Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Analytic vs. Synthetic Geometry
Replies: 7   Last Post: Sep 5, 2013 10:55 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 William Elliot Posts: 2,637 Registered: 1/8/12
Re: Analytic vs. Synthetic Geometry
Posted: Sep 2, 2013 4:35 AM

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013, lite.on.beta@gmail.com wrote:

> [Yet another geometry question that involves no geometry exercises]
>
> So after reading various sources on the internet, it seems like Analytic Geometry is an extension of Synthetic Geometry (or a more tool rich replacement). That is, all the theorems of Euclid are automatically true in the R^2 plane or space because the coordinate systems are simply just something "overlaid" (like grid marks) on the regular Euclidean plane or space.
>
> The advantage of overlaying these grid marks is that we can use analysis and algebra to solve harder geometry problems, correct? And correct me again, anything we prove (where the fact doesn't involve the coordinates explicitly) using this extra machinery is automatically true without coordinate systems.
>
> -----
>
> Are the Cartesian coordinates more "fundamental" then other coordinate
> systems?

They're simpler.

> When someone says R^n do we mean the space or the space+coordinate
> system?

The space.

> Sometimes I read "Cartesian space" for R^n, but what about calling
> R^n "polar space" (would that be slightly more silly or way more silly or
> not silly at all) ?

R^n is not a polar space. Polar coordinates can only be used with
the real plain R^2 and were you to use them, then R^2 is still
the real plain.

That's weird. Where did you see Cartesian space?
Often R^n is referred to as Euclidean space.