Talk:Euclid's Elements: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Barry R. Smith No edit summary |
imported>Barry R. Smith mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
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. | 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) | ||
Revision as of 10:02, 6 April 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)