Complete Works of Major Mathematicians (English)

McSketch
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am very interested in reading the original works of some famous mathematicians, such as:

Cauchy
Lagrange
Euler
Gauss
The Bernoullis
Riemann
etc.

I have found the their respective works have been collected in volumes (for example, Cauchy has 27 volumes!) but they are all in their native language. I am an English only speaker :(.

I have tried (in vain) to find English translations of the complete works of these (and other) major mathematicians. If anyone has any idea of how I can find them, or if they even exist - I would greatly appreciate your input!

Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Try "God Created the Integers", a compilation with a foreword by Hawking.
 
McSketch said:
I am very interested in reading the original works of some famous mathematicians, such as:

Cauchy
Lagrange
Euler
Gauss
The Bernoullis
Riemann
etc.

I have found the their respective works have been collected in volumes (for example, Cauchy has 27 volumes!) but they are all in their native language. I am an English only speaker :(.

I have tried (in vain) to find English translations of the complete works of these (and other) major mathematicians. If anyone has any idea of how I can find them, or if they even exist - I would greatly appreciate your input!

Thanks!

It's not that many high-level, abstruse academic texts that are re-published in other languages than the original one. (Gauss, Bernoulli and Euler wrote much in Latin, and I think much of their work remain in that shape).

Reason:
The scientific content is (comparatively) swiftly squeezed out of it, and re-presented in other persons' work in their languages.
Thus, only a handful of dedicated historians of science find much reason to read the originals.
 
arildno said:
Reason:
The scientific content is (comparatively) swiftly squeezed out of it, and re-presented in other persons' work in their languages.
Thus, only a handful of dedicated historians of science find much reason to read the originals.

Still, I believe one could benefit mathematically from reading original works, something for which Mathwonk on this forum is a vocal proponent. So there might be much reason for the common mathematician to be interested in reading them, apart from historical interest.

Some of these mathematicians produced vast amounts of articles however. I think Euler have produced the most, but Riemann much less if I remember correctly what Mathwonk said some time ago.
 
Last edited:
@Dragonfall
Have it and have read it. It was such a tease! I need more! =)

@arildno
I do agree with you very much - but for example, I can't remember which Bernoulli did work on the catenary - but it is hard to find a very detailed analysis of hanging chains an so forth in modern texts - and I know he wrote much on this topic.

@Jarle
Yes, Euler wrote a vast amount (like 45 quarto volumes IIRC), Cauchy 27 volumes, and Riemann published very little but what he did publish was amazing =).

I suppose it's time to start learning French again ;(
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top