Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The discovery of consistent non-Euclidean geometries (Riemann, Lobachevsky) demonstrates that Euclid's parallel postulate is not logically necessary.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Logical necessity and empirical consistency are distinct: non-Euclidean systems may be consistent without showing Euclid's postulate isn't necessary for Euclidean space itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The parallel postulate may be logically necessary specifically for flat plane geometry, even if other geometries are possible—necessity is domain-relative, not universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a mathematical system is internally consistent without the parallel postulate, that postulate cannot be logically necessary for geometric truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Euclid presented the parallel postulate separately from other axioms, suggesting even he recognized it as less self-evident than logical necessities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-Euclidean geometries accurately model physical space in certain contexts (curved spacetime), proving necessity depends on the domain, not pure logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.