analytic versus synthetic

A distinction between *analytic* and *synthetic* methods is often made in geometry. In Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry, Felix Klein wrote in 1908

Synthetic geometry is that which studies figures as such, without recourse to formulas, whereas analytic geometry consistently makes use of such formulas as can be written down after the adoption of an appropriate system of coordinates.Rightly understood, there exists only adifference of gradationbetween these two kinds of geometry, according as one givesmore prominence to the figures or to the formulas.Analytic geometry which dispenses entirely with geometric representation can hardly be called geometry; synthetic geometry does not get very far unless it makes use of a suitable language of formulas to give precise expression to its results. (p. 55)

He continues

In mathematics, however, as everywhere else, men are inclined to form parties, so that there arose

schools of pure synthesistsandschools of pure analysts, who placed chief emphasis upon absolute “purity of method,” and who were thus more one-sided than the nature of the subject demanded. Thus the analytic geometricians often lost themselves in blind calculations, devoid of any geometric representation, The synthesists, on the other hand, saw salvation in an artificial avoidance of all formulas, and thus they accomplished nothing more, finally, than to develop their own peculiar language formulas, different from ordinary formulas. (pp. 55-56)

Last revised on January 21, 2018 at 04:27:01. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.