The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 134
Registered: 2/21/06
Analytic vs. Synthetic Geometry
Posted: Sep 2, 2013 3:46 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

[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.

Now, slightly off topic, but something that's confusing me:

Are the Cartesian coordinates more "fundamental" then other coordinate systems? When someone says R^n do we mean the space or the space+coordinate system? 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) ?

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.