▲ 1266 ▼ Some things don't change (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world [M] to c/memes@lemmy.world 219 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (5 children) Has anything changed in Euclid's Elements? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago We discovered one of the postulates was really interesting to fuck with. It's better to say that we've discovered more math, some of which changes how we understand the old. Since Euclid, we've made discoveries in how geometry works and the underpinnings of it that can and have been used to provide foundation for his work, or to demonstrate some of the same things more succinctly. For example, Euclid had some assumptions that he didn't document. Since math isn't empirical, it's rarely wrong if actually proven. It can be looked at differently though, and have assumptions changed to learn new things, or we can figure out that there are assumptions that weren't obvious. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) The number of hypotheses we've proven, mostly. Also, we have this whole field of non-Euclidean geometry. And the modern Pythagoreans are a lot more chill about people knowing the irrationality of Pi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah but I mean revision not additive change. From what I remember nothing in elements is wrong. I don't think anyone proved that last postulate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Nothing is wrong, it's just more incomplete than a modern book. But if you're at the 101 level, sure. It works fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Quik@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago Yes, some of the shit he wrote was basically meaningless (the "definitions" before the axioms) and we would just leave it out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Nope. Thats why I gifted it to my son, who studies math. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Not sure, I've only gotten to the middle of the third season. No spoilers, please! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago We discovered one of the postulates was really interesting to fuck with. It's better to say that we've discovered more math, some of which changes how we understand the old. Since Euclid, we've made discoveries in how geometry works and the underpinnings of it that can and have been used to provide foundation for his work, or to demonstrate some of the same things more succinctly. For example, Euclid had some assumptions that he didn't document. Since math isn't empirical, it's rarely wrong if actually proven. It can be looked at differently though, and have assumptions changed to learn new things, or we can figure out that there are assumptions that weren't obvious. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) The number of hypotheses we've proven, mostly. Also, we have this whole field of non-Euclidean geometry. And the modern Pythagoreans are a lot more chill about people knowing the irrationality of Pi. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah but I mean revision not additive change. From what I remember nothing in elements is wrong. I don't think anyone proved that last postulate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Nothing is wrong, it's just more incomplete than a modern book. But if you're at the 101 level, sure. It works fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah but I mean revision not additive change. From what I remember nothing in elements is wrong. I don't think anyone proved that last postulate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Nothing is wrong, it's just more incomplete than a modern book. But if you're at the 101 level, sure. It works fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Nothing is wrong, it's just more incomplete than a modern book. But if you're at the 101 level, sure. It works fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Quik@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago Yes, some of the shit he wrote was basically meaningless (the "definitions" before the axioms) and we would just leave it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Nope. Thats why I gifted it to my son, who studies math. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Not sure, I've only gotten to the middle of the third season. No spoilers, please! permalink fedilink source parent