My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Geometry

Geometry Geometry Math Forum


Thanks Tree5Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
July 17th, 2017, 04:55 AM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Canada

Posts: 24
Thanks: 1

Euclid's Fifth Postulate

Even after reading about Euclid's fifth postulate, I can't understand why it couldn't have been proven for Euclidean space. All of the geometers that lived between Euclid's time and Lobachevsky's worked only within the parameters of euclidean space (in which the postulate holds). So why could the postulate not be proven for Euclidean space only?
Antoniomathgini is online now  
 
July 17th, 2017, 05:09 AM   #2
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,937
Thanks: 2265

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
It can't be proven because it is independent of the other axions.

If you choose to enforce the fifth postulate, your space is forced to be Euclidean. If you choose to enforce a different fifth postulate, your space is forced to be non-Euclidean.

Flat space is called Euclidean because Euclid chose to enforce the fifth postulate.
Thanks from RalphD and Antoniomathgini
v8archie is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 05:41 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 141
Thanks: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antoniomathgini View Post
Even after reading about Euclid's fifth postulate, I can't understand why it couldn't have been proven for Euclidean space. All of the geometers that lived between Euclid's time and Lobachevsky's worked only within the parameters of euclidean space (in which the postulate holds). So why could the postulate not be proven for Euclidean space only?
The fifth postulate can be seen as a definition of what it means for space to be Euclidean.

Sure, you can invent other definitions of what it means that space is Euclidean. People throughout history have done that and proved those definitions to be exactly equivalent to the parallal postulate. I think the most famous one is Playfair's axiom, but there are many many many others.

The question really was (or should have been) whether there were any space besides Euclidean space.
Thanks from Antoniomathgini
Micrm@ss is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 11:11 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 662
Thanks: 187

We tend to call postulates axioms these days.

It is often said that Euclid is built on just five axioms.

But these are valueless without the

23 definitions

and 5 what he called Common Notions.
studiot is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 01:52 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 141
Thanks: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by studiot View Post
We tend to call postulates axioms these days.

It is often said that Euclid is built on just five axioms.

But these are valueless without the

23 definitions

and 5 what he called Common Notions.
Perhaps. But most of his definitions and common notions are 1) Incomplete 2) Too vague to be useful at all.
Micrm@ss is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 02:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 662
Thanks: 187

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micrm@ss View Post
Perhaps. But most of his definitions and common notions are 1) Incomplete 2) Too vague to be useful at all.
That surely is a matter of opinion.

Definition 1 for instance has incredibly far reaching effects on the whole of mathematical physics.

Proposition 1 was the first enunciation of the transitive relation and the basis for the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

Not useful?
studiot is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 03:16 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 141
Thanks: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by studiot View Post
That surely is a matter of opinion.

Definition 1 for instance has incredibly far reaching effects on the whole of mathematical physics.
No it doesn't. It's a meaningless statement. "A point is that which has no parts" is merely a heuristic. It is telling us how to think of the concept of a point. Which sure, is useful. But it is not helping in any way to give a rigorous definition of a point. Want proof? He never actually uses this definition anywhere in the elements! He couldn't use this definition, since it's unusable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by studiot View Post
Proposition 1 was the first enunciation of the transitive relation and the basis for the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

Not useful?
Surely you mean common notion 1? Yes, the common notions are somewhat more useful. Although I highly doubt Euclid had thermodynamics in mind haha. Still, the common notions are very incomplete. He very often uses common notions that he didn't state.

Last edited by skipjack; July 17th, 2017 at 09:05 PM.
Micrm@ss is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 07:28 PM   #8
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,937
Thanks: 2265

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
It's very common that the inventor/discoverer of a mathematical idea has no idea of the practical uses to which it will eventually be put. It's also extremely common for the first attempt at formalising an idea to be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. Are you going to have a go at Newton and Leibnitz for not having a solid theoretical basis for calculus? Or for not having path integrals in the complex plane and string theory in mind when they created it?

The value of Euclid is not the accuracy of his work, but the formal nature of it and what he was trying to achieve.

Last edited by v8archie; July 17th, 2017 at 07:32 PM.
v8archie is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 09:44 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 141
Thanks: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
It's very common that the inventor/discoverer of a mathematical idea has no idea of the practical uses to which it will eventually be put. It's also extremely common for the first attempt at formalising an idea to be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. Are you going to have a go at Newton and Leibnitz for not having a solid theoretical basis for calculus? Or for not having path integrals in the complex plane and string theory in mind when they created it?

The value of Euclid is not the accuracy of his work, but the formal nature of it and what he was trying to achieve.
Having a go?? Since when can't we criticize past sources for being inaccurate and flawed? Every commentator of Euclid admits this. Of course I acknowledge the value of Euclid's monumental work. But you act like we shouldn't criticize it! Of course we should.

Discussing "flaws" in Euclid has been done by mathematicians for centuries. Proclus and Zeno were among the first to discuss the elements, point out flaws and fix them up. This continued for centuries, as every geometry student was required (rightfully) to read Euclid. Finally, Hilberts and Tarski's formulization of geometry was the end of it. Still Euclid is worth reading even today, even though most mathematics students sadly do not read it and most high schools do not teach from it. Having a critical(!!!!!!) look at Euclid teaches a lot. I always love to read Euclid with interested students and then to discuss with them things that could be better. It's very much worth it.

Although Newton's Principia was recommended reading at Cambridge until well in the 19th century, the text aged much less well. I find it very difficult to read. It is almost completely outdated, even though there are many interesting modern looks at it. Still, I would not require a physics student to look at it, important as it was. Euclid is different. Yes, it aged somewhat in many places. But it is still extremely readable, and when reading it you really do get a feeling for its immense beauty revealed in its structure.

Last edited by Micrm@ss; July 17th, 2017 at 10:01 PM.
Micrm@ss is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 10:37 PM   #10
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,937
Thanks: 2265

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
I just think your criticism is over the top. Many mathematical texts are difficult to understand if you don't already know what they are trying to say. Especially the pre-notation ones. I think it was some of al-Khwarizmi's writing I saw recently that sounded like utter gobbledy-gook. Such was the rhetorical tradition. In contrast "that which has no parts" is a reasonably good definition of a point from 1800 years earlier and without the benefit of any existing definitions to work from. Sure, it might not tell you much, but if you know what he means, it makes sense.
v8archie is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Geometry

Tags
euclid, postulate



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fourth Postulate bsaucer Geometry 9 August 18th, 2016 10:27 AM
Ruler Postulate and bijection between uncountable sets jee Real Analysis 2 March 30th, 2016 03:42 PM
A proof of Bertrand's postulate Albert.Teng Number Theory 14 April 16th, 2012 08:02 PM
Parallel Postulate julian21 Algebra 2 September 27th, 2010 07:19 PM
AA Postulate symmetry Algebra 1 April 1st, 2007 06:11 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.