« ForrigeFortsett »
be similar to the triangle KHL. This repetition is left out, Book XII. and the triangles BAC, KHL are proved to be similar in a shorter way by Prop. 21, B. 6.
PROP. IV. B. XII.
A few things in this are more fully explained than in the Greek text.
PROP. V. B. XII.
In this, near to the end, are the words, ws fue aqoodav ideixon,
as was before shown;" and the same are found again in the end of Prop. 18. of this Book ; but the demonstration referred to, except it be the useless lemma annexed to the second Prop., is nowhere in these Elements, and has been perhaps left out by some editor, who has forgot to cancel those words also.
PROP. VI. B. XII.
A shorter demonstration is given of this; and that which is in the Greek text may be made shorter by a step than it is: For the author of it makes use of the 22d Prop. of B. 5. twice, whereas one would have served his purpose; because that proposition extends to any number of magnitudes which are proportionals taken two and two, as well as to three which are proportional to other three.
COR. PROP. VIII. B. XII.
The demonstration of this is imperfect, because it is not shown that the triangular pyramids into which those upon multangular bases are divided, are similar to one another, as ought necessarily to have been done, and is done in the like case in Prop. 12. of this Book : The full demonstration of the corollary is as follows.
Upon the polygonal bases ABCDE, FGHKL, let there be similar and similarly situated pyramids which have the points M, N for their vertices : The pyramid ABCDEM has to the pyramíd FGHKLN the triplicate ratio of that which the side AB has to the homologous side FG.
Let the polygons be divided into the triangles ABE, EBC, ECD; FGL, LGH, LHK, which are similar “, each to each; a 20. 6. And because the pyramids are similar, therefore the triangle bll.def. 11. EAM is similar to the triangle LFN, and the triangle ABM
Book XII to FGN: Wherefore < ME is to EA, as NL to LF; and as
AE to EB, so is FL to LG, because the triangles EAB, LFG C 4. 6.
are similar ; therefore, ex æquali, as ME to EB, so is NL to LG: In like manner it may be shown, that EB is to BM, as LG to GN; therefore, again, ex æquali, as EM to MB, so is
LN to NG: Wherefore the triangles EMB, LNG having d 5. 6. their sides proportionals, ared equiangular, and similar to one
another: Therefore the pyramids which have the triangles
EAB, LFG for their bases, and the points M, N for their b 11. def. vertices, are similar to one another, for their solid angles 11.
are equal, and the solids themselves are contained by the
c B. 11.
same number of similar planes : In the same manner, the pyramid EBCM may be shown to be similar to the pyramid LGHN, and the pyramid ECDM to LHKN: And because
the pyramids EABM, LFGN are similar, and have triangular f 8. 12. bases, the pyramid EABM has to LFGN the triplicate ratio
of that which EB has to the homologous side LG. And in the same manner, the pyramid EBČM has to the pyramid, LGHN the triplicate ratio of that which EB has to LG: Therefore as the pyramid EABM is to the pyramid LFGN, so is the pyramid EBCM to the pyramid LGHN: In like manner, as the pyramid EBCM is to LGHN, so is the pyramid ECDM to the pyramid LHKN: And as one of the antecedents is to one of the consequents, so are all the antecedents to all the consequents: Therefore as the pyramid EABM to the pyramid LFGN, so is the whole pyramid ABCDEM to the whole pyramid FGHKLN: And the pyramid EABM has to the pyramid LFGN the triplicate ratio of that which AB has to FG; therefore the whole pyramid
has to the whole pyramid the triplicate ratio of that which AB Book XII. has to the homologous side FG. R. E. D.
PROP, XI. and XII. B. XII.
The order of the letters of the alphabet is not observed in these two propositions, according to Euclid's manner, and is now restored: By which means the first part of Prop. 12. may be demonstrated in the same words with the first part of Prop. 11.; on this account the demonstration of that first part is left out, and assumed from Prop. 11.
PROP. XIII. B. XII.
In this proposition, the common section of a plane parallel to the bases of a cylinder, with the cylinder itself, is supposed to be a circle, and it was thought proper briefly to demonstrate it; from whence it is sufficiently manifest, that this plane divides the cylinder into two others : And the same thing is understood to be supplied in Prop. 14.
PROP. XV. B. XII.
“And complete the cylinders AX, EO,” both the enunciation and exposition of the proposition represent the cylinders as well as the cones, as already described : Wherefore the reading ought rather to be," and let the cones be ALC, “ ENG; and the cylinders AX, EO."
The first case in the second part of the demonstration is wanting; and something also in the second case of that part, before the repetition of the construction is mentioned, which are now added.
PROP. XVII. B. XII,
In the enunciation of this proposition, the Greek words, εις την μείζονα σφαίραν στερεών πολύιδρον εγγράψαι μη ψαύον της ελάσσονος σφαίρας κατά την επιφάνειαν, are thus translated by Commandine and others, “ in majori solidum polyhedrum describere quod • minoris sphæræ superficiem non tangat;" that is, “ to de
scribe in the greater sphere a solid polyhedron which shall “ not meet the superficies of the less sphere:" Whereby they refer the words κατα την επιφάνειας to these next to them της ελάσpovos odalgas: But they ought by no means to be thus translated; for the solid polyhedron doth not only meet the super
Book XII. ficies of the less sphere, but pervades the whole of that sphere :
Therefore the aforesaid words are to be referred to tò otegiòn Forbedgov, and ought thus to be translated, viz. to describe in he greater sphere a solid polyhedron whose superficies shall not meet the less sphere; as the meaning of the proposition necessarily requires.
The demonstration of the proposition is spoiled and mutilated: For some easy things are very explicitly demonstrated, while others not so obvious are not sufficiently explained; for example, when it is affirmed, that the square of KB is greater than the double of the square of BZ, in the first demonstration; and that the angle BZK is obtuse, in the second: Both which ought to have been demonstrated : Besides, in the first demonstration, it is said, draw “ Ka from the point K, per“ pendicular to BD;" whereas it ought to have been said, “join “ KV," and it should have been demonstrated, that KV is perpendicular to BD: For it is evident from the figure in Hervagius's and Gregory's editions, and from the words of the demonstration, that the Greek editor did not perceive that the perpendicular drawn from the point K to the straight line BD must necessarily fall upon the point V; for in the figure it is made to fall upon the point n, a different point from V, which is likewise supposed in the demonstration. Commandine seems to have been aware of this; for in his figure he marks one and the same point with the two letters V, ; and before Commandine, the learned John Dee, in the commentary he annexes to this proposition in Henry Billinsley's translation of the Elements, printed at London ann. 1570, expressly takes notice of this error, and gives a demonstration suited to the construction in the Greek text, by which he shows that the perpendicular drawn from the point K to BD, must necessarily fall upon the point V.
Likewise it is not demonstrated, that the quadrilateral figures SOPT, TPRY, and the triangle YRX, do not meet the less sphere, as was necessary to have been done: Only Clavius, as far as I know, has observed this, and demonstrated it by a lemma, which is now premised to this proposition, something altered, and more briefly demonstrated.
In the corollary of this proposition, it is supposed that a solid polyhedron is described in the other sphere similar to that which is described in the sphere BCDE; but, as the construction by which this may be done is not given, it was thought proper to give it, and to demonstrate that the pyramids in it are similar to those of the same order in the solid polyhedron described in the sphere BCDE.
From the preceding notes, it is sufficiently evident how much the Elements of Euclid, who was a most accurate geometer, have been vitiated and mutilated by ignorant editors. The opinion which the greatest part of learned men have entertained concerning the present Greek edition, viz. that it is very little or nothing different from the genuine work of Euclid, has without doubt deceived them, and made them less attentive and accurate in examining that edition; whereby several errors, some of them gross enough, have escaped their notice from the age in which Theon lived to this time. Upon which account there is some ground to hope that the pains we have taken in correcting these errors, and freeing the Elements, as far as we could, from blemishes, will not be unacceptable to good judges, who can discern when demonstrations are legitimate, and when they are not.
The objections which, since the first edition, have been made against some things in the notes, especially against the doctrine of proportionals, have either been fully answered in Dr Barrow's Lect. Mathemat. and in these notes; or are such, except one which has been taken notice of in the note on Prop. 1, Book 11, as show that the person who made them has not sufficiently considered the things against which they are brought; so that it is not necessary to make any further answer to these objections, and others like them, against Euclid's definitions of proportionals; of which definition Dr Barrow justly says, in page 297 of the above-named book, that “ Nisi machinis impulsa validioribus æternum persistet “ inconcussa."