• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Nothing is wrong, it’s just more incomplete than a modern book.

          But if you’re at the 101 level, sure. It works fine.

    • Quik@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yes, some of the shit he wrote was basically meaningless (the “definitions” before the axioms) and we would just leave it out.