math.answers.com/geometry/Did_Euclid_define_a_point_as_that_which_has_no_part

Preview meta tags from the math.answers.com website.

Linked Hostnames

8

Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance

Google

https://math.answers.com/geometry/Did_Euclid_define_a_point_as_that_which_has_no_part

Did Euclid define a point as that which has no part? - Answers

If you go by what he said, then yes. He did defined a point which has no part. However, you should be asking is what the hell does he mean by "parts"? Turns out the Greek mathematics definition of part is equivalent to our definition of dimensions. So what he meant to say was a point is defined as something with no width or length or thickness.



Bing

Did Euclid define a point as that which has no part? - Answers

https://math.answers.com/geometry/Did_Euclid_define_a_point_as_that_which_has_no_part

If you go by what he said, then yes. He did defined a point which has no part. However, you should be asking is what the hell does he mean by "parts"? Turns out the Greek mathematics definition of part is equivalent to our definition of dimensions. So what he meant to say was a point is defined as something with no width or length or thickness.



DuckDuckGo

https://math.answers.com/geometry/Did_Euclid_define_a_point_as_that_which_has_no_part

Did Euclid define a point as that which has no part? - Answers

If you go by what he said, then yes. He did defined a point which has no part. However, you should be asking is what the hell does he mean by "parts"? Turns out the Greek mathematics definition of part is equivalent to our definition of dimensions. So what he meant to say was a point is defined as something with no width or length or thickness.

  • General Meta Tags

    22
    • title
      Did Euclid define a point as that which has no part? - Answers
    • charset
      utf-8
    • Content-Type
      text/html; charset=utf-8
    • viewport
      minimum-scale=1, initial-scale=1, width=device-width, shrink-to-fit=no
    • X-UA-Compatible
      IE=edge,chrome=1

  • Open Graph Meta Tags

    7
    • og:image
      https://st.answers.com/html_test_assets/Answers_Blue.jpeg
    • og:image:width
      900
    • og:image:height
      900
    • og:site_name
      Answers
    • og:description
      If you go by what he said, then yes. He did defined a point which has no part. However, you should be asking is what the hell does he mean by "parts"? Turns out the Greek mathematics definition of part is equivalent to our definition of dimensions. So what he meant to say was a point is defined as something with no width or length or thickness.

  • Twitter Meta Tags

    1
    • twitter:card
      summary_large_image

  • Link Tags

    16
    • alternate
      https://www.answers.com/feed.rss
    • apple-touch-icon
      /icons/180x180.png
    • canonical
      https://math.answers.com/geometry/Did_Euclid_define_a_point_as_that_which_has_no_part
    • icon
      /favicon.svg
    • icon
      /icons/16x16.png

Links

58