Date: 7 March 2018, Wednesday
\nTime: 15:40 \u2013 16:30
\nPlace: Mathematics Seminar Room (SA-141)<\/p>\n
\u201cEuclid Mathematically and Historically\u201d
\nby
\nDavid Pierce (Mimar Sinan University)<\/p>\n
Abstract: The Mathematics can save the world, not through a theorem or application, but as an example of an endeavor where<\/p>\n
(1) differences can and must be resolved peacefully;<\/p>\n
(2) dissent is encouraged; and<\/p>\n
(3) wealth has to be shared to be recognized, and then only gains in value. Nonetheless, in trying to share in the wealth of mathematical knowledge, we have to think historically as well as mathematically, particularly when the wealth comes down to us from Ancients such as Euclid.<\/p>\n
The thirteen books of Euclid\u2019s Elements have given us a paradigm of mathematical exposition, with axioms and postulates at the beginning, definitions as needed, and propositions stated and proved. We may have improved on the model; but sometimes we misunderstand it. In Greek, the root meaning of \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f77\u03b1, _geometria,_ is surveying. Herodotus of Halicarnassus (today\u2019s Bodrum) said the Greeks had learned _geometria_ from the Egyptians. However, the mathematics that Euclid went on to work out, presumably in Alexandria, did not follow naturally from a need to measure land lost to the annual flooding of the Nile. Neither does Euclid\u2019s meaning follow naturally from a superficial reading of his words today. Anistoresy, a-historicity, as for example concerning equality and proportion, can lead to misunderstanding and even misdiagnosis of logical error in Euclid. In some ways Euclid\u2019s mathematics is more rigorous than ours.<\/p>\n
Web: http:\/\/www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr\/~cvmath\/seminars\/2018Spring\/07032018.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n