Category talk:Euclidean Geometry

According to the definition of Euclidean Geometry, Tarski's Geometry is Euclidean. That's fine, as that's how my math prof. defines Euclidean Geometry also, and it was Tarski's intent to treat Euclidean Geometry with his system. Anyone have a problem with my being imprecise and saying "Euclidean Geometry" to mean "regular geometry" or whatever? If not, what should I call it, "Euclid's Geometry"? --GFauxPas 06:19, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * Yes I do. "Euclidean Geometry" iff "geometry where the parallel postulate holds". The fact that Tarski's Axioms also define Euclidean Geometry does not mean we should no longer refer to "Euclidean Geometry". In fact, calling it "Tarski's Geometry" is probably a complete misnomer, as all he is doing is specifying a set of axioms which lead to a exactly the same geometry as the one Euclid laid down. --prime mover 06:47, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * That's a very very good point. What's a good alternative? --GFauxPas 06:48, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * What, to "Tarski's Geometry"? How about "Tarski's Axioms"? See what was done in Category:Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms.
 * Note that changing a category name is an arsepain, you have to create a new category, change each individual page to reflect the new category, and then, when everything has been migrated, you can remove the old category. I did this exercise recently with several of the Abstract Algebra subcategories and it took me a weekend - but as there's only a handful (okay, overflowing double-handful) of axioms in this category, it should not be too bad a job to do.
 * As I have now finished REAMDE I now have a life again, so I can take this on board. --prime mover 06:58, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * Sorry I didn't think of it before. I just learned about the definition of Euclidean Geometry this week, when my Linear Algebra Professor explained that we're going to assume the parallel postulate for his class (unless he says we're doing otherwise). That was after I started putting up the stuff. --GFauxPas 07:03, 29 January 2012 (EST)
 * Oh, and I'd help change it if you tell me how. --GFauxPas 07:08, 29 January 2012 (EST)


 * Okay, hang fire for a moment, I'm up to something ... --prime mover 07:59, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Simple enough now: replace all occurrences of:

with

... and when that's done (and all "what links here" occurrences have been replaced), we can delete the former. --prime mover 08:11, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the contents of this page on Definition:Euclidean Geometry and then transclude the relevant section here? &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it would, it's more in line with what other categories do. --prime mover (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ... and done. It's a toss-up whether to transclude or just use CategDef. Thoughts? --prime mover (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good as it is. Stand by while I make a minute edit to perfect it. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)