Add new comment
-
Want facts and want them fast? Our Maths in a minute series explores key mathematical concepts in just a few words.
The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the differences between us. Understanding these inequalities is crucial for this and future pandemics.
Now it's the turn of mathematicians to help to improve the communities of the future.
There have been accusations that the modelling projecting the course of the pandemic was too pessimistic. Are they justified?
We all know what turbulence is, but nobody understands it.
Find out about the beautifully intuitive concept that lies at the heart of calculus.
It appears that the notion of measurement of area is slipped by Euclid through the back door. I think he needs more axioms such as: The area measure of a figure equals the sum of any subdivision into essentially disjoint figures. This "evident truth" does not follow from his postulates. [By the way, he should have done the same for lengths of lines]. Secondly, the area of a square is postulated to be equal to the square of its side. I believe that with these two additions, the problem is resolved. If you look at the usual proofs of Pythagoras theorem, they can be split into those that use the above postulates (addition of disjoint areas) and those that don't. To the second kind belong proofs that simply use similarity of triangles. But even here there is a problem, namely, the use of algebra to open brackets in a product. The way Euclid would justify opening brackets in a product is nothing but another way to assume that areas are additive. This technique was used by Moslem mathematicians, for example, to solve the quadratic equation by "completing the square". Either way, there is no escape from the conclusion that Euclid needs more axioms, namely, those pertaining to measure. I wonder why Hilbert did not point this out. I may be missing something.
M. E.