The Incompatibility between Euclidean Geometry and the Algebraic Solutions of Geometric Problems
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
The transition from the “early-modern” mathematical and scientific norms of establishing conventional Euclidean geometric proofs has experienced quite mixed modes of reasoning. For instance, a careful investigation based on the continued attempts by different practitioners to resolve the geometric trisectability of a plane angle suggests serious hitches with the established algebraic angles non-trisectability proofs. These faults found the root for the difficult geometric question about having straightedge and compass proofs for either the trisectability or the non-trisectability of angles. One of the evident gaps regarding the norms for establishing the Euclidean geometric proofs concerns the incompatibility between the smugly asserted algebraic-geometric proofs and the desired inherent Euclidean geometric proofs. We consider an algebraically translated proof of the geometric angle trisection scheme proposed by [1]. We assert and prove that there is a complete incompatibility between the geometric and the algebraic methods of proofs, and hence the algebraic methods should not be used as authoritative means of proving Euclidean geometric problems. The paper culminates by employing the incompatibility proofs in justifying the independence of the Euclidean geometric system.
References
-
Euclid. The thirteen books of Euclid’s Elements. 2nd ed., rev. With additions. Cambridge [Eng.]: The University Press; 1926.
Google Scholar
1
-
Heath TL. The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, translated from the text of Heiberg, with introduction and commentary. 2nd ed., vol. 3 vols. Cambridge (available in Dover reprint): University Press; 1926.
Google Scholar
2
-
Euclid’s Elements, Book I, Definition 8. [Internet]. Available from: https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/defI8.html (accessed Nov. 26, 2021).
Google Scholar
3
-
Euclid’s Elements, Book I, Proposition 9. [Internet]. Available from: https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/propI9.html (accessed Nov. 26, 2021).
Google Scholar
4
-
Euclid’s Elements, Book I, Definition 10. [Internet]. Available from: https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/defI10.html (accessed Nov. 26, 2021).
Google Scholar
5
-
Descartes R. The Geometry of René Descartes: with a Facsimile of the First Edition. Courier Corporation; 2012.
Google Scholar
6
-
Sasaki C. The Géométrie of 1637. 2003: 205-280. French.
Google Scholar
7
-
Descartes R. Geometria, à Renato des Cartes anno 1637 Gallice edita: postea autem una cum notis Florimondi de Beaune, in linguam latinam versa et commentariis illustrata opera atque studio Francisci à Schooten. Amstelaedami: apud Ludovicum et Danielem Elzevirios; 1659. Latin.
Google Scholar
8
-
Milici P. A QUEST FOR EXACTNESS: machines, algebra and geometry for tractional constructions of differential equations; 2015.
Google Scholar
9
-
Panza M. Rethinking geometrical exactness. Hist. Math. 2011; 38(1): 42-95.
Google Scholar
10
-
Merli R. The Cartesian distinction between Geometric curves and curves. Mechanics. 2016.
Google Scholar
11
-
Reed D. Figures of Thought: Mathematics and Mathematical Texts. Fig. Thought Math. Math. Texts. Jan. 2013.
Google Scholar
12
-
Domski M. The intelligibility of motion and construction: Descartes’ early mathematics and metaphysics, 1619–1637. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A. 2009;40: 119-130.
Google Scholar
13
-
Crippa D. IMPOSSIBILITY RESULTS: FROM GEOMETRY TO ANALYSIS. PhD thesis, Univeristé Paris Diderot Paris 7. 2014. [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2021 February 2] Available from: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01098493
Google Scholar
14
-
Alex K. The Independence of Euclidean Geometric System: A Proof on the Constructability of Geometric Magnitudes (Reconsidering the Geometric Trisectability of an Arbitrary Angle, a Comprehensive Survey); 2021.
Google Scholar
15