Elements

Piotr Błaszczyk,Kazimierz Mrówka,Anna Petiurenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24917/20809751.12.3

2020-12-31

Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis | Studia ad Didacticam Mathematicae Pertinentia

Abstract:The paper is a commentary to the Polish translation of the Elements Book II, included in this volume.We focus on relations between figures represented and not represented on diagrams and identify rules which enableEuclid to bridge these two kinds of objects. Also, we argue that the main mathematical problem addressed in Book II is constructing a leg of a rightangled triangle, given its hypotenuse and the other leg. In proposition II.14,Euclid solves it through the construction called the geometric mean. We trace the problem in Book III and beyond the Elements: in Heron’s Metrica, Descartes’ La Géométrie, and modern foundations of mathematics. We showthat Descartes, by novel interpretation of the Pythagorean theorem, provides a modern solution to this problem.
An Elementary System of Axioms for Euclidean Geometry based on Symmetry Principles

Boris Čulina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.14072

2021-05-28

History and Overview

Abstract:In this article, I develop an elementary system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. On one hand, the system is based on the symmetry principles which express our a priori ignorant approach to space: all places are the same to us (the homogeneity of space), all directions are the same to us (the isotropy of space) and all units of length we use to create geometric figures are the same to us (the scale invariance of space). On the other hand, through the process of algebraic simplification, this system of axioms directly provides Weyl's system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. The system of axioms, together with its a priori interpretation, offers new views to philosophy and pedagogy of mathematics: (i) it supports the thesis that Euclidean geometry is a priori, (ii) it supports the thesis that in modern mathematics the Weyl's system of axioms is dominant to Euclid's system because it reflects the a priori underlying symmetries, (iii) it gives a new and promising approach to learn geometry which, through the Weyl's system of axioms, leads from the essential geometric symmetry principles of the mathematical nature directly to modern mathematics.
Comparing angles in Euclid's Elements

Alexander Shen

2024-04-03

Abstract:The exposition in Euclid's Elements contains an obvious gap (seemingly unnoticed by most commentators): he often compares not just angles, but *groups* of angles, and at the same time he avoids summing angles (and considering angles greater than $\pi$), and does not say what such a comparison of groups could mean. We discuss the problem and suggest a possible interpretation that could make Euclid's exposition consistent.

History and Overview
Notes on Bolyai's 'Appendix'

Steven Rose

2023-07-23

Abstract:This paper aims to provide an explanatory edition of Bolyai's 'Appendix Demonstrating the Absolute Science of Space', first published in 1832. In this treatise Bolyai began by extending neutral (or 'absolute') geometry by deriving a number of theorems which are independent of Euclid's parallel postulate. Then, while retaining Euclid first four postulates, he explored the consequences of replacing the parallel postulate with a different assumption, that through a given point not on a given straight line, more than than one straight line can be drawn which does not intersect the given line. On this basis Bolyai developed a non-Euclidean geometry nowadays called hyperbolic geometry. The English translation of Bolyai's text is reprinted in the paper, with explanatory notes provided at the end of each section. Some of the theorems are discussed in detail, with a particular focus on those in which Bolyai derived the trigonometric identities of the hyperbolic plane and on his astonishing quadrature of the circle. Bolyai's terse style of exposition can be quite challenging, so I have tried to fill in some of the mathematical details which he chose to omit, either through lack of space or simply because he thought them to obvious too include.

History and Overview
Axiomatization of geometry employing group actions

Jerzy Dydak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.00285

2015-01-01

Metric Geometry

Abstract:The aim of this paper is to develop a new axiomatization of planar geometry by reinterpreting the original axioms of Euclid. The basic concept is still that of a line segment but its equivalent notion of betweenness is viewed as a topological, not a metric concept. That leads quickly to the notion of connectedness without any need to dwell on the definition of topology. In our approach line segments must be connected. Lines and planes are unified via the concept of separation: lines are separated into two components by each point, planes contain lines that separate them into two components as well. We add a subgroup of bijections preserving line segments and establishing unique isomorphism of basic geometrical sets, and the axiomatic structure is complete. Of fundamental importance is the Fixed Point Theorem that allows for creation of the concepts of length and congruency of line segments. The resulting structure is much more in sync with modern science than other axiomatic approaches to planar geometry. For instance, it leads naturally to the Erlangen Program in geometry. Our Conditions of Homogeneity and Rigidity have two interpretations. In physics, they correspond to the basic tenet that independent observers should arrive at the same measurement and are related to boosts in special relativity. In geometry, they mean uniqueness of congruence for certain geometrical figures. Another thread of the paper is the introduction of boundary at infinity, an important concept of modern mathematics, and linking of Pasch Axiom to endowing boundaries at infinity with a natural relation of betweenness. That way spherical geometry can be viewed as geometry of boundaries at infinity.
On Constructive-Deductive Method For Plane Euclidean Geometry

Evgeny V. Ivashkevich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.05175

2019-03-12

Logic

Abstract:Constructive-deductive method for plane Euclidean geometry is proposed and formalized within Coq Proof Assistant. This method includes both postulates that describe elementary constructions by idealized geometric tools (pencil, straightedge and compass), and axioms that describes properties of basic geometric figures (points, lines, circles and triangles). The proposed system of postulates and axioms can be considered as a constructive version of the Hilbert's formalization of plane Euclidean geometry.
Curvature of surfaces in euclidean 3-space: philosophical analysis of Gauss' Theorema Egregium

Joel Merker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1402.1018

2014-02-05

Abstract:This essay, an excerpt of the author's Ph.D. in Philosophy of mathematics (2012) thought of as being a companion to recent discoveries of new explicit Cartan geometry curvatures, analyzes how Gauss, after having devised the isometrically invariant character of curvature, struggled with elimination computations in order to transform the available extrinsic expression of curvature into a new beautifully general differential expression which depends only on second order derivatives of the coefficients E, F, G of the intrinsic metric. Systematic speculations about the essence of impersonal mathematical necessitation are steadily inserted.

History and Overview,Differential Geometry
Hippocrates of Chios - His Elements and His Lunes A critique of circular reasoning

Jens Hoyrup

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020010

2020-01-01

AIMS Mathematics

Abstract:Hippocrates of Chios, active during the later fifth century BCE, is stated in Proclos's "catalogue of geometers" to have been the first writer of elements, and is also known to have worked on the squaring of "lunes", plane figures contained by a convex and a concave circular arc. Customarily this is taken to mean that he wrote a book in the axiomatic style of Euclid's Elements, and a Euclidean reading of the text on lunules has been used to produce a list of such Euclidean propositions as must already have been in Hippocrates's Elements. The present article, analyzing Hippocrates's procedures closely, makes the observation that little or nothing of what Hippocrates makes use of had not been known and used in practical geometry, in part for more than a millennium, in part for at least a century. It suggests that Hippocrates's argumentation, instead of being rooted in an axiomatic system, was based on the "locally obvious", such knowledge as his audience would be familiar with and could be supposed to accept as evident. His "elements", far from being an axiomatic system, would be a list of such locally obvious techniques and insights. We know Hippocrates's work on lunes from Simplicios's sixth-century commentary to Aristotle's Physics. Simplicios proposes two versions, first a report of what Alexander of Aphrodisias had told in his commentary to the same work and passage, next (as he claims) the description of the work that Eudemos had offered, adding only Euclidean proofs where he supposes Eudemos has omitted them. Comparison of the two show that they are both genuine, none of them derived from the other. It is suggested that Alexander draws on Hippocrates's teaching, being based either on lecture notes of his or on students' notes; the Eudemos-version may instead go back to what Hippocrates published more officially.
Excursus into the History of Calculus

S. Kutateladze

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0701068

2007-01-02

History and Overview

Abstract:This is a brief overview of some turning points in the history of infinitesimals.
From the Practice of Explanation to the Ideology of Demonstration: an Informal Essay

Jens Høyrup

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01617-3_2

2019-01-01

Abstract:The following discusses the practice of mathematical argument or demonstration—at first based on what I shall speak of as “the locally obvious”, that is, presuppositions which the interlocutor—or, in case of writing, the imagined or “model” reader—will accept as obvious; next in its interaction with critique, investigation of the conditions for the validity of the seemingly obvious as well as the limits of this validity. This is done, in part through analysis of material produced within late medieval Italian abbacus culture, in part from a perspective offered by the Old Babylonian mathematical corpus—both sufficiently distant from what we are familiar with to make phenomena visible which in our daily life go as unnoticed as the air we breathe; that is, they allow Verfremdung. These tools are then applied to the development from argued procedure toward axiomatics in ancient Greece, from the mid-fifth to the mid-third century bce. Finally is discussed the further development of ancient demonstrative mathematics, when axiomatization, at first a practice, then a norm, in the end became an ideology. The whole is rounded off by a few polemical remarks about present-day beliefs concerning the character of mathematics.
Experiences of infinity and of generality in Book I of Euclid's Elements

Stefan Neuwirth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.04838

2022-01-13

Abstract:This article proposes a reading of Book I of Euclid's Elements with an emphasis of the experiences of infinity supplied by it, as a preparatory study for a research on the embodied cognition of infinity and its material anchors. -- Cet article propose une lecture du premier livre des Éléments d'Euclide. Il soutient qu'une telle lecture procure des expériences de l'infini. Il s'agit selon son auteur d'une étude préliminaire à une recherche sur la cognition incarnée de l'infini et de ses ancrages matériels.

History and Overview
Finitude géométrique en géométrie de Hilbert + an erratum/addendum

Pierre-Louis Blayac,Mickaël Crampon,Ludovic Marquis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5802/aif.2914

2024-10-18

Abstract:The paper is divided in 2 parts. The first part is the original paper of the second and third authors <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1202.5442v2" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5442v2">arXiv:1202.5442v2</a>. The second part is an erratum/addendum written in english and concatenated at the end of the former paper. In the erratum/addentum, we amend Theorems 1.3 and 1.11 of <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1202.5442v2" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5442v2">arXiv:1202.5442v2</a>: Finitude géométrique en géométrie de Hilbert. We seize the opportunity to show that in round Hilbert geometry, geometrical finiteness (gf) is equivalent to cusp-uniform action and to fill some small gaps that appear in two other proofs of <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1202.5442v2" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5442v2">arXiv:1202.5442v2</a>.

Geometric Topology,Group Theory,Metric Geometry
Learning and teaching axiomatic geometry

Marshall Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00305800

1971-06-01

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Abstract:To sum up, we have examined the various difficulties-mathematical, conceptual, and logical-involved in learning and teaching axiomatic geometry. Taking as a typical axiomatic approach one that couples Emil Artin's treatment of affine geometry with Choquet's handling of the basic order and orthogonality phenomena of Euclidean geometry, we have tried to identify these difficulties in some detail. We have noted that this particular approach isolates the graver difficulties, separating them from one another in such a way that they can be mastered by comparatively simple techniques. For both student and teacher the burden is shifted to the fuller understanding of certain fundamental concepts, such as that of a geometrical transformation, which permit making an early contact with algebra-specifically, with group theory-in the spirit of Descartes and Felix Klein. We have proposed an organization of the school program in geometry from grade K or grade 1 through grade 12 aimed at gradually acquainting the student with these basic concepts and their technical uses as they emerge from the persistent contemplation of the physical, mathematical, and logical facts. We have stated our conviction that by the 10th grade students should be prepared to understand the strategy and the significance of the axiomatic approach, and by the 11th and 12th grades to carry through that approach in adequate detail. We have taken explicitly into account the need to arrange the school geometry program in such a way that students can reach terminal points appropriate to their capacities, needs, and interests. We must emphasize that what has been presented here is no more than a rough outline, to be filled out on the basis of further psychological, mathematical and curricular investigations. I am confident that these suggestions can mature into a school geometry program not only far more significant intellectually and technically than those now commonly offered but also one easier to learn and to teach. This is not just a matter of personal belief, because many elements of the proposed program have actually been tried out in one form or another with success. What is now needed is a grand effort to assemble the tested and untested parts into an experimental whole.

education & educational research
My Appreciation of Geometry

Shing-Tung Yau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4310/iccm.2013.v1.n1.a7

2013-01-01

Notices of the International Congress of Chinese Mathematicians

Abstract:Geometry is a subject which has permeated my entire career in mathematics.I first learned the Euclidean geometry in 1961.I have worked on various problems in geometry till now.What I will talk about in this lecture is not just the Euclidean plane geometry.Its contents, methods, and results are rather deep.Modern geometry is a lively topic in mathematics.I will enlighten the audience on some history of geometry with emphasis on the concepts of harmony and symmetry.I hope to share with you the great joy that geometry has bestowed upon me. Geometry in Ancient GreeceThe ancients observed a variety of distinctive geometric patterns in daily life, which are, in general, quite transparent in character.In spite of the inherent simplicity of objects such as circles or triangles, they do, in fact, satisfy several rules.These rules are very concise, genuinely straightforward, and brimming with aesthetic appeal.The geometric problems which captivated early Egyptian and Babylonian societies-and which are found within ancient Chinese works exemplifying China's budding scholasticism, such as The Nine Chapters-were encompassed by these objects and the rules governing them.Nearly all of these important features of geometry had been explained clearly by the Greeks before 300 BCE.
The Call of Mathematics

S. S. Kutateladze,S.S. Kutateladze

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0705.4123

2007-05-28

General Mathematics

Abstract:A few remarks on how mathematics quests for freedom.

Apology of Euclid

Euclid After Computer Proof-checking

Euclidean rigor and the curious case of the (missing) reflex angle

On the Notion of Equal Figures in Euclid

Geometry in the twentieth century: A return to Euclid -- The work of Herbert Busemann

It is not "Bézout's identity"

Decoding Book II of the Elements

An Elementary System of Axioms for Euclidean Geometry based on Symmetry Principles

Comparing angles in Euclid's Elements

Notes on Bolyai's 'Appendix'

Axiomatization of geometry employing group actions

On Constructive-Deductive Method For Plane Euclidean Geometry

Curvature of surfaces in euclidean 3-space: philosophical analysis of Gauss' Theorema Egregium

Hippocrates of Chios - His Elements and His Lunes A critique of circular reasoning

Excursus into the History of Calculus

From the Practice of Explanation to the Ideology of Demonstration: an Informal Essay

Experiences of infinity and of generality in Book I of Euclid's Elements

Finitude géométrique en géométrie de Hilbert + an erratum/addendum

Learning and teaching axiomatic geometry

My Appreciation of Geometry

The Call of Mathematics