answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

If you go by what he said, then yes. He did defined a point which has no part. However, you should be asking is what the hell does he mean by "parts"? Turns out the Greek mathematics definition of part is equivalent to our definition of dimensions. So what he meant to say was a point is defined as something with no width or length or thickness.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Did Euclid define a point as that which has no part?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp