Jump to content

Talk:Euclid: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Maths: new section
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
m Reverted edits by 2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1 (talk) to last version by Artem.G
Line 59: Line 59:


:Now fixed, many thanks. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 03:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
:Now fixed, many thanks. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 03:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

== Maths ==

Birth date of euclid [[Special:Contributions/2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1|2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1]] ([[User talk:2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1|talk]]) 14:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

== Maths ==

Date of born of euclid [[Special:Contributions/2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1|2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1]] ([[User talk:2405:205:C886:4AFB:0:0:1ACE:70B1|talk]]) 14:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:03, 17 October 2022

Template:Vital article

Blond?

The current image of Euclid on this page portrays him as blond. It appears to be a coloured version of "Les vrais pourtraits et vie des hommes illustres frecz, latins et payens", which can be found here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b86246591/f133.image This link should be in the public domain (see the conditions for use when downloading). I appreciate that there is little contemporary information about Euclid, but it seems highly implausible that he was blond. If this image is going to be used, can the original, uncoloured version be used? 86.175.29.37 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that "there is little contemporary information about Euclid." We could handle that. The problem is that, aside from what has survived of his writing—for which we have no original source, and which we know mainly from translations into Arabic, and translations of those translation—we know nothing about the man, except that he was a mathematician (because that is the main subject he wrote about) and that he flourished (was alive or active) around 300 BC in Alexandria. No image of him in any form and no description of him survives. All images that purport depict him depend entirely on an artist's imagination. We really should not use any image of him because any image of him is pure fiction. Whenever the question of whether to use an image has been discussed, over a span of decades, the consensus has been not to use any. But then someone adds an "image of Euclid" because a purported image was erroneously so labeled.—Finell 06:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021


Gwapo ako

No edit requested, closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

old bc/ad used instead of bce and ce.

You should use B.C.E. and C.E. instead of BC and AD as these are old, and should not be used in this article to make it modern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saralizt13 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the portrait

From a layman's perspective, the current portrait of Euclid isn't revealing or provides what may be seen as an accurate depiction of the artist. Though the romantic/dramatic element isn't bad, it seems de Ribera made the portrait intentionally dark— which, on a webpage, makes it difficult to see. I propose switching the portrait to something like Euclid statue, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, UK - 20080315.jpg instead. GuardianH (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure really what you mean by "accurate depiction", which would be essentially impossible in this case. I would prefer the current portrait, by a well established artist, rather than a rather random statue. In addition, since I don't trust readers to read the image captions, I suspect that have a marble statue (which evokes the ancient Greek sculpture) might make some assume they're seeing an authentic portrayal, where as a painting makes it obvious they are not. Then again, my first point is the crux of my disagreement. Aza24 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is really close to my reasoning, and that's why I changed the image in the infobox. No portrait is a real portrait of Euclid, but this one at least is from a well-known artist. Artem.G (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a source for the Elements

This page [1]https://myria.math.aegean.gr/elements is new and gives a free version of The Elements in both Modern Greek and Ancient Greek. Could this be added in the subsection "The Elements" of the section "external Links" ? Antonis.tsolomitis (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis.tsolomitis, I would say it would be a better addition to the external links section of the Euclid's Elements article. This article is about Euclid in general, so it would be best to avoid too many links for specific topics related to him, and we already have two Elements links. Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Euclid is best known for his thirteen-book treatise, the Elements (Greek: Εὐκλείδης; Stoicheia)." Huh? The Greek is unrelated to the latin version. Sorry - not qualified to edit, but it seems peculiar. Bob. 99.95.168.245 (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed, many thanks. Aza24 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]