Typos
MarcinCiura opened this issue · 26 comments
1313: s/;/./
1351: IMHO, there should be either 0 or 2 commas in углов \drawAngle{A} или \drawAngle{D},
1351: \drawUnitLine{AB} совпадает \drawUnitLine{DE} — missing "с"
1414: probably missing comma or semicolon before "но"
1415: ditto before "часть"
1589: ditto before "проведем"
1631: missing comma at the end
1673: ditto
1674: s/пост./постр./ (how about introducing macros \construction and \hypothesis for "(постр.)" and "(гип.)"?)
1679: missing period at the end
1737: ditto
1766: probably s/$\perp$ к/$\perp$/
1769: ditto
1770: move the semicolon to the end of line
1806: probably missing comma or semicolon before "но"
1842: [optionally add a comma at the end]
1849: missing period at the end
Continued (up to Proposition I.XXV):
1934: missing period
1967: probably an unnecessary comma before "если" (the next proposition doesn't have it)
1970: s/,/./
2002: missing comma before "тогда"
2005: ditto
2011: probably s/:/;/
2054: missing period
2092: ditto
2018: [maybe missing period]
2293: missing comma before "но"
2337: missing comma before "поскольку"
2338: missing commas before "то" and "что"
2341: missing comma before "поскольку"
2342: missing comma before "то"
2346: probably s/:/;/
A suggestion: in Proposition I.XXII, swap the segments mentioned in lines en:2163-2164 and ru:2160-2161 to keep L'' and L''' in order.
Thank you very much! These are fixed (mostly) with this commit: 65f086c
This is basically the issue of proofreading russian translation, which is to be done, so i will not close it yet. Hopefully, i'll do it soon enough.
how about introducing macros \construction and \hypothesis
good idea, maybe these macros should also work as links to relevant lines in propositions, i'll try to do it
I wish to have this wonderful book hard-printed. Do you recommend (and also give a permission) to use 0.7 release Russian edition pdf as a printing layout?
@vlakuc In the current Russian translation books 3–6 are still to be proofread thoroughly, so i expect them to contain a fair amount of typos. I will post a comment here, once proofreading is more or less complete (unfortunately, i don't know how long it will take). However, for sure, you are free to print it.
1006 in the English version and 1042 in the Russian version: "the angle HCD added to FCD, make the angle HCD" — the first "HCD" should be "HCF".
1014 in the English version: "All lines which considered" should be "All the lines which are considered".
1016 in the English version: "is the object of the postulated" should be "is the object of the \emph{postulates}".
Proposition II.1 in both versions, first line of the construction: (pr. I.2, pr. I.3) should be (pr. I.11, pr. I.3).
@mciura Thank you! Done af5c529
Definition II.1 in both versions, the last line: "or AC^2" should be "or AB^2".
Also, a clarification: "pr. I.11" for "pr. I.2" was Byrne's error, not yours. AFAIR, you mark these in the comments.
It looks like "cor. p. 4. B. 2." on Byrne's page 59 (https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00eucl/page/58), simplified by you to "prop. II.4" is not the best way to justify the equality. I would rather use prop. I.33 (Quite probably, more assumptions are used there than only prop. I.33. I did not think deeper about it.)
Edit: Now I can see "cor. p. 4. B. 2." is also used in prop. II.6 i II.7.
Both versions, Proposition II.6, last but one line: "= {HG,DH}^2" should rather be "= {BD,DC}^2".
@mciura
AFAIR, you mark these in the comments.
Yes, thank you, done.
It looks like "cor. p. 4. B. 2." on Byrne's page 59 (https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00eucl/page/58), simplified by you to "prop. II.4" is not the best way to justify the equality.
Now I can see "cor. p. 4. B. 2." is also used in prop. II.6 i II.7.
I'm not sure but in II.IV a very similar statement is justified by I.VI, I.XXIX and I.XXXIV. I didn't understand what "cor." stands for, but maybe Byrne meant that particular part of II.IV? In any case, I agree simply "II.IV" is not clear at all. It's possible to either copy the list above to all the propositions mentioned, or make that statement about a square by the diagonal of another square a separate lemma and reference it instead.
Both versions, Proposition II.6, last but one line: "= {HG,DH}^2" should rather be "= {BD,DC}^2".
My bad. By the way, you can make it simply "= {BC}^2" or "= {CB}^2", it would also work.
IMHO, "cor." means "corollary".
@mciura Thanks! Fixed a864325#diff-ce29b5befc0686b45157d97a74d17263 , except for this corollary thing. I.VI, I.XXIX and I.XXXIV (as in II.IV) seem to be enough to justify that HGLE is a square, though and merely I.XXXIII seems to need something else to work. What do you think?
Proposition II.12, both versions: lines 2, 5, and last of the proof: spurious ^2 at the end of 2 * {CA} * {AD}^2.
Proposition II.13, both versions, last line of the proof of Case I: 2 * {BD,DC} * {DC} should be 2 * {BD,DC} * {BD}.
Proposition II.14, both versions, start of the proof of the construction: "{HF}^2 or {HG}^2..." — {HF}^2 should be {BG}^2.
Book II finished. As for the corollary, I checked the real Elements and was surprised to see they say just "Add LG, which equals the square on CD, to each": https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookII/propII5.html so it may be acceptable to have no justification at all here.
Thank you, fixed c8d5db3 .
Byrne's error in I.30: he refers to I.27 which is about a different pair of angles. Two fixes are possible.
Fix 1: replace I.27 with I.28
Fix 2 (the original proof by Euclid): replace <JGB with <AGK everywhere and keep I.27
@mciura Thank you! Fixed 8fae810#diff-ce29b5befc0686b45157d97a74d17263R2678
Here I am again. :)
There is a mistake in the Russian translation of proposition I.25 (line 2455):
instead of "меньше угла под", it should say "greater than the angle above".
@MarcinCiura Great to see you again!
What a stupid mistake on my part, thank you for noticing it. Fixed!
I have two remarks about the diagrams in book I:
- In my opinion, triangle ABD in proposition I.6 should illustrate the theorem, so AD should be equal to BD.
- A tiny nit: in proposition I.17, triangle ABC is very similar to an isosceles triangle while it illustrates a general theorem.
Done! a7563be