>>24659107
>I meant...
That's...not a contradiction of myself, first off. My understanding that the proofs weren't discovered deductively comes from spurces like Apollonius, the depictions of the treatment of math problems in Plato and Simplicius, and so on. When I said your info isn't valid because it's not in the text, that's a point of emphasis against a contention that you're strongly supposed to read the Elements by stopping at every enunciation and strugglebussing your way to a proof before looking at what Euclid presents as proof.
>We can nitpick what "supposed to" means but you yourself worked from the preSUPPOSITION that the method of proof is deduction.
The method of *presentation* is deductive; this is unquestionably the case, because from the theoretical standpoint, this presentation accords with the nature of the mathematical entities themselves in understanding from their elements to their expansion as Platonic solids. But the deductive presentation isn't how the proofs were actually discovered. The Elements is a textbook compendium of work that had already been done, presented in a strong order showing theoretical dependencies.
>I don't...
I literally spelled it out for you in the simplest terms and gave you an example of Apollonius doing this at
>>24659019. "I'm not sure there is anything of substance," retard, this is how they solved geometric problems and figured how to relate them to theoretically prior material.
>Your nitpicking pilpul
Lol lmao, you're one of the most nitpicking retards here, you literally hijack the clg threads for your spergery.
>This might be true. Chatgpt said something about this method having been used traditionally or whatever but I don't think I saw any sources linked. It might be better to read everything except the proof, try to think of a proof yourself, and then read the proof, rather than beginning with only the enunciation.
Stop trusting ChatGPT, first off, and stop worrying about the proofs being "spoiled" and just work at memorizing some of them.
>What? You're contradicting yourself again.
No, maybe you don't know what a contradiction per se is.
When you take it, as you expressly do from the start of the thread, that the proofs in the Elements were *figured out* according to the deductive presentation, i.e., that the Pythagorean theorem was only derived or discovered after 30-something other proofs, themselves only determined after setting out defs., etc., that would be wrong. Review
>>24659019, which you completely ignored. You don't have to know what the segments look like, just pay attention to the approach.
