Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
lite.on.beta@gmail.com

Posts: 134
Registered: 2/21/06
Re: Analytic vs. Synthetic Geometry
Posted: Sep 5, 2013 10:55 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 10:03:28 AM UTC-4, Peter Percival wrote:
> Lite Beta wrote:
>
>
>

> >
>
> > Also, R^n is the Cartesian product. So isn't it by default that the n numbers in R^n are cartesian coordinates?
>
>
>
> It seems to me that "R^n" is ambiguous, it might be nothing more than
>
> this set: {(x_1,...,x_n): x_i real, 1 <= i <= n}. Or it might be that
>
> set with structure on it. In the latter case, there are various
>
> possible structures: additive group, vector space, metric space,...
>


So do you think cartesian coordinates are not more closely linked to R^n than other coordinate systems? The wikipedia page on Euclidean spaces mixes the two and reading it scrambled (or rescrambled) my brain.

How about this:
If you have a constant function f from a subset S of R^2 into R, and you do the double integral of f*dA over S, that is interpreted as the volume of a box with base area S and height f. But doesn't this require us to consider R^2 as the cartesian coordinates (x,y) ?



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.