the Notices of the DEI

I believe the Greek says straight lines (εὐθεῖας γραμμὰς) just as in the Elements. "Rays" seems to be an erroneous and misleading translation.

Euclid says correctly: If one draws such lines, this is how they behave. For example when doing problems like this: datagenetics.com/blog/decembe... Everything about this perfectly fits Euclid's text.

A true statement about how lines emanating from a point behave. It does not say that that is how human vision actually operates physically. We use the same principle today when doing geometrical optics: connect the eye to points of interest by lines, then investigate the angles between them etc.

Nothing in Euclid says that he was committed to an extramission theory of sight. He describes visual phenomena relative to an observer, but this could just as well be understood the same way as when a heliocentric astronomer uses a geocentric framing or terminology for practical purposes.

In my geometry course I made a slide on this inspired by your book. intellectualmathematics.com/geometry/

Not sure, maybe eventually but I have other things planned there to appear soon.

There is hardly anything substantial as far as I know, except old things in Italian. On a later part of the abacus school tradition I enjoyed the chapter zbmath.org/7940758 and hope to read the book link.springer.com/book/10.1007....

But how are you supposed to “draw the tangent line”? Archimedes doesn’t say. Does he think that drawing tangents is somehow “more given” or more basic than rectifying a circle (i.e., knowing π)? Unclear why one would think that.

Sometimes 1 30 was written "1 and ½" to emphasise that 1½ was meant, not 90. Another method of disambiguation was by the size of the characters: a 1 written bigger represents 60, etc. See Neugebauer, Exact sciences in antiquity, pp. 19-20.