David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 186 (1):55-102 (2012)
Proposition I.1 is, by far, the most popular example used to justify the thesis that many of Euclid’s geometric arguments are diagram-based. Many scholars have recently articulated this thesis in different ways and argued for it. My purpose is to reformulate it in a quite general way, by describing what I take to be the twofold role that diagrams play in Euclid’s plane geometry (EPG). Euclid’s arguments are object-dependent. They are about geometric objects. Hence, they cannot be diagram-based unless diagrams are supposed to have an appropriate relation with these objects. I take this relation to be a quite peculiar sort of representation. Its peculiarity depends on the two following claims that I shall argue for: ( i ) The identity conditions of EPG objects are provided by the identity conditions of the diagrams that represent them; ( ii ) EPG objects inherit some properties and relations from these diagrams
|Keywords||Euclid Plane geometry Diagrams|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Charles Parsons (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Friedman (2012). Kant on Geometry and Spatial Intuition. Synthese 186 (1):231-255.
Jeremy Avigad, Edward Dean & John Mumma (2009). A Formal System for Euclid's Elements. Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (4):700--768.
Lisa Shabel (2003). Mathematics in Kant's Critical Philosophy: Reflections on Mathematical Practice. Routledge.
Charles Chihara (2004). A Structural Account of Mathematics. Clarendon Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Dominique Tournès (2012). Diagrams in the Theory of Differential Equations (Eighteenth to Nineteenth Centuries). Synthese 186 (1):257-288.
Similar books and articles
Rene Jagnow (2003). Geometry and Spatial Intuition: A Genetic Approach. Dissertation, Mcgill University (Canada)
John Mumma (2010). Proofs, Pictures, and Euclid. Synthese 175 (2):255 - 287.
Brice Halimi (2012). Diagrams as Sketches. Synthese 186 (1):387-409.
John Mumma (2008). Nathaniel Miller. Euclid and His Twentieth Century Rivals: Diagrams in the Logic of Euclidean Geometry. Csli Studies in the Theory and Applications of Diagrams. Philosophia Mathematica 16 (2):256-264.
Nathaniel Miller (2012). On the Inconsistency of Mumma's Eu. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 53 (1):27-52.
Ivahn Smadja (2012). Local Axioms in Disguise: Hilbert on Minkowski Diagrams. Synthese 186 (1):315-370.
John Mumma (2012). Constructive Geometrical Reasoning and Diagrams. Synthese 186 (1):103-119.
David Sherry (2009). The Role of Diagrams in Mathematical Arguments. Foundations of Science 14 (1-2):59-74.
Dennis Lomas (2002). What Perception is Doing, and What It is Not Doing, in Mathematical Reasoning. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):205-223.
Ken Saito (2012). Traditions of the Diagram, Tradition of the Text: A Case Study. Synthese 186 (1):7-20.
Keith K. Niall (2002). Visual Imagery and Geometric Enthymeme: The Example of Euclid I. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2):202-203.
M. Giaquinto (2011). Crossing Curves: A Limit to the Use of Diagrams in Proofs. Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3):281-307.
Jessica Carter (2010). Diagrams and Proofs in Analysis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):1 – 14.
Added to index2012-04-13
Total downloads75 ( #56,085 of 1,796,162 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #74,929 of 1,796,162 )
How can I increase my downloads?