Talk:Euclid's Elements: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Barry R. Smith mNo edit summary |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Is there a standard convention regarding whether the book is referred to as "Elements" or as "the Elements"? For instance, would you say, "the first axiomitization of a mathematical theory appeared in ''Elements''", or, "the first axiomitization of a mathematical theory appeared in ''the Elements''"? I suppose you could always call it ''Euclid's Elements'' to avoid this distinction, but that seems cumbersome.[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 11:02, 6 April 2008 (CDT) | Is there a standard convention regarding whether the book is referred to as "Elements" or as "the Elements"? For instance, would you say, "the first axiomitization of a mathematical theory appeared in ''Elements''", or, "the first axiomitization of a mathematical theory appeared in ''the Elements''"? I suppose you could always call it ''Euclid's Elements'' to avoid this distinction, but that seems cumbersome.[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 11:02, 6 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:I don't think you'd ever say "in ''Elements''". That leaves a choice between "in the ''Elements''" & "in ''The Elements''". [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:06, 6 November 2008
Is there a standard convention regarding whether the book is referred to as "Elements" or as "the Elements"? For instance, would you say, "the first axiomitization of a mathematical theory appeared in Elements", or, "the first axiomitization of a mathematical theory appeared in the Elements"? I suppose you could always call it Euclid's Elements to avoid this distinction, but that seems cumbersome.Barry R. Smith 11:02, 6 April 2008 (CDT)
- I don't think you'd ever say "in Elements". That leaves a choice between "in the Elements" & "in The Elements". Peter Jackson 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)