Klein's Encyclopedia: Is an English Translation Possible?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Klein's Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, originally published in German and French, remains untranslated into English despite its historical significance and extensive references. The encyclopedia spans approximately 20,000 pages and is noted for its pre-Bourbaki style, which contrasts sharply with modern mathematical texts that favor brevity and abstraction. While some believe an English translation is unlikely, the originals are publicly accessible, allowing motivated individuals to undertake their own translations. The discussion highlights the value of understanding the evolution of mathematical ideas through historical context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with mathematical terminology and concepts from both pre-Bourbaki and post-Bourbaki eras.
  • Understanding of the historical context of mathematical literature.
  • Ability to read and interpret complex texts in German or French.
  • Knowledge of the significance of major contributors like Bourbaki, Lorentz, and Pauli in mathematics and physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical impact of Bourbaki on modern mathematics.
  • Explore the original German and French texts of Klein's Encyclopedia available online.
  • Learn about the contributions of key figures such as Lorentz and Pauli in mathematical physics.
  • Investigate translation techniques for complex academic texts to facilitate personal translation efforts.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, linguists interested in translation, and anyone seeking to understand the evolution of mathematical thought through historical texts.

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
10K