data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/79a94/79a94e6acca11b5967499047c66aa546368b5c43" alt=""
Publication details
Year: 2012
Pages: 55-102
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "The twofold role of diagrams in Euclid's plane geometry", Synthese 186 (1), 2012, pp. 55-102.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/652c7/652c709c179587882fef7a70c3023c9a5fb759b3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8b2d7/8b2d7a29ea4b19606891c77e8b1d6f50d2b31723" alt=""
The twofold role of diagrams in Euclid's plane geometry
pp. 55-102
in: John Mumma, Marco Panza, Paul-Gabriel Sandu (eds), Diagrams in mathematics, Synthese 186 (1), 2012.Abstract
Proposition I.1 is, by far, the most popular example used to justify the thesis that many of Euclid’s geometric arguments are diagram-based. Many scholars have recently articulated this thesis in different ways and argued for it. My purpose is to reformulate it in a quite general way, by describing what I take to be the twofold role that diagrams play in Euclid’s plane geometry (EPG). Euclid’s arguments are object-dependent. They are about geometric objects. Hence, they cannot be diagram-based unless diagrams are supposed to have an appropriate relation with these objects. I take this relation to be a quite peculiar sort of representation. Its peculiarity depends on the two following claims that I shall argue for: (i) The identity conditions of EPG objects are provided by the identity conditions of the diagrams that represent them; (ii) EPG objects inherit some properties and relations from these diagrams.
Publication details
Year: 2012
Pages: 55-102
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "The twofold role of diagrams in Euclid's plane geometry", Synthese 186 (1), 2012, pp. 55-102.