What is a 'part' and why is the definition for point

I don't really have an answer to your lazy, stupid, and effeminate question.

But here is a cool game applying some of his work:
https://www.euclidea.xyz/

In Euclid a point is an undefined primitive notion whose definition is just there to give you an idea as to what is meant

>>9078831
common language is enough, no need to define a 'part'. Having no parts = there's nothing smaller that....

or maybe there's better replies in axiomatic works, Peano etc.

>>9080219
thanx

>>9080252
yeh.

he did this because in order to "define" a notion "accurately" you have to use words and in order to define those words you have to use other words and so on and so forth. He tried to avoid the cyclical logic used in dictionaries.

>>9080252
>>9081503
/lit/ this answer is acceptable. I made this same thread in /sci/ and am getting extremely unsatisfactory results.

/lit/ is officially better at math than /sci/.

>>9081541
engineers don't know math. they're just glorified calculators.

File: 1409618360121.png (237KB, 819x414px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 819x414px

>>9081541
To be fair to /sci/ they would know far more about any maths that has no interest in the foundations of maths. Sure they may know less about set theory and axioms because we may be more interested in phil. math, but they will be better at literally every other topic of math.

Also, you ain't no fucking judge.

>>9078831
Erm, it's not the only place? Off the top of my head, "part" is mentioned again in common notion 5, and it's pretty important for proofs 37-39 in book VII. While it's not used in huge concentrations, def. 1 is certainly not the only place it's mentioned.

Keep in mind, he's not an axiomatic thinker akin to Peano or any of the more famous of the modern logicians and mathematicians; axioms were things you dealt with last in an inquiry, being the first principles that one had to reach by way of common opinions. What's more, Euclid's presentation, the "synthetic" approach, is probably not how any of these proofs were developed, being developed more akin to how we see Apollonius in his Conics develop some by means of the analytic approach in book III.