3 ms·

Maybe not as fancy, but here's a version with Greek and English side by side: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Euclid/Elements.pdf http://farside.ph.utexas.ed

• no_identd 7y ago
  You might wanna try Heath's translation, here: https://archive.org/details/euclid_heath_2nd_ed https://archive.org/details/euclid_heath_2nd_ed It's the most detailed and complete translation, addressing numerous issues. Not all, thought, there's one grave translation error unaddressed in pretty much all translations, and more importantly, repeated in ALMOST all translations: http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/teaching/dm-reading-assignments/Euclid-Second-Proposition-Math-Intell.pdf http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/teaching/dm-reading-assign... Even today, most mathematicians aren't aware of the difference. (And this despite the fact that the Wikipedia article on the axiom DOES mention it.) I wish we'd have Byrne-style drawings of The Elements as implemented in this paper, albeit the authors of it & the various precursor papers to it seem unaware of the above, too—and hence (almost) reinvent the wheel: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10472-018-9603-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10472-018-9603-0 (Note: There exists a 'secret' sequel to that paper, which one can find here: http://t-news.cn/Floc2018/FLoC2018-pages/preprint_cX1w.pdf http://t-news.cn/Floc2018/FLoC2018-pages/preprint_cX1w.pdf — I say 'secret' as they only cite the above indirectly, by citing "Mark Bickford, Rich Eaton, and Ariel Kellison. Nuprl Theory: euclidean plane geometry, 2018.", which makes the connection between them undiscoverable via services like citationgecko.com & Google Scholar.)