SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2503.16684

Bridging Classical and Modern Approaches to Thales' Theorem

Abstract

In this paper, we reconstruct Euclid's theory of similar triangles, as developed in Book VI of the \textit{Elements}, along with its 20th-century counterparts, formulated within the systems of Hilbert, Birkhoff, Borsuk and Szmielew, Millman and Parker, as well as Hartshorne. In the final sections, we present recent developments concerning non-Archimedean fields and mechanized proofs. Thales' theorem (VI.2) serves as the reference point in our comparisons. It forms the basis of Euclid's system and follows from VI.1 the only proposition within the theory of similar triangles that explicitly applies the definition of proportion. Instead of the ancient proportion, modern systems adopt the arithmetic of line segments or real numbers. Accordingly, they adopt other propositions from Euclid's Book VI, such as VI.4, VI.6, or VI.9, as a basis. In {\S}\,10, we present a system that, while meeting modern criteria of rigor, reconstructs Euclid's theory and mimics its deductive structure, beginning with VI.1. This system extends to automated proofs of Euclid's propositions from Book VI. Systems relying on real numbers provide the foundation for trigonometry as applied in modern mathematics. In {\S}\,9, we prove Thales' theorem in geometry over the hyperreal numbers. Just as Hilbert managed to prove Thales' theorem without referencing the Archimedean axiom, so do we by applying the arithmetic of the non-Archimedean field of hyperreal numbers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Piotr Błaszczyk, Anna Petiurenko. 2025-03-20. Bridging Classical and Modern Approaches to Thales' Theorem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16684

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Perspectives on the unit distance problem

This is a survey on an old open problem in combinatorics called the unit distance problem, and the field of mathematics around it, called incidence geometry. What do we know about the problem? Why is it difficult? How does it connect with other parts of math?

math.HO

A Categorical Approach to Euclidean Ratios and Proportions

A categorial approach to the non-metric geometry in Books V and VI of Euclid's \textit{Elements} is presented. Specifically, we introduce a diagrammatic syntax that can be overlaid immediately on his diagrams, thus bridging intuitive presentation with fidelity to Euclid's arguments. This syntax makes complicated definitions like V.5, and indeed the arguments throughout books V and VI, including arguments about similar figures, intuitively clear. We show in an appendix that this syntax can be used to solve a puzzle regarding ancient mathematics. Finally, we offer evidence that this approach to Euclidean diagrams is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition itself, and that a similar syntax was utilized, in antiquity, for related questions of numeric and proportions. Thus the syntax is plausibly faithful to Euclid's own thought-world, and not an outside-imposition.

math.HO

Some Early Results by Tutte Regarding the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture in 1948

OpenAI recently announced a proof of the Cycle Double Cover (CDC) Conjecture. Most media reports have characterized it as a 50-year-old open problem. In reality, according to a 1987 letter from Tutte to Fleischner, the Cycle Double Cover Problem has been open for at least 80 years. Two early results regarding the CDC conjecture were established in one of Tutte's 1949 publications.

math.HO