Talk:Apotome is Irrational

The word "irrational" in the title is misleading as it uses Euclid's definition of "irrational" instead of the definition used nowadays. What word should go in its stead? --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2016 (EDT)

Do a literature search. --prime mover (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (EST)

Have you looked at the definitions of "rational line segment" and "irrational line segment"? Do so before making any further contributions in this area. --prime mover (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2016 (EST)

Of course I looked. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2016 (EST)

So why not use "rational line segment" and "irrational line segment" for these terms you are worried about? Not that I really care, this is just for my own academic interest. I am no mathematician. --prime mover (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2016 (EST)

It seems funny to name this page as "Apotome is Irrational Line Segment"... --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2016 (EST)

But since "apotome" is relevant only to "Euclidean number theory" and has limited relevance to mathematics in general, it hardly matters. The treatment of this section follows that of the Heath translation (some would say the "definitive" translation) and as such all the definitions are consistent with that treatment. If this area is ready for re-assessment, then it is probably worth establishing the new terminology in a constructed and consistent thesis rather than try and recreate the entirety of Book X on a stupid two-bit website. --prime mover (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2016 (EST)

I think you would have to move this page then. --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2016 (EST)

I think this entire Book X of Euclid needs to be completely deleted and re-done by someone who understands what they are doing. The original work on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ was so substandard as to be completely worthless. --prime mover (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2016 (EST)