/lit/ - Literature

>they haven't read Elements

>he doesn't have certain key propositions memorized by Euclid because they are logical foundations of geometry

X.I is really just a fundamental logical property of numbers and shapes used by Archimedes consistently.

II. 5 and 6 made books II and III of On Conics possible

Get fucked, wannabe polymathfags

>>9144508
This or bust.

I have had the best conversations on here or /sci/ talking about Elements. Learn Elements first, and then maybe learn some modern theory or whatever.

>they're going to learn logic before reading Euclid's Elements

Who /Euclid/ here? Coolest book to discuss imho, and I've discussed it multiple times on here and /sci/. It's one of the few things you two boards have in common.

What is a 'part' and why is the definition for point the only place in the entirety of The Elements that mentions it?

Book One
Definitions
1. A point is that which has no part

was it autism?

:^]

Lets post our reading queue.

Typically, I'll have lines of books set up for increased comprehension of subject matter. This is what I'm looking at for this 'line' or 'path'.

Works of Archimedes > Copernicus - On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres > Galileo - Two New Sciences > Kepler - Harmony of the Worlds > Isaac Newton - Principia > Kant - A Critique of Pure Reason >Hegel - Phenomenology of the Spirit > Marx - Capital

That's going to take a couple years. But it is necessary.

>>7511750
At least one year before I get around to it, realistically.

I can see myself reading 'Rumi' very soon.

And as soon as I'm done reading The Elements by Euclid, that Archimedes is gon' get read. That is by far the closest book here to getting read.

I read so many books. Have little time for fiction.

Proposition 37. Book 7.

Can any mathematicians tell me what my translator means by the following phrase?

'If a number be measured by any number, the number which is measured will have a part called by the same name as the measuring number.'