31.10.2014 Views

A history of Greek mathematics - Wilbourhall.org

A history of Greek mathematics - Wilbourhall.org

A history of Greek mathematics - Wilbourhall.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ARISTAEUS'S SOLID LOCI 119<br />

the same way the point will lie on a conic section given in<br />

position.' x<br />

The reason why Apollonius referred in this connexion to<br />

Euclid and not to Aristaeus was probably that it was Euclid's<br />

work that was on the same lines as his own.<br />

A very large proportion <strong>of</strong> the standard properties <strong>of</strong> conies<br />

admit <strong>of</strong> being stated in the form <strong>of</strong> locus-theorems ; if a<br />

certain property holds with regard to a certain point, then<br />

that point lies on a conic section. But it may be assumed<br />

that Aristaeus's work was not merely a collection <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ordinary propositions transformed in this way ; it would deal<br />

with new locus-theorems not implied in the fundamental<br />

definitions and properties <strong>of</strong> the conies, such as those just<br />

mentioned, the theorems <strong>of</strong> the three- and four-line locus.<br />

But one (to us) ordinary property, the focus-directrix property,<br />

was, as it seems to me, in all probability included.<br />

Focus-directrix property known to<br />

Euclid.<br />

It is remarkable that the directrix does not appear at all in<br />

Apollonius's great treatise on conies. The focal properties <strong>of</strong><br />

the central conies are given by Apollonius, but the foci are<br />

obtained in a different way, without any reference to the<br />

directrix; the focus <strong>of</strong> the parabola does not appear at all.<br />

We may perhaps conclude that neither did Euclid's Conies<br />

contain the focus-directrix property ;<br />

for, according to Pappus,<br />

Apollonius based his first four books on Euclid's four books,<br />

while filling them out and adding to them. Yet Pappus gives<br />

the proposition as a lemma to Euclid's Surface-Loci, from<br />

which we cannot but infer that it was assumed in that<br />

treatise without pro<strong>of</strong>. If, then, Euclid did not take it from<br />

his own Conies, what more likely than that it was contained<br />

in Aristaeus's Solid Loci ?<br />

Pappus's enunciation <strong>of</strong> the theorem is to the effect that the<br />

locus <strong>of</strong> a point such that its distance from a given point is in<br />

a given ratio to its distance from a fixed straight line is a conic<br />

section, and is an ellipse, a parabola, or a hyperbola according<br />

as the given ratio is less than, equal to, or greater than unity.<br />

1<br />

Pappus, vii, p. 678. 15-24.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!