The bridge of Asses Turned on its head
In geometry, the theorem that the angles opposite the equal sides of an isosceles triangle are themselves equal is known as the pons asinorum (/ˈpɒnz ˌæsɪˈnɔːrəm/ PONZ ass-ih-NOR-əm), Latin for "bridge of asses", or more descriptively as the isosceles triangle theorem. The theorem appears as Proposition 5 of Book 1 in Euclid's Elements[1]. Its converse is also true: if two angles of a triangle are equal, then the sides opposite them are also equal.
Pons asinorum is also used metaphorically for a problem or challenge which acts as a test of critical thinking, referring to the "asses' bridge's" ability to separate capable and incapable reasoners. Its first known usage in this context was in 1645.[2]
There are two common explanations for the name pons asinorum, the simplest being that the diagram used resembles a physical bridge. But the more popular explanation is that it is the first real test in the Elements of the intelligence of the reader and functions as a "bridge" to the harder propositions that follow.[3]
Another medieval term for the isosceles triangle theorem was Elefuga which, according to Roger Bacon, comes from Greek elegia "misery", and Latin fuga "flight", that is "flight of the wretches". Though this etymology is dubious, it is echoed in Chaucer's use of the term "flemyng of wreches" for the theorem.[4]
The name Dulcarnon was given to the 47th proposition of Book I of Euclid, better known as the Pythagorean theorem, after the Arabic Dhū 'l qarnain ذُو ٱلْقَرْنَيْن, meaning "the owner of the two horns", because diagrams of the theorem showed two smaller squares like horns at the top of the figure. That term has similarly been used as a metaphor for a dilemma.[4] The name pons asinorum has itself occasionally been applied to the Pythagorean theorem.[5]
Gauss supposedly once suggested that understanding Euler's identity might play a similar role, as a benchmark indicating whether someone could become a first-class mathematician.[6]
In its earliest known form, Pappus's Theorem is Propositions 138, 139, 141, and 143 of Book VII of Pappus's Collection.[10] These are Lemmas XII, XIII, XV, and XVII in the part of Book VII consisting of lemmas to the first of the three books of Euclid's Porisms.
The lemmas are proved in terms of what today is known as the cross ratio of four collinear points. Three earlier lemmas are used. The first of these, Lemma III, has the diagram below (which uses Pappus's lettering, with G for Γ, D for Δ, J for Θ, and L for Λ).
Here three concurrent straight lines, AB, AG, and AD, are crossed by two lines, JB and JE, which concur at J. Also KL is drawn parallel to AZ. Then
- KJ : JL :: (KJ : AG & AG : JL) :: (JD : GD & BG : JB).
These proportions might be written today as equations:[11]
- KJ/JL = (KJ/AG)(AG/JL) = (JD/GD)(BG/JB).
The last compound ratio (namely JD : GD & BG : JB) is what is known today as the cross ratio of the collinear points J, G, D, and B in that order; it is denoted today by (J, G; D, B). So we have shown that this is independent of the choice of the particular straight line JD that crosses the three straight lines that concur at A. In particular
- (J, G; D, B) = (J, Z; H, E).
It does not matter on which side of A the straight line JE falls. In particular, the situation may be as in the next diagram, which is the diagram for Lemma X.
Just as before, we have (J, G; D, B) = (J, Z; H, E). Pappus does not explicitly prove this; but Lemma X is a converse, namely that if these two cross ratios are the same, and the straight lines BE and DH cross at A, then the points G, A, and Z must be collinear.
What we showed originally can be written as (J, ∞; K, L) = (J, G; D, B), with ∞ taking the place of the (nonexistent) intersection of JK and AG. Pappus shows this, in effect, in Lemma XI, whose diagram, however, has different lettering:
What Pappus shows is DE.ZH : EZ.HD :: GB : BE, which we may write as
- (D, Z; E, H) = (∞, B; E, G).
The diagram for Lemma XII is:
The diagram for Lemma XIII is the same, but BA and DG, extended, meet at N. In any case, considering straight lines through G as cut by the three straight lines through A, (and accepting that equations of cross ratios remain valid after permutation of the entries,) we have by Lemma III or XI
- (G, J; E, H) = (G, D; ∞ Z).
Considering straight lines through D as cut by the three straight lines through B, we have
- (L, D; E, K) = (G, D; ∞ Z).
Thus (E, H; J, G) = (E, K; D, L), so by Lemma X, the points H, M, and K are collinear. That is, the points of intersection of the pairs of opposite sides of the hexagon ADEGBZ are collinear.
Lemmas XV and XVII are that, if the point M is determined as the intersection of HK and BG, then the points A, M, and D are collinear. That is, the points of intersection of the pairs of opposite sides of the hexagon BEKHZG are collinear.
Similar to Euclid's much more famous work on geometry, Elements, Optics begins with a small number of definitions and postulates, which are then used to prove, by deductive reasoning, a body of geometric propositions about vision.
The postulates in Optics are:
The geometric treatment of the subject follows the same methodology as the Elements.
According to Euclid, the eye sees objects that are within its visual cone. The visual cone is made up of straight lines, or visual rays, extending outward from the eye. These visual rays are discrete, but we perceive a continuous image because our eyes, and thus our visual rays, move very quickly.[6] Because visual rays are discrete, however, it is possible for small objects to lie unseen between them. This accounts for the difficulty in searching for a dropped needle. Although the needle may be within one's field of view, until the eye's visual rays fall upon the needle, it will not be seen.[7] Discrete visual rays also explain the sharp or blurred appearance of objects. According to postulate 7, the closer an object, the more visual rays fall upon it and the more detailed or sharp it appears. This is an early attempt to describe the phenomenon of optical resolution.
Much of the work considers perspective, how an object appears in space relative to the eye. For example, in proposition 8, Euclid argues that the perceived size of an object is not related to its distance from the eye by a simple proportion.[8]
Comments
Post a Comment
No Comment