From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main image is wrong Euclid[edit]

This image

is Euclid of Megara, you can see it, if look on non-cutted version, for example

MBP~ruwiki (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's Euclid of Alexandria (he is doing geometry) but the caption is wrong since at the time some people got confused. You can find print editions of Euclid's elements from the Renaissance with the same mistake on the title page. (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euclid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Arabian sources of Euclid[edit]

Sir Thomas Heath's "arabian sources" is actually Al-Qifti, egyptian author of History of Learned Men I could only find History of Learned Men (Tarik Al-Hukama) (written in 1249) in german and in arabic

Al-Qifti is himself Egyptian, and despite of it, he claimed Euclid was born in Tyre. Heath's comments on Al-Qifti and dismissal of the legitimacy of his work due to “the Arab tendency to romance” etc is not based on real evidence. Considering that during the Golden Age of Islam the arab world were responsible for translating ALL the greek and ancient works in Toleto and Baghdad very few arabian authors/translators really every claimed that "lots of greek authors were actually arabic, semitic or phoenician" that is pure nonsense coming from Thomas Heath. Out of the probably hundreds of greek authors that were translated that has been said probably of 3 or 4 authors.

Heath’s attempt to brand all (inconvenient)Arab sources as unreliable is clearly racist according to Indian mathematician C. K. Raju ( in his book "Cultural Foundations of Mathematics"(p. 13) and in his essay "Good Bye Euclid!" (page 2)ViamarisBalbi (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You are critical of Heath as a source, but what about O'Connor and Robertson? In any case these are the only sources which have been so far offered, and all of these are much more skeptical of the Arabian sources than just that their evidence is "uncertain".
  • O'Connor and Robertson:
"There is other information about Euclid given by certain authors but it is not thought to be reliable. Two different types of this extra information exists. The first type of extra information is that given by Arabian authors who state that Euclid was the son of Naucrates and that he was born in Tyre. It is believed by historians of mathematics that this is entirely fictitious and was merely invented by the authors."
  • Heath 1956, p. 4
In view of the poverty of Greek tradition on the subject even as early a Proclus (410-485 A.D.), we must necessarily take cum grano the apparently circumstantial accounts of Euclid given by Arabian authors;
  • Heath 1981, p. 355 [discussing Arabian sources on Euclid]
... This shows the usual tendency of the Arabs to romance. They were in the habit of recording the names of grandfathers, while the Greeks were not; Damascus and Tyre were no doubt brought in to gratify the desire of the Arabians always showed to connect famous Greeks in some way or other with the east (thus they described Pythagoras as a pupil of the wise Salomo, and Hipparchus as 'the Chaldaean').
These sources may not be ideal but they are the best we currently have. If you have other sources which give more credence to the Arabian sources please provide them. Paul August 02:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree. This user cannot pick and choose what information to present from these sources while adding his own OR based on unspecified sources. Dr. K. 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Al-Qifti is not a modern scholarly source. We can only rely on modern scholarly sources such as O'Connor Robertson and Heath to interpret ancient sources. Khirurg (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018[edit]

why are you letting people change the wiki every one trusts it they think that it is true but it will low he no: of people seeing it s he trust of people will be gone so, now it is your wish that what do you have to do. (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D ( • ) 11:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Conjectured Proper Ancient Greek Pronunciation[edit]

Euclid's pronunciation is often rendered as "Yoo-klid" when said aloud. I believe it is far more likely to be rendered as "ew-klid" reminiscent of the interjection "ew" said to indicate disgust, but that idea is likely unrelated to what I suspect is the true pronunciation of Euclid.

Notice in the classical art the subtle Star of David he has rendered. His facial hair does indeed look rabbinical. It is quite possible that Euclid is the world's most famous Jewish mathematician of antiquity. The scholarly codification work at the Library of Alexandria uniquely positioned him to create a classic for teachers throughout the classical world.

Modern education seems to have mistaken ideas of axioms and postulates however, which is to say, things which are assumed to be true temporarily and to examine what must logically follow from those assumptions if those conditions are true in some circumstance. Scholars ought to observe the language of the original Elements to indicate if the Postulates were written to be unbreakable requirements, or more likely, indications of what would have to be true if those condition were satisfied in flat space in the cosmos. Jakewayd (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)