« PreviousContinue »
IN WHICH THE CORRECTIONS OF DR SIMSON ARE GENERALLY ADOPTED, BUT
THE ERRORS OVERLOOKED BY HIM ARE CORRECTED, AND THE
OBSCURITIES OF HIS AND OTHER EDITIONS EXPLAINED.
SOME OF EUCLID'S DEMONSTRATIONS ARE RESTORED, OTHERS MADE
PROPOSITIONS ARE ADDED.
E L E M E N T S
PLANE AND SPHERICAL TRIGONOMETRY,
A TREATISE ON PRACTICAL GEOMETRY.
BY ALEXANDER INGRAM, PHILOMATH.
PRINTED BY J. PILLANS & SONS;
R, & E. MERCIER, DUBLIN; AND W. MAGEE, BELFAST.
'HE opinions of the Moderns, concerning
the Author of the Elements of Geometry, 5 which
under Euclid's name, are very different, and contrary to one another. . Peter Ramus is ascribes the Propositions, as well as their Demon
strations, to Theon ; others think the Propositions to be Euclid's, but that the Demonstrations are Theon's; and others maintain, that all the Propositions and their Demonstrations are Euclid's own. John Buteo and Sir Henry. Savile are the authors of greatest note who affert this last, and the greater part of Geometers have ever since been of this opinion, as they thought it the most probable. Sir Henry Savile, after the several arguments he brings to prove it, makes this conclusion, (p. 13. Prælect.) “ That, excepting a very
few Interpolations, Explications, and Additions, Theon altered nothing in Euclid.”
But, by often considering and comparing together the Definitions and Demonstrations, as they are in the Greek editions we now have, I found that Theon, or whoever was the Editor of the present Greek text, by adding some things, suppressing others, and mixing his own with Euclid's Demonstrations, had changed more things to the worse than is commonly supposed, and those not of small moment, especially in the Fifth and Eleventh Books of the Elements, which this Editor has greatly vitiated; for instance, by substituting a shorter, but in sufficient Demonstration of the i 8th Proposition of the 5th Book, in place of the legitimate one which Euclid had given ; and by taking out of this Book, besides other things, the good Definition which Eudoxus or Euclid had given of Compound Ratio, and giving an absurd one in place of it, in the 5th Definition of the 6th Book, which neither Euclid, Archimedes, Appollonius, nor any Geometer before Theon's time, ever made use of, and of which there is not to be found the least appearance any
of their writings; and, as this Definition did much embarrass beginners, and is quite useless, it is now thrown out of the Elements, and another, which, without doubt, Euclid had given, is put in its proper place among the Definitions of the 5th Book, by which the doctrine of Compound Ratios is rendered plain and easy. Besides, among
the Definitions of the 11th Book, there is this, which is the roth, viz. Equal and fimilar solid
Figures are those which are contained by similar “ Planes of the same number and magnitude.” Now, this Proposition is a Theorem, not a Definition ; because the equality of figures of any kind must be demonstrated, and not assumed; and therefore, though this were a true Proposition, it ought to have been demonstrated. But, indeed, this Proposition, which makes the roth Definition of the rith Book, is not true universally, except in the case in which each of the solid angles of the figures is contained by no more than three plane angles; for, in other cases, two solid figures may be contained by similar planes of the same number and magnitude, and yet be unequal to one another; as shall be made evident in the Notes fubjoined to these Elements. In like manner, in the Demonftration of the 26th Proposition of the rith Book, it is taken for granted, that those folid angles are equal to one another which are contained by plane angles of the same number and magnitude, placed in the fame order; but neither is this universally true, except in the case in which the solid angles are contained by no more than three plane angles ; nor of this case is there any Demonstration in the Elements we now have, though it be quite necessary there should be one. Now, upon the roth Definition