/lit/ - Literature

>>10811784
All in one Semester too, huh? Whew.

I guess it might work. You'll find Archimedes to be the hardest, my friend. I've done that. I've read all of the Elements, all of Archimedes' works, save a couple I was not interested in (On Floating Bodies and On the Mechanical Method I skipped), and I also read Books I - VII of Apollonius On Conics. Yes. One through SEVEN. I am actually currently reading Ibn Al-Haytham's Reconstruction of the Eighth Book. Medieval mathematics was actually very confusing. Where they have a clear advantage from using the Analysis-Synthesis-Diorismos approach, they lose in clearness.

But I digress. Most likely you will do just Books I - III of On Conics. And you might read Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus as well? That is going to be one of the most interesting reads you have as well. If the teacher isn't making you do it, I would suggest you read the Timaeus by Plato before beginning Introduction to Arithmetic.

I have a rather old copy of the 'Great Ideas' issues from the Great Books series. It's the mathematics one obviously, but there were so many errors in my edition I had to correct them myself. It was actually fucking embarrassing, Book III is a trainwreck. VERY few people care enough to read this deep into them, unless they are assigned it by their college though. I have an intense interest in mathematical philosophy, which is why you see me taking the On Conics so far.

>>10682144
Yes he's a terrible editor in chief. I only possess one of the great books, but if you're going to have books on mathematics in your list, I would hope you can oversee editing correctly.

So. I have in my possession the Great Books with Elements, Archimedes, first three books of On Conics, and Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus. I'm reading the last now, just about to wrap up the entire thing.

But if you'll please direct your attention to pic related. This is the reason why I'm not too fond of it. It is absolutely LITTERED with errors, to such an extent I am still currently waiting for a response back from someone to tell me what is on his copy because I literally couldn't understand one of the propositions because of an error in how it's worded (I believe). I mean it is seriously terrible. Taliaferro is a much better translator than T.L. Heath, who absolutely butchered On Conics, but the editing absolutely ruined this copy for me. Rest of the book is fine, there are a couple errors at the end of Book II and Book III is just fucking ridiculous.

Anyway, you wanted a reading list for economics? I am still noting a somewhat sarcastic tone in your posts (?) but I will take you seriously. I am OP. Do you know calculus at all? I actually extensively read economic texts which deal with calculus concepts, because it is honestly the best way to analyze the entire system. But lets begin at the beginning before it was mathematized.

>>10500224
I'm at 56. Here you go.

Mathematics, Economics, Philosophy, and Theology.

As regards Philosophy, I am primarily concerned with theological works and political science.

My profile is pretty hit or miss, though I did read some popular fiction works, I don't anymore. I read exclusively non-fiction.

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/27498265-tyler

I only mark footnotes when it is an extremely embarrassing mathematical error in On Conics. And there are many in Taliaferro's translation.

Also I do sometimes write in the last page of the book if it's blank, a short summary of the book itself after I'm finished.