Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:13:45 UTC No. 16196212

>>16196193
probably, but then again, why not just work your way through Euclid’s book?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:15:16 UTC No. 16196214

>>16196193
I guess so, but you gotta remember that Euclid was back when things like rulers and compasses were new ideas. There's a lot better ways to learn geometry than by going all the way back to Euclid.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:16:40 UTC No. 16196218

>>16196214
>rulers and compasses were new ideas
wtf lmao

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:08:00 UTC No. 16196362

School maths books

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:49:05 UTC No. 16196455

Euclidbros... it's over
>Why does the point C exist? Near the beginning of the proof, the point C is mentioned where the circles are supposed to intersect, but there is no justification for its existence. The only one of Euclid’s postulate that says a point exists the parallel postulate, and that postulate is not relevant here. Indeed, some postulate is needed for that conclusion, such as “If the sum of the radii of two circles is greater than the line joining their centers, then the two circles intersect.” Such a postulate is also needed in Proposition I.22. There are models of geometry in which the circles do not intersect. Thus, other postulates not mentioned by Euclid are required. In Book III, Euclid takes some care in analyzing the possible ways that circles can meet, but even with more care, there are missing postulates.