Why do we need postulate 4 in Euclid's element (P14)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element
AI Thread Summary
Postulate 4 is essential in Euclid's Proposition 14 because it establishes the equality of right angles constructed at different locations, which cannot be proven solely through common notions. While common notion 1 states that if two things are equal to a third, they are equal to each other, it lacks a corresponding element in this context. The angles CBA + ABE and CBA + ABD cannot be equated without invoking postulate 4, as there is no direct reference point for equality. Even if additional right angles are constructed, postulate 4 is still necessary to assert their equality. Thus, postulate 4 is crucial for validating the relationships between angles in this geometric framework.
chemistry1
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI14.html

Hi, I was reading proposition 14 of Euclid's elements and there is only one thing which I find weird : why do we need postulate 4 to conclude that " the sum of the angles CBA and ABE equals the sum of the angles CBA and ABD."

Why can't we just use common notion 1 ? It seems useless to me to use the postulate...

Thank you !
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Euclid's definition of a right angle (definition 10) is a geometrical construction. You can't prove that right angles constructed at different positions are equal, so you need postulate 4 to say they are equal.

In modern notation, common notion 1 says "if x = a and y = a, then x = y". In the figure for proposition 14, if you call CBA+ABE x and CBA+ABD y, you don't have anything that corresponds to "a" in common notion 1.

Even if you constructed two more right angles somewhere in the figure and called then "a", you still need postulate 4 to say that x = a and y = a. But Euclid used postulate 4 directly to say that x = y.
 
AlephZero said:
Euclid's definition of a right angle (definition 10) is a geometrical construction. You can't prove that right angles constructed at different positions are equal, so you need postulate 4 to say they are equal.

In modern notation, common notion 1 says "if x = a and y = a, then x = y". In the figure for proposition 14, if you call CBA+ABE x and CBA+ABD y, you don't have anything that corresponds to "a" in common notion 1.

Even if you constructed two more right angles somewhere in the figure and called then "a", you still need postulate 4 to say that x = a and y = a. But Euclid used postulate 4 directly to say that x = y.

I don't think I understand your explanation... Didn't Euclid "prove" with proposition 13 that the sum of two angles were equal to two right angles ? And that we begin the demonstration assuming that the sum of the angle CBA and ABD were equal to two right angles ? What role does postulate 4 play here if I want to make things which equal the same thing equal one another ? What errors would I get if I just applied common notion 1 ?Thank you again for your help!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top