Does anyone else read Geometrical/Mathematical proofs?
Like Euclid or Archimedes?
I'm going to ask for The Works of Archimedes for Xmas, has anyone read?
>>7705790
Why would you read any mathematics more than ~200 years old for any other reason other than to stroke your ego?
haven't extensively read it but my favorite topic in math is geometry and I enjoy their proofs
>>7705809
If you enjoy proofs don't read non-rigorous, obsolete shit.
>>7705811
it's not all i read, i just like it so i read it for fun. i wouldn't give you shit for doing stuff you like
>>7705815
I didn't give you shit for reading non-rigorous obsolete shit. I only said if you like proofs you shouldn't read non-rigorous obsolete shit. If you get turned on by non-rigorous obsolete shit, that's your problem.
>>7705801
What are you talking about? Euclid is still taught in some Colleges and Universities.
>>7705801
>Why would you read any mathematics more than ~200 years
Are you retarded?
>>7705811
>non-rigorous
go to bed Russell, you've been dead for 45 years
>>7705819
Not in the obtuse, non-rigorous, outdated way it was first written. The principles and ideas are useful, the book isn't.
A more extreme examples is the reason Galois theory isn't taught from Galois's material, but Artin's. The first iteration of these kind of things is always incomplete, rustic and rudimentary.
>>7705821
NICE ARGUMENT BRO, TOTALLY CONVINCED ME
There is no reason to read 200+ years old math other than to stroke your pop-scientist's ego.
>>7705828
Nop. You're dumb.
>>7705834
>i am a buttblasted popscientist
>>7705828
>A more extreme examples is the reason Galois theory isn't taught from Galois's material, but Artin's. The first iteration of these kind of things is always incomplete, rustic and rudimentary.
You don't know what you're talking about. Leave and never post on /sci/ again.
>>7705852
It's fine to like history of mathematics, but this is a math and science board, not a history board. If you get people seeing a history book and saying how much they like its proofs, then you know they're really off.
I guess you could "like" them for the historical significance they have? Don't really care for history t.b.h.
>>7705847
>hurr durr I know of ad hominems, i winz ze debate!
>>7705855
Are you saying Euclid is only historically relevant?
Euclid is fundamentally relevant. I don't see how you could function as someone interested in Geometry without having read proposition 47 of Book one.
>>7705862
>Literally no substance or argument in any post
>"I am debating!"
Insulting is absolutely fine. Fill your posts calling people retarded all you want, people who whine about insults are stupid. But you have to add an actual point somewhere in there or you're just being a crybaby.
Crybaby faggot.
>>7705868
Because the material is done with actual rigor and more thoroughly and extended / streamlined to be useful for a modern math programs in modern books.
>>7705835
>stop doing things I don't like!
>>7705876
>Unironically defending popsci
Kek, buttblasted popscientist spotted.
Your hobby is shit. Go study and do actual science instead of wasting your time.
>Everything you like is shit :^)
>>7705855
People were using Euclid to learn Geometry well into the middle of 20th century. There is NOTHING wrong with it.
>>7705828
Galois wouldn't recognize Galois theory because he didn't come up with it. All he did was spotted the kernel that would later become it after his death. Same thing with Euler, he didn't come up with graph theory either.
>>7705870
Debate club weenies don't belong here, leave. Go circle jerk Russell elsewhere.
>>7705872
No it's not. Most Modern Geometry books assume you have a copy of Euclid along with it.
>>7705818
>Euclid
>not inventing the concept of rigor
>>7705884
I didnt mention Russel or debate shit like "ad hominem" memes. That was the other faggots. Stop being a crybaby faggot.
>>7705963
>Only idiots would be using Euclid's elements to learn geometry when rigor was already established.
He who despises Euclidean Geometry is like a man who, returning from foreign parts, disparages his home.
~H. G. Forder
>[Citation needed]
http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Euclid-Beyond-Undergraduate-Mathematics/dp/0387986502/
>>7705963
>He didn't though. It was done in the 19th century.
>implying the only true math is calculus and algebra
>>7705801
You're an idiot.
I have "famous problems in geometry and how to solve them". It's a small but pretty cool book.
>>7706003
pic related
>>7705801
>hurr door everything needs to be calculus!!! if a proof doesn't have calculus in it it's wrong!
And you're calling other people popscifags?
>>7705825
hearty chuckle
>>7705828
If only Galois didn't get killed in a dual (kek) at twenty like a little faggot
