this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
1260 points (98.6% liked)
memes
16790 readers
3217 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Has anything changed in Euclid's Elements?
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.
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.
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
Nothing is wrong, it's just more incomplete than a modern book.
But if you're at the 101 level, sure. It works fine.
Yes, some of the shit he wrote was basically meaningless (the "definitions" before the axioms) and we would just leave it out.
Not sure, I've only gotten to the middle of the third season. No spoilers, please!
Nope. Thats why I gifted it to my son, who studies math.