Did Euclid's elements, Book I, develop geometry axiomatically?

DOI10.1007/BF00327296MaRDI QIDQ1237702zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors A. Seidenberg

Publication date 1975

Published in Archive for History of Exact Sciences (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00327296

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

History of Greek and Roman mathematics (01A20) History of mathematical logic and foundations (03-03) History of geometry (51-03)

Cites work

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3119278 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3127930 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3363463 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3039704 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3050679 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3076614 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3081645 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3111087 (Why is no real title available?)
• On the area of a semi-circle
• On the value equivalent to in ancient mathematical texts. A new interpretation
• The ritual origin of geometry

Cited in

(4)

• Aristotelian or Platonic Archimedes: ``Tertium non datur?
• The role of diagrams in mathematical arguments
• Euclid's fourth postulate: its authenticity and significance for the foundations of Greek mathematics
• The ritual origin of the circle and square

This page was built for publication: Did Euclid's elements, Book I, develop geometry axiomatically?

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1237702)