An interactive version of Byrne's The Elements of Euclid (1847)(c82.net)
c82.net
An interactive version of Byrne's The Elements of Euclid (1847)
https://c82.net/euclid/
24 comments
Beautiful, and would be so much more beautiful if it used a modern font, without these weird cs and fs. I actually had to copy-paste "reproduction" to convince myself that this is a c character, and I'm not reading something in some ancient version of english with characters that I've never seen.
The Old English representation, inclusive of the long S, is consistent with the 1847 source material, as you can see here: https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn/page/n21/...
The first printed copy, of 1482, was in Latin: https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667076/
The Greek (Ελληνικά) representation is presumably consistent with Euclid's original manuscript, e.g. as represented in this copy, of 888: https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=208
The first printed copy, of 1482, was in Latin: https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667076/
The Greek (Ελληνικά) representation is presumably consistent with Euclid's original manuscript, e.g. as represented in this copy, of 888: https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=208
> in some ancient version of english with characters that I've never seen
There are really only 3, or if you want to stretch it 5, English characters that you might not be familiar with as characters: þ, ƿ, ð, æ, and ȝ. And the last of those isn't even present in Old English; it's a Middle English thing.
If you were reading something in Old English, the use of ƿ wouldn't really be an issue - the issue would be that nothing made any sense. Recognizing the characters used, or not, is irrelevant.
As you note, the recognition issue is an issue of fonts and not of alphabets. Compare wikipedia's sample of blackletter: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calligraphy.malmesbu...
There are really only 3, or if you want to stretch it 5, English characters that you might not be familiar with as characters: þ, ƿ, ð, æ, and ȝ. And the last of those isn't even present in Old English; it's a Middle English thing.
If you were reading something in Old English, the use of ƿ wouldn't really be an issue - the issue would be that nothing made any sense. Recognizing the characters used, or not, is irrelevant.
As you note, the recognition issue is an issue of fonts and not of alphabets. Compare wikipedia's sample of blackletter: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calligraphy.malmesbu...
There is a menu from the top bar to change the "Modern English."
Thanks. So this has modern "s" characters, rather then characters that look like an "f" with the horizontal bar missing, which is an improvement. Still, when an "s" or "c" is followed by a "t", there's this ligature connecting it. This kind of makes sense - the sounds are different after all - but it took me a while to figure out.
You get used to it very quickly. If you're actually interested, give it five minutes and you'll read it like normal.
If you're not interested, the long s and the ligatures are not the problem.
If you're not interested, the long s and the ligatures are not the problem.
I am interested, it's been more than five minutes and it is a problem. Accessibility is not a PEBCAK issue.
Sergey Slyusarev re-typeset it!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1684932289
There are a bunch of people reprinting it, because it's easy to just reprint scans, but this copy actually re-typeset it.
If you already know the subject the old typesetting is bad enough but you really don't want to try teaching someone who's never been exposed to Euclid from it, or they'll be wondering why it spends so much time talking about furfaces.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1684932289
There are a bunch of people reprinting it, because it's easy to just reprint scans, but this copy actually re-typeset it.
If you already know the subject the old typesetting is bad enough but you really don't want to try teaching someone who's never been exposed to Euclid from it, or they'll be wondering why it spends so much time talking about furfaces.
The reprint of the Byrne edition of Euclid is the most beautiful book I have, and I have more shelf-metres of books than I have fingers and toes. It will always have a prominent place in my home. This website day have been what got me into it -- I don't remember.
It's also fun to try to replicate the proofs!
It's also fun to try to replicate the proofs!
Indeed. It's such a beautiful book.
I love Playfair's too.
I used to have a lot of trouble with Euclid's (translated) definition of a straight line, ... What the heck is "lies evenly". Playfair's made it click.
Another point is those Euclidean definitions aren't really formal definitions, but familiarisations. Then it makes more sense.
After Playfairs my understanding of an Euclidean straight line is that it's a function from a pair of points to a set of points (that forms the line) such that if you invoke the same function on any pair of points in its range you get back the same exact set of points (the range of the function). This made it click why a "straight line" in hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry is still a "straight line".
On a different note, David Berlinski's Tour of Calculus is possibly the most atrocious, verbal diarrheaic book I have ever read. The formula of the book seems to be that every confusing sentence can be righted if every noun is accompanied by 20 florid adjectives and verbs by 59 muddled adverbs and no one will notice that the sentence is nonsense.
For some reason it gets a lot of love among some HN readers. Very few books generate as much revulsion in me than that one.
I love Playfair's too.
I used to have a lot of trouble with Euclid's (translated) definition of a straight line, ... What the heck is "lies evenly". Playfair's made it click.
Another point is those Euclidean definitions aren't really formal definitions, but familiarisations. Then it makes more sense.
After Playfairs my understanding of an Euclidean straight line is that it's a function from a pair of points to a set of points (that forms the line) such that if you invoke the same function on any pair of points in its range you get back the same exact set of points (the range of the function). This made it click why a "straight line" in hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry is still a "straight line".
On a different note, David Berlinski's Tour of Calculus is possibly the most atrocious, verbal diarrheaic book I have ever read. The formula of the book seems to be that every confusing sentence can be righted if every noun is accompanied by 20 florid adjectives and verbs by 59 muddled adverbs and no one will notice that the sentence is nonsense.
For some reason it gets a lot of love among some HN readers. Very few books generate as much revulsion in me than that one.
Are you referring to the kroneckerwallis one ?
This is looking really beautiful! For a long time I've wanted to have a nice edition of the elements in the original greek. There are some pdfs around but they look rather uninspired. Something like Byrne's edition in greek would be so lovely! Though this is not a straight translation but quite reworked to make it more graphical, so probably wouldn't work too well with the original text without some work anyway.
St. John's College FTW!
Are there any interactive elements to this? It looks like a noninteractive presentation of the book as a webpage.
If you click on the elements in the proposition text, it highlights those elements in the sidebar constructions.
[deleted]
Whats up with the typos? Is it the fonts? I have no problem reading it but i wanted my kid to read it
There is a button at the top right that says “old English “. Set it to “modern English “. By default it’s trying to faithfully reproduce the original.
They call it "old English"? That's disappointing.
Oliver Byrne (mathematician) > Byrne's Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Byrne_(mathematician)#B...