Not being able to read primary texts

this is definitely one of the most pseud things i've seen so far

Not really. CAN you read it well, that is the question.

COULD you understand Newton's work. Leon Walras, in his book Elements of Pure Economics makes the analogy between his own book and Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by saying that it is completely fine for people to take away the formulas from the work. To understand the formulas and basic takeaways from the works is one thing, therefore. You can do that if you want to.

The more intelligent members of the reading community DO read primary texts though. Like Newton's or Al-Haytham's work. You don't need to go to a fancy school, or receive some accreditation to understand things. You just apply the brain God gave you to the material.

Every single one of my fucking threads turns into a bunch of fucking retards who read nothing but fiction novels all fucking day thinking they are better for doing jackshit with their time than anyone reading primary texts. Fuck off with this shit, you probably haven't even read Euclid you fucking retard.

No, okay? Mathematics is about expressing basic concepts. You lose very little by translation. And it matters even less with Arabic than it does with Greek mathematicians.

this is most interesting OP

got a link for this edition?

lol what a fucking pseud

Yeah man. I mean, you gotta find a copy for cheap. I bought the last copy on Amazon for $100. Others are going for wayyy up there, towards $900.

It's 'Sources in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences 7'. The 'Sources...Sciences 9' has On Conics Books V - VII.

I wouldn't read it without reading a bit on On Conics... actually this is one of those works which is really hard to read without spending a lot of time on Apollonius' On Conics. It's pretty deep in there in technical mathematical reasoning.

But Ibn Al-Haytham DID write other works. If you haven't gotten too far into mathematics to read On Conics, I would suggest you just read Ibn Al-Haytham's other works instead.

Read this work after you're finished reading Ptolemy's Almagest:

-On the Configuration of the World.

Or just read this one if you don't want to delve too deep into medieval astronomy:

- Optics

Yes, Optics was far more influential than anything else he did. Optics influenced European thought just as much, if not more, than Avicenna's works.

Still, if you're into mathematics, then go ahead and go down the road of Euclid and Apollonius. Fun stuff, if you're in for brain teases.

and then after spending years reading all this crap you will have reached jhigh school math, awesome man, we're all impressed

great stuff, thanks man

That's not true at all. For instance, there are fundamental elements of calculus in Archimedes approach to mathematics.

What you know about the world is just plain wrong. The older the math is =/= the less intelligent it is.

Newer mathematical reasoning is not more intelligent than older, especially because it depends on the mathematician. Could you follow Ibn Al-Haytham's sometimes insanely complex logic? Probably not. I've read Archimedes and Ibn Al-Haytham is just about as complex/smart as he was.

if u want to pretend to be a math prodigy why don't read contemporary papers and try to solve some current open problem instead of reading antique bullshit no one cares about

Because it's almost like you're reading modern mathematical analysis anyway. This book is entrenched with modern mathematical notation in the preceding pages that explain the text and the footnotes that are included to amend/correct the text.

It's just an exercise in mathematical analysis/reasoning you dingus. It's supposed to help you understand geometrical reasoning and different styles of arguments. Stop being a fucking pseud. There is no college that teaches this book, Completion of the Conics...

However. There are MANY colleges who still include Apollonius and/or Euclid in some of their courses. For good reason. Mathematical reasoning is important to understand, and does not change, no matter how advanced the notation/system gets.

you have a math degree?

Why does that matter? I've discussed Euclid and Apollonius on Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums with people who have had these things taught in their schools.

OP is Jagged85

>Jagged 85 banned. Jagged 85 was banned from Wikipedia when he was found to have misrepresented sources in video gaming articles – after a long history of similar misrepresentations in history articles.

lollll

no serious mathematics department spends any fucking time teaching euclid or apollonius in their own right or looking at their texts. that's the sort of thing taught in history of sciences and philosophy courses.

>A major cleanup is ongoing relating to Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) who has made over 87,000 article edits since 2005. It has been found that many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements. In addition, there has been a severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim.

>Jagged 85 was indefinitely blocked on 17 September 2012, and was community banned on 22 September 2012

Absolute legend who edited nearly every Wikipedia article on math (and other subjects) with the claim that the topic was first discovered in India or Medieval Islamic countries. He singlehandedly managed to keep it going for 8 years. Many Eurocentrist racists were triggered in the interim.

for those interested, wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_Science_and_the_Problems_at_Wikipedia
this is hilarious , i hadn't heard about it before

Just wrong.

link us a syllabus where someone assigns euclid

Any school with the great books curriculum, which is many.

Other than that, it's up to the professors themselves, I'm certain it gets assigned.

I'll bet you On Conics is read more in college than Elements, though.

I sometimes translate lines I like into Old English as an exercise.

do you understand graduate level maths? its not worth studying this stuff if you can't hang with the certified pseuds my nigger

>While Wikipedia can be a great resource for general knowledge and a decent starting point in the research of Islam, this and the other examples cited above, highlight the constant problems that Wikipedia faces for Islam related articles.

muslims live in a fantasy world

>the great books curriculum

show us one

do real math faggot

not Veeky Forums, go to Veeky Forums

>Over 100 institutions of higher learning in the United States, Canada, and Europe maintain some version of a Great Books Program as an option for students

Are you literally retarded?

It is.

In fact, I have this same thread in Veeky Forums and I am getting equitable results, showing that the only people who don't think ancient mathematical literature isn't ''''''real math'''''' are pseudo fictionfags on Veeky Forums.
I understand calculus. You're wrong, unfortunately. As long as you understand what is being presented, it is well worth it to study.

WE

calculus is freshmen math, assuming they didn't already do it in an ap class lol

>do you understand graduate level maths
>I understand calculus
all right, decent b8

It's literature.

Technically speaking I could make a thread on Euclid's Elements on Veeky Forums and get results. And I have.

I could also make a thread on Newton's Principia. Would any of the brainlets here have actually read something actually intelligent like that? Probably not. Barely anyone talks about Kant as it is.

Which is followed by a 'you're wrong'.

I win. Just go home, pseuds. I have literally assblasted anyone who has tried to say they can comprehend the material in pic related.

>''''''real math''''''

oh it's the """""quotes""""" guy lol

>why does nobody talk in depth about newton or kant
probably because they're in the middle of the pack, historically, and aren't clearly better than everybody else, so few people will choose to devote their time to them. most people are obviously going to gravitate towards one extreme or the other; roots or contemporary.

that was pretty subtle, not bad, it would have been even better if u had a black guy's hand in the pic lol

>It obviously is extremely entertaining.
That's certainly not obvious.

You know what I've realized. I don't think you have any knowledge of mathematics, yourselves. GTFO Veeky Forums

That's not the point, you should try to read primary sources to see if you can comprehend them. As a sort of mental exercise. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is probably easier to fathom than Ibn Al-Haytham's Completion of the Conics. And they are more closely related than you think, mathematics and philosophy. They can develop terms, propositions, and corollaries.

Otherwise I, or anyone else, would not read mathematics at all, contemporary or ancient.

He made it into published academic literature, too
Abstract of paper:
>Providing an entry on the history of psychology for the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia has proved to be more problematic than one might expect. In particular, someone who goes under the internet name, ‘Jagged_85’ inserted claims to the effect that most of the major developments in the history of psychology have their origins in the medieval Arab world. Similar claims and at least one attempt to challenge those claims have appeared in the professional literature. A special issue of the online newsletter, Advances in the History of Psychology devoted to this topic has also appeared under the title, “Presentism in the Service of Diversity?” The term, “presentism” has several meanings but it usually refers to projecting the views of the present onto the past instead of making a serious attempt to understand how historical figures themselves understood the world. The present paper endorses the view that the claims of authors like ‘Jagged_85’ constitute presentism in the usual sense of the term. It also offers suggestions for how diversity without this type of presentism might be achieved.

>Newton
>middle of the pack, historically

Ok, dude I get what you're getting at but you're only giving this other guy fuel here if your estimation of Newton is this low.

>Kind of a challenge to see if you can comprehend it.
See if you can comprehend an actual undergrad textbook you pseud

>Many Eurocentrist racists were triggered in the interim.
?

>islamic golden age
I think you mean the Persian golden age user. :^)

>reading baby tier geometry in muh arabic language
Go learn some real math, you fucking brainlet.

Unless you're just interested in the historical development of math, I have no idea why you would put effort into learning this. Yes, early mathematicians were brilliant and we take their genius for granted. But we shouldn't be relearning them in full like you are. There are a lot of issues/assumptions in early mathematical works that are extremely subtle but have deep consequences.

Take the Lambert quadrilateral, which your dude Alhazen is credited as a discoverer, though overlooked for centuries. Briefly, it's a quadrilateral with three right angles, the fourth angle possibly being acute or obtuse (which is impossible in Euclidean geometry). For Alhazen, it was an illogical object, which he created to find a contradiction in its existence to create a proof of Euclid's fifth postulate (popular hobby back then). But he never found a proper contradiction, which we understand why now. Math folks in the 19th cent. proved the independence of the postulate from the other four, and in the process, discovered non-Euclidean geometries that only change the fifth postulate but have much different behavior (i.e. hyperbolic). And consequently acute/obtuse Lambert Quads. exist in those geometries.

There were flaws in his (and others) assumptions, which is why you should be wary reading them. If you study old Euclid V independence "proofs," they're solid up until usually a single, very subtle jump in logic, thus useless. And these brilliant minds were confident enough to publish them. More than anything, I think it reflects their assumption ("hope" might be a better word) that Euclidean geometry was the only geometry. They didn't want to explore the hairy domain of a more complicated, convoluted world with many alternate geometries coexisting. Alhazen created/discovered the Lambert quad. for a flawed premise, but if he studied it as a valid object, he could have shown the existence of non-Euclidean geometry almost a millennia ahead of schedule. Unless your book has good contemporary commentary, that's going to fly over your head and might even make the same mistakes he did and buy into flawed proofs and premises.