The following excerpt from Abrahim Ladha's comment on Lance's post about
AI and intro theory caught my attention:
---------------------------
BEGIN EXCERPT
Not just with AI, but in theory and math courses, there have always been Bart Simpson
level questions by students of the form
"Why do I need to know this?
like
Why do I need to know my times tables when the calculator does this for me?
There has never been a good answer because these students already do not have an open mind.
Euclid was asked such a question once and said something like
give him a penny so he may feel like he earned something for what he learned.
END EXCERPT
-----------------------------------
He gives a quote by Euclid.
1) I have heard that Euclid might not have really existed.
2) I have never heard that quote.
I asked Abrahim Ladha if he had a source for the Euclid quote.
I never go a response.
I asked chatty:
What is the historical evidence that Euclid existed?
and also
Did Euclid say give him a penny so he may feel like he earned something for what he learned?
The answer to both questions are below. The bottom line is that
1) Euclid might not have existed.
2) The idea underlying the quote is attributed to him. The exact quote is modern rendering.
Should Abrahim have consulted chatty before making his comment.
1) YES, it's important to make sure your facts are correct.
2) NO, his point is still valid. (That is a slippery slope.)
----------------------------------------
BILL: What is the historical evidence that Euclid existed?
That’s a great question — and a surprisingly tricky one.
Short answer
There is no direct historical evidence that Euclid (often called Euclid of Alexandria) existed
as an individual in the way we can verify the existence of, say, Archimedes. What we “know”
about Euclid comes almost entirely from later sources, not from contemporary records.
The evidence we do have
1)
Type: Ancient testimonies
Source: Proclus, Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements
Date: ca. 450 CE
Note: Written about 700 years after Euclid’s supposed lifetime. Proclus says Euclid lived
in the time of Ptolemy I (reigned 323–283 BCE) and taught in Alexandria. This is our main source.
2)
Type: Mentions by other ancient authors
Source: Pappus of Alexandria (4th century CE), Diogenes Laërtius (possibly), and others
Date: 200–600 years later
Note: These references repeat information similar to Proclus’s account — that Euclid compiled
the Elements and worked in Alexandria.
3)
Type: Mathematical evidence
Source: The Elements and other works attributed to Euclid (Data, Optics, Phaenomena, etc.)
Date: ca. 300 BCE?
Note: These texts show a unified style and method, suggesting a single organizing mind
(or school). But there is no personal or biographical detail inside them.
4)
Type: Absence of contemporary evidence
Note: There are no letters, inscriptions, or administrative records naming Euclid. No ancient
biography (unlike Archimedes or Apollonius).
Scholarly interpretation
Traditional view: There was a historical Euclid, a mathematician who worked in Alexandria
around 300 BCE and compiled earlier Greek geometry into the Elements.
Skeptical or revisionist view: “Euclid” may have been a collective name for a team or a
school of mathematicians in early Hellenistic Alexandria, much like “Hippocrates” in medicine.
The Elements itself is consistent in style, so even if multiple people contributed, it was
edited or systematized by someone with extraordinary coherence and rigor.
In summary
There is no direct documentary or archaeological proof that Euclid existed as an individual,
only later testimony and internal evidence from the mathematical works. Historically, most
scholars accept that there was a person — or at least a leading mathematician — behind the
name “Euclid,” but his life remains almost entirely unknown.
---------------------
BILL: Did Euclid say
`give him a penny so he may feel like he earned something for what he learned.'
ChatGPT said:
The quote you’re referring to — something like “Give him a penny so he may feel he has learned
something” — is attributed to Euclid, but not in those exact modern words.
It comes from an ancient anecdote recorded by Proclus (a 5th-century commentator on Euclid) in
his Commentary on Euclid’s Elements. The story goes like this:
A student, after learning the first theorem of geometry, asked Euclid,
“What shall I get by learning these things?”
Euclid called his slave and said,
“Give him a penny, since he must make gain out of what he learns.”
In Greek, it’s roughly:
“Δός αὐτῷ ὀβολόν, ἐπειδὴ κερδαίνειν δεῖται ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων.”
So your paraphrase captures the spirit of the anecdote — Euclid was mocking the idea of
studying geometry for material reward — but the exact wording
“give him a penny so he may feel he earned something for what he learned”
is a modern retelling, not a direct quotation.
It feels a little ironic that a post titled “Is it okay to quote people that don’t exist?” is in large part a quote of ChatGPT output.
ReplyDeleteIf I might give a bit of feedback, in general I don’t think readers care if much of your blog posts are inspired by LLM output but I for one would prefer to hear it in your own voice! The other issue is that there’s a small probability that the GPT output is incorrect, but it’s significantly larger than the probability you post something incorrect with the implication that you are saying it instead of GPT. (In fact, I would say the fact that you haven’t explicitly endorsed the truth of the GPT output after checking it raises in my mind the probability of it being incorrect.) And now the burden of fact-checking is on the readers, which can feel frustrating.
excellent point- we often say `chatGPT said X' as if chatGPT is a person. Early on in computing some people did not like terms like `memory' or `the compiler SAYS there is an error' As for who is more likely to be wrong chatty or me-- might be a toss up.
DeleteWhen reading the post, I had the impression that this little irony is precisely what the author was shooting for with this title, but I could be mistaken.
Deletethere are times when I am intentionally ironic and their are times when I am accidentally ironic. This is one of those accidental times.
DeleteFun fact. In ancient Greek, calling someone Εὐκλείδης was the modern-day equivalent of calling someone a nerd. The reality is that all of the works attributed to "Euclid" were things worked out by different random nerds 2300+ years ago.
ReplyDeleteYou can quote me on that.
Agreed, though someone did organize it in a uniform way, so not quite different random nerds.
DeleteSometimes being a good story-teller requires a bit of embellishing :)
ReplyDeleteSome other similar anecdotes I repeat with different amounts of historical accuracy:
1. Hippasus was the first to discover that the square root of two was not rational. Since this contradicted Pythagoras view of nature, Pythagoras had him drowned. Its probably not true, but it helps communicate a moral of dogma versus reason. Particularly as mathematics as a form of scientific inquiry.
2. G.H. Hardy was attracted to number theory because of his pacifist stance. In his time, in WWI, if you knew anything about math, they locked you in a cage and prodded you with a stick and forced you to compute missile trajectories. In a mathematician's apology, he explains his philosophy on how mathematics should be pursued for its own sake and not for applications. This made elementary number theory attractive to him, since it seems impossible to apply. Then I talk about how RSA was the first time ever in several millennia someone figured out an application of number theory. No one should tell Hardy's ghost. This is also not true, certainly elementary number theory had found applications before this, even though cryptography might be one of the most important applications. A lot more of Hardy's work found application, but its a better story to tell to paint him as simpler character. I think students resonate with this story because they find mathematics really beautiful, but then are thrown into a circumstance where the optimal use of their mastery of mathematics is to increase a clicks-per-ad metric or something.
3. Karatsuba multiplication. Kolmogorov organized a month long conference to try to prove the bitwise multiplication lower bound of $\Omega(n^2)$, but on one of the early days of the conference, a very young Karatsuba beat it with $O(n^{1.59})$. I tell this story as if it angered Kolmogorov or made him look foolish, but I think in actuality, he was rather excited. The moral is to not bet against the youth, and that interesting algorithms can come from creative places.
I know these stories to be factually inaccurate, but I still tell them.
In the history of mathematics, if you inspect close enough, a lot of figures get more credit than they deserve. Mathematician's have a "pro-math" bias, and want to justify the importance of the objects of discussion on history. Much of attribution to Euclid is subject to scholarly debate, as you have mentioned. It is my opinion that much of what is called "platonism" may not be actually something Plato described, but rather a term used to distinguish those concepts from "neoplatonism."
There are a million more examples I could probably put here. Al Kharizmi's multiplication "algorithm". Bezout didn't do Bezout's identity. Peano did not consider zero a natural until much later on. Aristotle did not strongly commit to excluded middle, etc.
History is muddied by mathematicians because they are not historians. Over two millennia of people playing telephone of only the interesting parts has made the initial facts unclear. I am somewhat to blame probably, but I love a good story.
A great book to DEBUNK alot of the stories (if you want to) is The Cult of Pythatoras. I reviewed it here:
Deletehttps://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/bookrev/FRED/cult.pdf
You raise a good question: tell the myth as though its real? Tel the myth and then say its a myth?
I told my class that the story of Gauss summing up 1 to 100 uin first first grade was false. they didn't like that and would have prefered I not tell them that.