Is there any interest in a history of math/science chart? It would focus on primary texts.

Bro, I can barely understand high school-level Physics and Chemistry. Do you think I'm gonna read treatises in ye olde Englysshe by Robert Boyle and Ernest Rutherford even though I struggle with understanding videos by Pajeets for braindead teenagers explaining basic science concepts?

>>21921896 (OP)

yes

>>21921896 (OP)

/sci/ is better for those charts

You are better for it though

I'm not aware they have any on this topic.

Calm down, it's just an interest of mine. I'm not pretending anyone gets a full understanding of the sciences from this.

>Knowledge is not some fashion statement, you aren't cooler for reading primary sources

Yeah, of course it doesn't. 

The reason people read primary sources is so to appreciate the real hard work behind it.

Another reason is to see if it validates what was watered down.

Anybody have a chart/recs for Logic? Or even non-classical logic?

So are you the kind of person who only watches the anime but never read the manga and watches BBC animal documentaries without knowing zoology? I'm not judging here, but asking, how do you live with these watered down information?

Lastly, are you that annoying female student you see in class who thinks she's better than anyone cause she read Haruki Murakami?

I'm sorry, OP was just asking a question

I shouldn't have gotten angry

It's alright. W/r/t your criticism I think these works are most rewarding to study after having absorbed a modern presentation of the topic. It's fun to see how the field has developed and many of the proofs used are quite clever.

>The reason people read primary sources is so to appreciate the real hard work behind it.

Primary sources don't really show you all of the hard work behind what you see.

Euclid's Elements, for example, is a compilation of discoveries in geometry done over hundreds of years all the way from ancient Egyptian times all the way till the days of Euclid. Each person came up with a few interesting theorems, passed them down to their students, and years later people compiled these really thick books that put all of them into a nice, neat axiomatic framework, even though most of the discoveries made were first discovered by accident, then stated informally, and finally proven formally.

Same goes for the contents of Newton's Principia, which is a summary of discoveries in mechanics and astrophysics from the days of Leonardo da Vinci and Nicolaus Copernicus till the time of Newton. If you look at Newton's Principia, you won't find a detailed log of every single observation and tested hypothesis used as part of the experiments that led to Newtonian mechanics as we know it. What we see is only the results.



Contemporary textbooks on those subjects explain much of the same content covered in these old treatises, except in heavily summarized form, using lots of illustrative examples that even a low IQ person should be able to understand.

The original treatises are usually heavy on outdated notation, exposition methods, and terminology that would be unfamiliar to people alive right now. You can, if you will, look at any primary source's treatment on a particular theorem or concept and compare it against a much more recent work's treatment on it.

Can I get some more charts that have specific editions/translations like OPs? Really helps with assembling a library wishlist.
