Re: Riemann geometry, chicken or the egg?

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:58:33 GMT, Gerry Myerson
<gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <fhcvj2pr6hke07r7aqt2kuds9gq9klbuee@xxxxxxx>,
bootlace <anonymous@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Many mathematical representations are borne from observation.

And many are not. You have found one that wasn't. So?

So you are saying that developing a geometry that describes more than
3 physical dimensions was a natural extension of math? No one thought
to extend geometry for pure mathematical elogance till the mid 1800's?

I thought perhaps there were questions inspired from the observations
of optical phenomena that might have been in need of a mathematical
extension?

.