Update index.html

List

Author: Gmac4247

index.html

@@ -5505,24 +5505,29 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Calculate the Volume of a Tetrahedron</h3
 <br>
 It dealt with shapes, areas, volumes, and constructions — not abstractions, limits, or analytic assumptions.</strong></p>
 <br>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription"><strong>
-What is commonly presented today as standard, applied geometry is often referred to as “Euclidean geometry.” In practice, however, it is a blend of two very different traditions:
-<br>
-- Universal, constructive geometry, which is intuitive, physical, and based on equivalence,
+<div itemprop="disambiguatingDescription"><p><strong>
+What is commonly presented today as standard, applied geometry is often referred to as “Euclidean geometry.” In practice, however, it is a blend of two very different traditions:</strong></p>
 <br>
-- combined with later amendments, especially from Archimedes, which introduced analytic ideas such as:  
-<br>  - bounding polygons,  
-<br>  - limit processes,  
-<br>  - assumptions about arc–tangent inequalities,  
-<br>  - and the analytic definition of π.
+<ul>
+  <li>Universal, constructive geometry, which is intuitive, physical, and based on equivalence</li>
+  <li>Later analytic amendments, especially from Archimedes, which introduced:
+    <ul>
+      <li>Bounding polygons</li>
+      <li>Limit processes</li>
+      <li>Assumptions about arc–tangent inequalities</li>
+      <li>The analytic definition of the pi</li>
+    </ul>
+  </li>
+</ul>
 <br><br>
-These additions were not part of Euclid’s original system. Over time, they quietly shifted geometry from a constructive science grounded in physical reasoning into a more abstract, analytic discipline.</strong></p>
+<p><strong>These additions were not part of Euclid’s original system. Over time, they quietly shifted geometry from a constructive science grounded in physical reasoning into a more abstract, analytic discipline.</strong></p>
+</div>
 <br>
 <p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription"><strong>
 By fundamentally shifting the axioms from the abstract, zero-dimensional point to the square and the cube as the primary, physically-relevant units for measurement, this system defines the properties of shapes like the circle and sphere not through abstract limits, but through their direct, rational relationship to these foundational units. The results of these formulas align better with physical reality than the traditional abstract approximations.</strong></p>
 <br><br>
 <p itemprop="usageInfo">
-Comparative Geometry
+<p>Comparative Geometry
 <br>
 Using geometric relationships to derive areas and volumes.
 <br><br>