S-should I?

>not reading the Almagest

Was Georgism right all along?

>>2106415
Why not read a book on more recent mathematics?

File: 11525113_1_l.jpg (121KB, 526x850px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 526x850px

>>2106519
The formation of certain mathematical concepts interests me. And believe it or not, when it comes to the foundation of mathematics, relative important fundamental understanding, can hell with complex contemporary mathematics quite a bit.

Plus, logical propositions also help explore avenues of logic, which can help you become a more functional human being.

tl;dr if you haven't read Euclid's Elements, why even bother living?

>>2106554
>help

Also, you really think when it comes to mathematics, newer is better? This fundamental logic could not be performed by half the mathematicians out there who rely on textbook formulas and data sets on Excel to perform their work.

>>2106497
AGHH. I had to read the Almagest for school and it was TERRIBLE. To this day, no one can explain to me what the equant is. I have one friend who believes that ptolemy literally defied logic and reason because he loved the idea of the heavens moving in cute little circles so much.

Apollonius will probably be okay for you, >>2106415 , if you liked Euclid, though.

>>2106519
kill yourself modernfag

>>2106570
Yeah I also read a little bit on hyperbolas and parabolas through Archimedes and various Greek mathematicians that he had a correspondence with. I was a bit confused, but I imagine the 300+ propositions on Conics would obviously touch on parabolas quite a bit.

>>2106586
I took courses on it last year in college. One thing we figured out was that he leaves out steps in his proofs- for example one step in his proofs will depend on two triangles being similar, and he won't tell you this.

so if you don't understand a step, check and see if the diagram has similar triangles in it, that's my advice

>>2106595
I'm assuming if one angle and two sides of the triangle are proportionally similar though, that's all that is required. Are you saying he didn't even define that? It's so interesting the way they've determined concepts. Simple problems were passed around mathematicians and involved varying solutions involing in some cases solid rhombi or parabolas and hyperbolas to determine the exact placements of points.

If you really think about it, these fuckers were the real geniuses of the past. Screw military reasoning, political undertakings, these mathematicians solved unbelievably complex problems with logic the likes of which not many people today would be able to formulate. We take it for granted but to think of the process of coming up with some of these concepts on your own is ridiculous.

>>2106645
It's one of the biggest arguments against evolution, because we are much stupider today then we were back then. Relying on calculators when the fundamental principles of mathematical reasoning are so unbelievably rigorously steeped in theory and logic.