Thread by @Aabhas24

Well let me simplify my stand.

1) There is no historic evidence for Euclid

2) Elements was actually a work of empirical proofs & not deductive (1st proposition itself is proof of two arcs by empirical method)

https://twitter.com/NischalaShiva/status/1439511667847548933

3)Post Crusades (after 7 centuries), Church brought logic in play & declared that metaphysical Mathematics began with Euclid, although they couldn't notice that it was actually dealing with empirical proofs.

4)It became an error for metaphysics of church

but went on being unnoticed till 19th century.

5) It was admitted that other empirical proofs (such as the proof of Proposition 4 or the side-angle-side theorem) are essential to the proof of the “Pythagorean” theorem in the Elements.

6) Now for Metaphyics proponents, the story naturally proved to be stronger than the facts. So what they did next?

7)Instead of accepting the story to be lie they added another lie. It was:

8) Those empirical proofs were attributed to an error by the supposed “Euclid” in executing his purported intentions.

9 Then came the real brats: Russell and Hilbert. They rewrote the Elements to correct the mythical “Euclid”
and make "Elements" completely metaphysical.

10) & @NischalaShiva ji, unfortunately that became the root to formal Maths led by those who were trying to do polemic of works of so called "Euclid."