Craig Mod

The author, Nicholas Rougeux, has a number of projects with a similarly excellent curation of intellectual and visual beauty. https://www.c82.net/

Here are a couple I follow over on datente.com, or that I check on a periodic basis: - https://www.filfre.net <- the Digital Antiquarian - https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com <- Restricted Data - https://www.c82.net <- C82, the works of Nicholas Rougeux - https://history.stackexchange.com/questions <- History.SE ... as with any SE site, there are pros and cons - but a lot more "pros" than "cons", imo

See also O. Byrne, "The First Six Books of the Elements of Euclid, in Which Coloured Diagrams and Symbols are Used Instead of Letters for the Greater Ease of Learners", https://www.c82.net/euclid/ (reproduction in CSS by Nicholas Rougeux)

I recommend anyone to try to work through a few compass-and-straightedge constructions. It can be really satisfying and meditative. Oliver Byrne made an insanely pretty colourful version of Euclid's Elements, which is available online. Grab a pen, paper, a string to make circles, and the edge of a book to draw straight lines, start with Proposition 1 and go as far as you'd like: https://www.c82.net/euclid/book1/#prop1 (There is also a physical facsimile of Byrne's Elements (ISBN:9783836577380) – it is one of the best additions I've ever made to my library. It is simply gorgeous.)

In case this is of interest, and unknown, there's an aesthetically pleasant digitization of Euclid's elements[0]. But I'm not sure whether it's best for studying: usually, actively engaging with the material is key (e.g. performing the constructions, without a model), thought the effective rules for kids might be different. I'm actually happy to see them interested in propositional logic, given how foundational it can be to coherent thinking. I would have guessed, as the author, that manual activities would have been preferred. [0]: https://www.c82.net/euclid/#books

Particularly recommended: Euclid in HTML/CSS https://www.c82.net/blog/?id=79 https://www.c82.net/work/?id=372

I wasn’t that taken by this specific item - just my taste receptors - but the remainder of the website is a treasure trove highly worth exploring. The “making of”s are rich in detail. https://www.c82.net/work/

It might make sense to read a translation in a language you understand. Many of the books that are considered classics are specifically because they ARE accessible. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are easy, but there is a big difference between reading Euclid and learning how to create mathematical proofs, and taking a class focused on calculating the area of various shapes or determine angles. I haven't read Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (the English title) but I have read Euclid and it definitely doesn't require a genius to understand. here is an online edition with great illustrations: https://www.c82.net/euclid/

https://c82.net/ a designers website with impressive visualizations and artwork https://fabiensanglard.net/ a personal website with interesting side projects and lots of technical details https://paulstamatiou.com/ photography, technology and design with in-depth articles and detailed travel photosets https://www.arun.is/ a visually-rich blog that dives deep into how design and technology shape our lives https://ciechanow.ski/ detailed explanations and illustrations of technology https://simone.computer/ a personal website designed like an old computer https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/ The world's biggest collection of classic text mode fonts, system fonts and BIOS fonts from DOS-era IBM PCs and compatibles

For more colorful expeditions into the depths of the Internet Archive Nicholas Rougeux is pretty good https://www.c82.net/

Lockhart missed the point a bit. His student's "proof" is an illustration, not a proof. There's no way to know if its circular or simply unfounded, since it is purely an appeal to intuition. That's only a part of mathematics. The correct thing to do, mathematically, is to validate the intuition by formatting it as a proper proof, based on non-circular axioms and theorems. In the paper itself he admits that his student's work was incoherent and needed him to rewrite it. He's right that 2 column geometry proofs are ugly, and could be presented better. This has been known for centuries. https://www.c82.net/euclid/en/book3/#prop31 For children and for starting out, the pictures are great. But for mathematics, pictures are extremely limiting. 2D and 3D are notgod models for N-Dimemsions. ("Spiky balls" , for example). Mathematics is far, far more powerful than human eyes. The amazing thing about geometry is that the whole thing works without pictures! A blind person can be a great geometer, because geometry is axiomatizable. Meanwhile, Euclid's Elements, while an incredible achievement in its day, is not well-founded, relying on unstated axioms.

Tufte reproduced one diagram and the accompanying text as an example in one of his books. It might have been "Envisioning Information" but I'm not sure. If I remember correctly he had lots of praise for the visualization and said that appart from the font it had a very contemporary look despite being from the 19th century. Tufte also showed a variant that added colored labels, but I don't remeber if he recommended it. Another thing I remeber is a sidenote about how complicated it was to get the colors right in print. EDIT: I was wondering if Tufte's book was the inspiration for this but couldn't find a reference at first. The making-of blog post mentions Tufte's work: > Byrne’s work was largely ignored and criticized at the time of publication but it has gained renewed interest in recent years in part due to a mention from Edward Tufte in Envisioning Information and a reproduction by Taschen. [..] > Inspiration > I can’t recall when I first learned of Byrne’s edition but it was likely from Tufte or seeing Taschen in passing. https://c82.net/blog/?id=79

https://www.c82.net/blog/making-of-naturalists-library You are correct! Apologies for not doing enough reading myself.

I'm looking through https://www.c82.net/naturalists-library/illustrations and all the illustrations seems to be of non-dissected animals/insects, at the illustration themselves. Of course, impossible to know if the illustration was drawn from a dead or alive specimen, but none of them seems based on anything picked apart as far as I can tell. As an example, all the drawn butterflies seems to be drawn as if they were alive, not dead (https://www.emilydamstra.com/please-enough-dead-butterflies/).

My man (https://www.c82.net/images/naturalists-library/vol-4/plates/plate-3-st… is having a bad day.

More at https://www.c82.net/blog/making-of-naturalists-library, you can see that the source material was actually in pretty good condition, just aged and yellowed; they used Photoshop's AI to stitch drawings that were spread out over two pages together. And probably some upscaling.

The original scans with faded colors and yellowed paper are also available: https://www.c82.net/naturalists-library/sources/scans

Direct link to the library instead of the blog: https://www.c82.net/naturalists-library/

Since I almost skipped over it.. the rest of this stuff is also very good ( https://www.c82.net/work/). There's an adaptation of Euclid here: https://www.c82.net/work/?id=372 There's more color and I don't see here any obsession with stuff like recursion, but the preoccupation with math/data, plus what seems like technical training as a draftsman actually reminds me a lot of Escher.

Here's a modern version for Euclid's Elements- https://www.c82.net/euclid/

its not animated but its really nicely illustrated in html friendly layout https://www.c82.net/euclid/book1/ and this is animated, and interactive, for polyhedra https://polyhedra.tessera.li/dodecahedron/operations

The "making of" process—generating random points and then using them to position the bird illustrations at each point—does not make a lot of sense to me. The final bird positions are nowhere near the random points. https://www.c82.net/images/blog/hummingbirds-murmuration-v1-steps.jpg A possibly better approach would be to use Bridson's algorithm with a radius that roughly corresponds to the size of each bird image. You could reject points that are outside the overall shape. https://observablehq.com/@mbostock/poisson-disc-distribution

The colors and the weird s were both from the 180 year old version. The interactivity is new. Here's the author's thoughts: > Creating a faithful online reproduction of a book considered one of the most beautiful and unusual publications ever published is a daunting task. Byrne’s Euclid is my tribute to Oliver Byrne’s most celebrated publication from 1847 that illustrated the geometric principles established in Euclid’s original Elements from 300 BC. > The long s (ſ) was common in older publications and is used throughout the book. Even though it’s commonly mistaken for the lowercase f, I felt reproducing it was also important to stay true to the original. > I wanted to add interactivity to the diagrams to aid in understanding them because I had some trouble understanding some in the original book. Here's lots more thoughts: https://www.c82.net/blog/?id=79

this is crazy. I wish they explained better how they solve the constraint to find the new point position. Regardless this would be an awesome tool for Math Visualization. The book "THE ELEMENTS OF EUCLID" [1] had a website with java applet but this is now dead since browser have dropped. [1] https://www.c82.net/euclid/#books

There is a nice reproduction of Byrne's colorful take on the first six books of the Elements.See https://www.c82.net/euclid/ .

Byrne's translation of Euclid, you can find a digital version here: https://www.c82.net/euclid/

The poster on offer looks quite nice… https://www.c82.net/math-instruments/posters

https://c82.net/ https://fabiensanglard.net/ https://paulstamatiou.com/ https://www.arun.is/ https://ciechanow.ski/ https://simone.computer/ https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/

Also the making of post is fascinating as well: https://www.c82.net/blog/?id=86

Yes. To support your point about colours being named after natural things, here's a colour chart from the 18th century. https://www.c82.net/werner/#preface