« ForrigeFortsett »
where without any reason the demonstration is divided into two Book III. parts.
PROP. · xy. B. III. The converse of the second part of this propofition is wanting, though in the preceding, the converse is added, in a like cafe, both in the enunciation and demonstration ; and it is now added in this. Besides, in the demonstration of the first part of this 15th, the diameter AD (fee Commandine's figure) is proved to be greater than the straight line BC by means of another straight line MN; whereas it may be better done without it: On which accounts we have given a different demonstration, like to that which Euclid gives in the preceding 14th, and to that which Theodosius gives in prop. 6. B. 1. of his Spherics, in this very affair.
In this we have not followed the Greek nor the Latin translation literally, but have given what is plainly, the meaning of the proposicion, without mentioning the angle of the semicircle, or that which fome call the cornicular angle which they conceive to be made by the circumference and the straight line which is at right angles to the diameter, at its extremity; which angies have furnished matter of great debate between some of the modern geometers, and given occafion of deducing ftrange consequences from them, which are quite avoided by the manner in which we have expressed the proposition. And in like manner, we have given the true meaning of prop. 31. b. 3. without mentioning the angles of the greater or iefser segments : There paffages, Vieta, with good reason, suspects to be adulterated, in the 386th page of his Oper. Math.
PRO P. XX. B. III.
The first words of the second part of this demonstration, « xix&c. I do hedon," are wrong translated by Mr Briggs and Dr Gregory " Rursus inclinetar;" for the trandation ought to be “ Rursus inflectatur," as Commandine has it : A straight line is said to be infected either to a straight, or curve line, when a straight line is drawn to this line from a point, and from the point in which it meets it, a straight line making an angle with the former is drawn to another point, as is evi. dent from the goth prop. of Euclid's Data : For thus the whole line betwixt the first and last points, is infected or broken at U 3
Book III. the point of inflection, where the two straight lines meet. And v in the like sense two straight lines are said to be inflected from
two points to a third point, when they make an angle at this point; as may be seen in the description given by Pappus Alexandrinus of Apollonius's Books de Locis planis, in the preface to his 7th book: We have made the expression fuller from the goth prop. of the data.
There are two cases of this proposition, the second of which, viz. when the angles are in a segment not greater than a semicircle, is wanting in the Greek: And of this a more simple demonstration is given than that which is in Commandine, as being derived only from the first case, without the help of tri. angles.
PRO P. XXIII. and XXIV. B. III.
In propofition 24. it is demonstrated, that the segment AEB muit coincide with the segment CFD, (see Commandine's figure), and that it cannot fall otherwise, as CGD, so as to cut the other circle in a third point G, from this, that, if it did, a circle could cut another in more points than two: But this ought to have been proved to be impossible in the 23d prop. as well as that one of the segments cannot fall within the other : This part then is left out in the 24th, and put in its proper place, the 23d Propofition.
PROP. XXV. B. III.
This proposition is divided into three cases, of which two have the same construction and demonstration; therefore it is now divided only into two cases.
PRO P. XXXIII, B. III.
This also in the Greek is divided into three cases, of which two, viz. one, in which the given angle is acute, and the other in which it is obtuse, have exactly the fame construction and demonstration ; on which account, the demonstration of the last cafe is left out as quite superfluous, and the addition of some unskilful editor ; besides the demonstration of the case when the angle given is a right angle, is done a round about way, and is therefore changed to a more simple one, as was done by Clavius.
Ꮲ Ꭱ 0 Ꭱ. PRO P. XXXV.
As the 25th and 33d propositions are divided into more cases, so this 35th is divided into fewer cafes than are neceffary. Nor can it be supposed that Euclid omitted them because they are easy; as he has given the case, which by far, is the easiest of them all, viz. that in which both the straight lines pass through the centre : And in the following proposition he separately demonstrates the case in which the straight line pafses through the centre, and that in which it does not pass through the centre: So that it seems Theon, or some other, has thought them too long to insert : But cases that require different demonstrations, should not be left out in the elements, as was before taken notice of: These cases are in the translation from the Arabic, and are now put into the text
PRO P. XXXVII. B. III. At the end of this, the words, " in the same manner it may “ be demonstrated, if the centre be in AC,” are left out as the addition of some ignorant editor.
DEFINITIONS of BOOK IV.
Book IV. HEN a point is in a straight, or any other line, this m
point is by the Greek geometers said aw127.9.com, to be upon, or in that line, and when a straight line or circle meets a circle any way, the one is said antiofac to meet the other: But when a straight line or circle meets a circle so as not to cut it, it is said PartioWav, to touch the circle; and these two terms are never promiscuously used by them : Therefore, in the 5th definition of B. 4. the compound P27T17H must be read, instead of the simple attATAV: And in the ift, 2d, 3d, and 6th definitions in Commandine's translation, “ tangit,” must be read instead of “ contingit :" And in the ad and 3d definitions of Book 3. the same change must be made : But in the Greek text of propositions uith, 12th, 13th, 18th, 19th, Book 3. the com• pound verb is to be pat for the fimple.
In this, as also in the 8th and 13th propositions of this book, it is demonstrated indirectly, that the circle touches a straight line ; whereas in the 17th, 33d, and 37th propofitions of book 3. the same thing is directly demonstrated : And this way we
Book IV. have chosen to use in the propofitions of this book, as it is
The demonstration of this has been spoiled by some unskilful hand : For he does not demonstrate, as is necessary, that the two straight lines which bifect the sides of the triangle at right angles, must meet one another; and, without any reason, he divides the proposition into three cases ; whereas, one and the same construction and demonstration serves for them all, as Campanus has observed ; which useless repetitions are now left out: The Greek text also in the Corollary is manifestly vitiated, where mention is made of a given angle, though there neither is, nor can be any thing in the proposition relating to a given angle.
PRO P. XV. and XVI. B. IV.
In the corollary of the first of these, the words equilateral and equiangular are wanting in the Greek: And in prop. 16. instead of the circle ABCD, ought to be read the circumference ABCD: Where mention is made of its containing fifteen equal parts.
DE F. III. B. V.
ANY of the modern mathematicians reject this definition :
The very learned Dr Barrow has explained it at large at the end of his third lecture of the year 1066, in which also he answers the objections made against it as well as the subject would allow : And at the end gives his opinion upon the whole, as follows:
“ I shall only add, that the author had, perhaps, no 0“ther delign in making this definition, than (that he might
more fully explain and embellish his subject) to give a gene“ ral and summary idea of ratio to beginners, by premising “ this metaphysical definition, to the more accurate defini“ tions of ratios that are the fame to one another, or one of “ which is greater, or less than the other : I call it a meta“ phyfical, for it is not properly a mathematical definition, “ lince nothing in mathematics depends on it, or is deduced,
nor, as I judge, can be deduced from it : And the defini" tion of analogy, which follows, viz. Analogy is the Gmi
“ litude of ratios, is of the same kind, and can serve for no Book V. “ purpose in mathematics, but only to give beginners some " general, tho' gross and confused notion of analogy: But the ,
whole of the doctrine of ratios, and the whole of mathema“ tics, depend upon the accurate mathematical definitions which «follow this : To these we ought principally to attend, as the « doctrine of ratios is more perfectly explained by them ; this " third, and others like it, may be entirely spared without any “ loss to geometry ; as we see in the 7th book of the elements, “ where the proportion of numbers to one another is defined, " and treated of, yet without giving any definition of the ratio " of numbers ; tho' such a definition was as necessary and use* ful to be given in that book, as in this: But indeed there is « scarce any need of it in either of them : Though I think that " a thing of so general and abstracted a nature, and thereby the « more difficult to be conceived and explained, cannot be more « commodiously defined than as the author has done : Upon “ which account I thought fit to explain it at large, and defend « it against the captious objections of those who attack it.” To this citation from Dr Barrow I have nothing to add, except that I fully believe the 3d and 8th definitions are not Euclid's, but added by some unskilful editor.
It was necessary to add the word "continual” before "
pro" portionals” in this definition ; and thus it is cited in the 33d prop. of book 11.
After this definition ought to have followed the definition of compound ratio, as this was the proper place for it; duplicate and triplicare ratio being species of compound ratio. But Theon has made it the sth def. of B. 6. where he gives an absurd and entirely useless definition of compound ratio: For this reason we have placed another definition of it betwixt the 11th and 12th of this book, which, no doubt, Euclid gave ; for he cites it expressly in prop. 23. B. 6. and which Clavius, Herigon, and Barrow, have likewise given, but they retain alio Theon's, which they ought to have left out of the elements.
DE F. XIII. B. V.
This, and the rest of the definitions following, contain the explication of some terms which are used in the 5th and following books; which, except a few, are easily enough understood from