Question

The first six of Euclid’s definitions attempt to define the three undefined terms in geometry: points, lines, and planes. Do you think that these definitions are sufficient? Why or why not?

Answer 1

l;
42

Answer 2

huh?

Answer 3

Can you post his first six definitions?

Answer 4

@MustachioedPenguin 1. A point is that of which there is no part.
2. And a line is a length without breadth.
3. And the extremities of a line are points.
4. A straight-line is whatever lies evenly with points upon itself.
5. And a surface is that which has length and breadth alone.
6. And the extremities of a surface are lines.

Answer 5

So, look up the modern definition of points , lines, and planes. Can you replace them with Euclid's? Why/ why not?

Answer 6

is that what it's asking? if you can replace?

Answer 7

Not directly, but that's a good way to go about the question.

Answer 8

haha im sorry but im still confused.

Answer 9

I really don't know how to explain it more...

Answer 10

@MustachioedPenguin In your own words, summarize the meaning of the first six definitions. ? can you help with that?

Answer 11

No, sorry.

Answer 12

The first definition is saying that a point has no length width or depth

Answer 13

The second is saying that a line has length but no width

The third is saying that the very end of a line is a single point

My interpretation of his fourth definition is something that lies evenly, flat/smooth (not crooked), with points lying along it

A surface (like the surface area of something, a plane) is something that has length and width but no depth. It's just a surface

Definition six is saying the end points of a surface make up a line

Answer 14

This is a representation of a point, but this representation actually has width and length while an actual point shouldn't





The very end of a line is a point




no depth