Klein's Encyclopedia: Is an English Translation Possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for an English translation of Klein's Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, exploring the historical significance, readability, and stylistic differences between older and modern mathematical texts. Participants express varying opinions on the value of the encyclopedia and the feasibility of translation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the historical value of the encyclopedia, noting the extensive citations of original references and the differences in writing style between pre-Bourbaki and post-Bourbaki mathematics.
  • Others express a preference for the older style of mathematical writing, arguing that modern texts lack motivation and historical context.
  • One participant questions the likelihood of an English translation occurring soon, suggesting that individuals could learn the original languages instead.
  • Another participant mentions that while the encyclopedia is a masterpiece, it may not reflect the intuitive process of mathematical discovery.
  • There is a mention that some articles, such as Pauli's on relativity, have been translated into English, indicating that not all content remains inaccessible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the likelihood of an English translation and the value of the encyclopedia's historical context versus modern mathematical writing styles. There is no consensus on whether a translation will occur or on the merits of the different writing styles.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the encyclopedia's originals are available in German and French, but the lack of translation may limit accessibility for non-speakers. The discussion also reflects on the evolution of mathematical writing and its implications for understanding mathematical concepts.

jonjacson
Messages
450
Reaction score
38
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
I had a look at it. The originals are publically available. A list of links is e.g.
https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Encyklopädie_der_mathematischen_Wissenschaften#Digitalisierte_Ausgabe

It is indeed an interesting read because they spent a lot of effort citing every original reference of all the statements. So it is historically marvelous. Whether it is of scientific interest is a different question. Mathematical textbooks can be divided into a pre-Bourbaki and a post-Bourbaki era. This means that mathematics is written in a different way and we are usually accustomed to the post-B. style. This means in return that it is not automatically easy to read texts from before. The main difference is, that older books have a lot more text and newer more formulas. More text also means older technical expressions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, vanhees71 and jonjacson
fresh_42 said:
I had a look at it. The originals are publically available. A list of links is e.g.
https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Encyklopädie_der_mathematischen_Wissenschaften#Digitalisierte_Ausgabe

It is indeed an interesting read because he spent a lot of effort citing every original reference of all his statements. So it is historically marvelous. Whether it is of scientific interest is a different question. Mathematical textbooks can be divided into a pre-Bourbaki and a post-Bourbaki era. This means that mathematics is written in a different way and we are usually accustomed to the post-B. style. This means in return that it is not automatically easy to read texts from before. The main difference is, that older books have a lot more text and newer more formulas. More text also means older technical expressions.

The content is available... in a language I can't read :(.

Personally I prefer like 100 times the old style to the modern ones because in modern books there is no motivation at all, the mathematical objects are not presented as something necessary to solve a problem, instead they just pop up from nowhere, there is no historical description of the evolution of the ideas, they try to be as abstract as possible... which means as far away as possible from something my mind can imagine and grasp, and the list goes on and on.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and fresh_42
You think they going to get it translated anytime soon? You can learn to read highbrow fiction in your target language in 5-10 years (let alone an encyclopedia) with some average (yet consistent) effort, or faster, if you're enthusiastic enough. Why wait, if you can do the job yourself? Plus, you'll end up knowing a new language, it's a win-win!
 
fresh_42 said:
Mathematical textbooks can be divided into a pre-Bourbaki and a post-Bourbaki era. This means that mathematics is written in a different way and we are usually accustomed to the post-B. style. This means in return that it is not automatically easy to read texts from before.
By "we" you mean mathematicians. Most physicists still write math in a pre-Bourbaki style.
 
Thanks god! Bourbaki style is killing all the intuition about math. It's an encyclopedia collecting the finished subjects in a formal and standardized way. In this it has great merits, but to learn how math is really done, i.e., how the theorems are found and proven by intuition is not reflected.

The Encyclopedia is just a marvelous masterpiece. If you only look at the author list of the physics volumes, it's clear why. Among the masterpieces are the electromagnetics articles by Lorentz and, of course, Pauli's relativity article, written when he just was a very young student with Sommerfeld.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jonjacson
Dragon27 said:
You think they going to get it translated anytime soon? You can learn to read highbrow fiction in your target language in 5-10 years (let alone an encyclopedia) with some average (yet consistent) effort, or faster, if you're enthusiastic enough. Why wait, if you can do the job yourself? Plus, you'll end up knowing a new language, it's a win-win!

No, I don't think so. If it has not been done already it would be strange that somebody does it now.
 
The article by Pauli on relativity has been translated to English. It's still worth reading!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jonjacson and Demystifier

Similar threads

  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
11K