Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When one reads Newton's Principia Mathematica, one is immediately aware of the complexity of the synthetic geometry that he uses to prove his propositions. This I understand because all of the necessary calculus is being described in geometric language. Fortunately for us lesser mortals, the mathematician-astrophysicist Chandrasekhar has written a book that rephrases Newton's arguments in the language of modern-day calculus. However, if we stick to Newton's way of doing things, how can we improve the rigor of his synthetic-geometric arguments?

share|cite|improve this question
Maybe you could give some examples from Newton? Synthetic descriptions of plane geometry after Hilbert have been pretty successful, also for non-Euclidean planar, but I'm not sure how that helps you. – Will Jagy Oct 21 '12 at 21:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.