Oct. 2004 - Sec. 2, #11, Euclidean geometry question

[lwyrsguns$]

Can someone throw me a bone with an explanation to this one? Muchas gracias!

[lawdog]

Just that subject makes the question seem so much more sophisticated!  basically, the ideas can be broken down simply as follows:

Scientists used to think that without Euclidian geometry, there was no way to correctly represent the universe.
Today, non-Euclidian geometry is recognized as sometimes more useful, and non-Euclidian geometry is even part of the the most widely accepted cosmological theory.

So, we can see that things have changed--scientists of the past believed Euclidian geometry to be an absolute necessity. Today, it is clear that this belief has changed, since other types of geometry are applied and generally accepted.

Thus, answer choice (B) is correct; scientist no longer hold the general belief that Euclidian geometry is "uniquely capable of," (i.e. necessary for) the creation of a correct mathematical representation of the universe. 

[lwyrsguns$]

Wow, that was quick...thanks a lot! You're right; I have no idea what Euclidean geometry is...but I guess it doesn't really matter.