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.

1<br />

MENELAUS'S SPHAERICA 263<br />

already appropriated for the plane triangle. We should gather<br />

from this, as well as from the restriction <strong>of</strong> the definitions to<br />

the spherical triangle and its<br />

parts, that the discussion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

spherical triangle as such was probably new ; and if the preface<br />

in the Arabic version addressed to a prince and beginning<br />

with the words, prince ' ! I have discovered an excellent<br />

.<br />

method <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> . . ' is genuine, we have confirmatory evidence<br />

in the writer's own claim.<br />

Menelaus's object, so far as Book I is concerned, seems to<br />

have been to give the main propositions about spherical<br />

triangles corresponding to Euclid's propositions about plane<br />

triangles. At the same time he does not restrict himself to<br />

Euclid's methods <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> even where they could be adapted<br />

to the case <strong>of</strong> the sphere ; he avoids the form <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> by<br />

reductio ad absurdum, but, subject to this, he prefers the<br />

easiest pro<strong>of</strong>s. In some respects his treatment is more complete<br />

than Euclid's treatment <strong>of</strong> the analogous plane cases.<br />

In the congruence-theorems, for example, we have I. 4 a<br />

corresponding to Eucl. I. 4, I. 4b to Eucl. I. 8, I. 14, 16 to<br />

Eucl. I. 26 a, b; but Menelaus includes (I. 13) what we know<br />

as the ' ambiguous case ', which is enunciated on the lines <strong>of</strong><br />

Eucl. VI. 7. I. 12 is a particular case <strong>of</strong> I. 16. Menelaus<br />

includes also the further case which has no analogue in plane<br />

triangles, that in which the three angles <strong>of</strong> one triangle are<br />

severally equal to the three angles <strong>of</strong> the other (1.17). He<br />

makes, moreover, no distinction between the congruent and<br />

the symmetrical, regarding both as covered by congruent. 1.<br />

is a problem, to construct a spherical angle equal to a given<br />

spherical angle, introduced only as a lemma because required<br />

in later propositions. I. 2, 3 are the propositions about<br />

isosceles triangles corresponding to Eucl. I. 5, 6 ;<br />

Eucl. 1. 18, 19<br />

(greater side opposite greater angle and vice versa) have their<br />

analogues in I. 7, 9, and Eucl. I. 24, 25 (two sides respectively<br />

equal and included angle, or third side, in one triangle greater<br />

than included angle, or third side, in the other) in I. 8. I. 5<br />

(two sides <strong>of</strong> a triangle together greater than the third) corresponds<br />

to Eucl. I. 20. There is yet a further group <strong>of</strong> propositions<br />

comparing parts <strong>of</strong> spherical triangles, I. 6, 18, 19, where<br />

I. 6 (corresponding to Eucl. I. 21) is deduced from I. 5, just as<br />

the first part <strong>of</strong> Eucl. I. 21 is deduced from Eucl. I. 20.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!