lertioe, etc..

ovoided the operotion withports in odding them qnd subtrocting them ond converting them into whole numbers. They contrived this by odministering numbers to the porË which they derived from the denominoiors of the ports ond by Àultiplicotion they mode these numbers the denominolors of the ports in such o woy thoi these were obout whole numbers íor the beginner. The mosters omong the oble scholors we find doing the some. (M) For those who occupied the'mselves -with ostronomicol colculotions, o-s Ptolemoeus ond others, did not siick to the ports, but possed írom them ond the,ir kind into newly devised denominotors. They divided unity into sixty ports in order to reploce whoi reloies io one holí ond one ihird ond whot is yet more owkword thon these.ond the operotion of its multiplicotion ond oddition ond thl like by whole numbers. And likewise, when ihey needed such ports they divided them olso into o whole number oÍ ports, every unit inio sixty ports ond ihey creoted nomes os minutoe, secundoe,

After mentioning this, lei us now remind the introduclion contoining the conditions by meons of multiples which Euclid used ond let us sum them up. Often rie will olter Euclidis order in them becouse of the occordonce we think there is in it with the obiecr we intend to goin. So we soy: When the rotio of ihe Íirst io the second is like the rotio of the third Ío the Íourth, then ony equimultiples found of the Íirst ond the third ond ony equimultiples found of the second ond iourth ore only íound with the propertf thot when the multiple of the Íirst exceeds the multiple of tÉe second the multip'le o'f the third too exceeds the multiple of the fourth, ond when rhe multiple oÍ rhe Íirst is equol to the multiple oÍ the second the multiple of the rhird too is equol to the multiple of the fourth, ond when' the multiple oi the first íolls short .f th; ,rft'fiu of the second the multiple of the third too Íolls short of the multiple of the fourrh. And olso when we convert this we soy: when there ore four mognitudes ond ony equimultiples found of the íirst ond the third ond ony equimultiplei found oÍ the second ond the íourth ore only.found with the property thoi when' the multiple of the first exceeds the multiple of the second, the multiple of the Íhird too ur."jd, the multiple of ihe fourïh, ond when the multiple of the fiist is equol to the multiple of the ,".ond, the multiple of the third too is equol to the multiple oÍ the íourih, ond when ihe multiple of the Íirst folls short of the multiple of the second, the multiple of the third too folls shorÍ of the multiple oÍ the fourth, then the rotio of the firsi to the second is like the roiio of the third to the fourrh, Whot remoins for us in this writing is to mention the rotio which is greoler ïhon onoiher rotio..So lsoy: When there ore four mogniludes, the {irst conioining more ports of the second thon the third contoins oÍ the some ports oÍ the fourth, ihen the size of the.first os compored with the second is greoier thon the size of rhe third or.o,-npor.J with the Íourth. This wonts no prooí, becáuse whot contoins more- ports is greoter o


roiio thon whot contoins less ports. Also I soy thot this sentence is convertible 1oo. viz. ihot when the size oÍ the first os compored with the second is greoler thon ihe size of the ihird os compored with the ÍourÍh, some ports moy be Íound of the second ond Íourth so thctt the Íirst (N) contoins more ports oÍ the second thon the ïhird of the fourth. Some things oí this kind thot we con very well do without ore presentecl omong whot is necessory. So lsoy lhot when there ore Íour mognitudes ond ony ports {ound of the second ond the fourth ore not {ound, unless if the ports oÍ the second exceed the Íirst mogniÍude, the ports of the fourth exceed the ïhird mognitude, ond if the porfs oÍ the second Íoll short oÍ the first mognitude, the ports of rhe fourth íoll shorÍ oÍ the third mogniiude, then the mognitudes oie proportionol even if we clo not menïion lhe conditiorr oÍ equolity. For to mention equolity or to leove it out comes to lhe some thing. For when they ore Íixed (enclosed) by exceeding ond Íolling short ot cr time, the condition of equolity is necessorily existont by force oÍ logic. oncl the proportionolity in the mognitudes exists. For instonce; When we cjssume foui rnqgnitudes AB, c, DE ond F, ond suppose thot ony ports ogreeing in number ond denoÀinotion token írom C ond F ore only found with the property thot when the'ports oÍ C exceed AB, then the ports of F exceed DE too. ond when the ports oÍ C Íoll short oí AB,



poris of

the ports equol to H thot it contoins ond no doubt their remoinder will Íoll between G ond E, becouse GE is greoter thon H. Let ihose pieces be DL, LM, MN. Then we subtroct from AB the pieces like K thor it contoins. From it con be subirocted os mony .pieces os from DG con be subtrocted pieces like H, becouse we hove supposed thoi the rotio of AB to C is os the rotio of DG to F, for either contoins the some number of ports of its componion. Let these ports be AO, op, pe. Now Ae is greoter thon AB, iust os DN is greoter thon DG. Therefore Ae is ports of c, ond DN is iimiloir ports of F in the some number. However AQ is greoter thon AB ond DN is less thqn DË, so thot some ports oÍ C ond F ore Íound ond the poris of C ore found to exceed AB ond the ports of F to Íoll short of DE. And we hod supposed thot no some ports of c ond F would be found so thot lhe ports oÍ c would be íound to exceed AB, unless the ports of F would be found to exceed DE. This is o conirodiction, il is impossible. Therefore if ports of C ore not found equol to AB, unless similor ports of F oie {ound

Let DG contoin os mony ports of F os AB contoins porfs oÍ C. Now you must noÍ stop dlviding F until you reoch the. first port of it thot is less thon EG. Let thot port be È. This is less thon EG. Let us toke o similor pori oÍ c, soy K. Then we subtroct Írom DE

of this is ihot iï con not be otherwise. For iÍ rhcri coulcl be, let AB be exoct c, ond let DE contoin less or more of such ports oÍ F; let DE be more.

then the poris oÍ F fcrll short of DE too, equolity not being mentioned, rhen lsoy thor ports oÍ C equol to AB ore only found if olso the porÍs of F crre equol to DE. The proof



22 23 24


to DE, then the three condilions oÍ being equol, exceeding ond íolling short ,Ë.ár"afy Íound, ond therefore the proportion (ó) is'sound, ond thot is whot we wished

to demonstrote


Alsolsoythotwhentherotio -l!éj-à A o of the first to the second ;5 greoter thon the rotio of the #

p I o

c lhird to the fourth, some Ports with the property thot the ports of the {ound only ot" the LrJn ond of ïhe second fourth too ore second ore iound to exceed the {irst mognitude if ihe ports ol l[" c is greoter AB to of rotio the instonce Íor lf found to exceed the first mognitucle. F hove the ond C thon the rorio of DE 1; f, I ioy thot oll equol ports token Írom exceed DE' will too F ports of the ic,*s of C ""te"d' AB, ;;;;til tnoi *f,"" the so, viz' if be could thot if For, soid. we thon be otherwise ït proot is thot it con not found to exceed "' C were ports of the thot property the hod F c ond ports of ,o*u ,or" C exceeding AB ÀS ond the ports o{ F were not {ound to exceed DE, iet the ports of AG ore some ond DH Now DH' DE, exceed be AG ond such ports of F thqï do not ports of c, ond contoins AB F thon ports of more conioins DE port, or F o,nd C, ond AB ïo C rotio of the so the rotio oÍ DE to F is greoter thon the rotio of AB to C; bui C ore ports of no Jherefore impossible. is *r' *" g*oter. This is o controdiciion, it wonted we whot this is ond DE; F exceed ports of some founcl exàeeding AB, unless the HE to demonslrote. A BG D -t-+f -r'# After mentioning oll this, I soy Íhot when c oi iow mognitJdes the rotio oï the Íirst to I hr----l l ïhe of the rotio thon greoier ihe second is íourth with the third to the {ourih, some ports con be found oí the second ond the ond the ports mognitude first the of short óràó"riy rhor rhe port, oi the second foll rotio of A the instonce, Íor lf, mognitude. third rhe oÍ of the fourth do not foll short find some io possible to B is greoter thon the roÏio of C to D, then I soy 'thot -it isA ond the of short foll oÍ_B ports .áru pJrt, of B ond ó-*iiÉ nf.'à property thot the token ports some oí Íound is ihis thot prooí is c. the p"rt, ii D do no, íolirho* of unless the found, not A ore oÍ short {olling à of ports {o,othur*ir" ïr"* S ond D, the rotio o{ oorts of D Íoll short oí C. And olso, becousá we hove supposed thot ports we equol whotever thot ii is certoin to D, Á-i. A gr";ter thon the rotio oÍ C exceed too of D ports ïhe A ií p, g to exceed Íound 'r B only ore ports of the íind of ;na D ore C, os we hove demonstroted in the preceding proposition. Therefore A, B, C, ports the if ïhot property lhe hove D Í-our mognltudes ond oll ports token irom B ond A the of foll short B ports oÍ the when C, ond D exceed of B exáed A the ports of D' We C to of rotio the B is to os A oÍ the rotio ThereÍore C. of shori Íoll ó"Ur "t D

ó L MG N F--{-{-.-|_{ *--t-t



other hond it is now sound too thot when t--1---{ the rotio of the first to the second is unlike I the roiio of the fhird to the fourth, it is F--------._{

supposed however thot the rotio of A to B wos greoter thon the rotio of C to D. This is o controdiction, it is impossible. ThereÍore it is not (true) ihot whofever ports token from B ore Íound less (P) thon A the poris token form D ore necessorily less ï'hon c too. lt is rother possible to {ind ports of B Íolling short of A, while the ports oí D do not foll short of C, ond this is whot we wished to demonstrote (.l5). From ïhe point of view of the multiples on the




four mognitudes ond ii is possible to find equimultiples of the first ond the third ond equimultiples of the second ond the fourth so thot the multiple oÍ the first is found to exceed the multiple of lhe second ond the multiple of the third not to exceed the multiple of the fourth, then the rotio of the first to the second is greoter thon the rotio of the ihird to the fourth. And os to its converse, o{ which we demonstroted the woy of its finding, it is this: When the rotio of the first to ïhe second is greoter thon the rotio of the third to the íourth, then it is possible to Íind equimultiples of the first ond the third ond equimultiples of the second ond the íourth so thot the multiple of t'he first is found to exceed the multiple of the second ond the multiple of ihe third not io exceed the multiple of the fourth. We thus demonstroted in ïhis writing the soundness of whot Euclid soys oboui the multiples ond thot he does not choose the explonotion of rotio by meons of the multiples withour the reoson of their sound connection with rotio. lt is even impossible to íind onylhing thot is more soundly connected with rotio ond stronger in rigour ond exoctness os to its sections ond properties lhon the multiples, becouse nobody con doubt thot rotio is not but o comporison of o mognitude with onother mognilude in order to know the size of one of the two os compored with ihe other. And the comporison oÍ the less os compored with the greoter is only known by porls of ihe greoter, ond the multiples ore only on enlorgement of fhe ports, ond the multiples inclide the

second ond the fourth with the property thot the multiple of the second is found to foll short of the multiple o{ the Íirst ond the multiple of the fourth is not Íound to foll short of the multiple o{ the third, in the sqme woy os we found ports of the second folling short of the Íirst ond ihe ports of the Íourth not folling short of the third. And likewise os we soy thot the multiple of the second folls short of the multiple of the first ond the multiple of the Íourth does not Íoll short of the multiple of the third, we soy too thot the multiple of the first exceeds the multiple oÍ the second ond the multiple of the third does not exceed the multiple of ïhe fourth. Let us now mention ihings seporotedly os Euclid mentions ihem. so we soy, There ore

of the

possible thot equimultiples ore Íound of the first ond the third ond equimultiples of the


9 10

12 13




less with the greoter os well os the comporison of the greoïer with the less, ond with ports it is only usuol lo compore the less with the greoter, olthough in ihis writing, while mentioning the ports, we hove poid no ottention to whot ploce we oiloch io ihem becouse of the opinion (Q) we hove given obout Íocilitoiing the reosoning ond the veriÍicotion of it in beholf of our need of its frequent repetition ond use. For the more it is used in the reosoning, the more there is occosion for relief ond obbrevioiion. And os io {inding in the cose of the greoier rotio ond the equlmultiples token of the first ond ïhe ïhird ond the equimultiples token of the second ond the fourth with the property thot the multiple of the first exceeds the multiple of the second ond the multiple of the third does not exceed the multiple oí the fourth, how is the woy to produce these multiples, os this condition is not found in oll multiples necessorily, but only in some multiples, os we hove mentioned, well, we know o meons by which it is produced, but only ofier we know how to produce o íourth mognitude hoving o rotio comporison

of the


4 5 ó 7


to lhree given ond known

proportionol mognitudes. We wont to f ind onother, Íourth, mognitude which will be the fourth of them ond fitting them in such o woy thot the roiio of the íirst given one to the second given one is os the rotio of the third given one ïo the fourth sought one. For if we do noi know how to produce this {ourth mognitude to the three given mognitudes then we will not know the meons to get ot Íinding the multiple in the oforesoid condition either. ln the sixth book (is wriiien) how to produce to two mognitudes o third proportionol ond ít is olso within the scope of thot book how to produce o fourth (proporïionol) to three. However this only opplies when the mognitudes ore oll lines, but os to ongles, or surÍoces, or solids we do not see this. We hove seen people trying to produce ïhis oforesoid multlple ond exerling themselves in finding this fourth mog,nitude without o proper meihod of working which might enoble ïhem to find it. For me there is no difÍerence between him who is exerting himselÍ in Íinding this fourth mognitude ond (him who is)
exerting himself in finding the multiple with the oforesoid property. And on this ground we think,ond ihe Lord knows beiter, thot Euclid uses this multiple in the twelfth proposition of the {iÍth book (ló) wiïhout it bein'g menlioned before,how is the woy to find it. Something of the kind does not weoken the proof ond does not detroct onything from it, becouse, if the thing is necessorily exislent, it con do no horm thot its exisience is used in the orgumentoiion ond ihot it is used in proving other things with it. For if this were noï ollowed in o proof we were no more permitted, Íor instonce, to believe thot the side of the sepÍogon inscribed in ïhe circle is less thon the side of the hexogon ond greoter thon the side of ihe octogon both inscribed in one circle, nor thot ïhe side of the plone hendecogon is less thon the side of the decogon ond greofer thon the side of the plone dodecogon both in one circle. For the construction of the septogonr




'l 5

1ó 17 1B 19 20

22 23



chord is not possible in the geometricol woy. Buï when we wont to show thot it is greoter thon the side of the ociogon (R) we drow o chord ond suppose it to subtend the seventh port oÍ the circle, by ossumption only, not in reolity, ond then we properly orronge the proof, ond the lock of procticobility does not horm in this theoreiicol motter. It only horms in the performonce of the drowing of it, e.g. when we intend to construct the side oÍ 'the plone regulor tetrocoidecogon inscribed in the circle, we ore not ollowed ïo drow o chord ond lo suppose, ot vorionce wi,th the truth, thot it subtends the sevenfh port of the circle, then'to divide the orc into two equol ports ond to finish the {igure. The like is not ollowed ond ihe distinction is cleor. For thot the like is ollowed in estoblishing o prooÍ ond is not {it Íor procticol perÍormonce of o drowing is evi.dent, iÍ God, who is lofty, is willing. And os our words hove conried us so for ond we hove mentioned whot we hoped to mention, it is the momeni for us to breok off our reosoning ond to conclude it to the proise of the Lord, Whose glory is greot, hollowed be His nomes. We proy to Him for íorgiveness ond to excuse our error ond stumbling ond ïo guide (us) to whot
pleoses Him of truth in word ond deed. Finished is the commentory on rotio occord'ing

ó 7



AbO (Abd Allêh Muhqmmod ibn Mu(êdh ol-Dioiiênï, God hove mercy upon him.

to the reosoning of the íokïh








definition of proportionol mognitudes. For o better understonding of whot could be soid oboui the outherrticity of ihe Greek text one must toke into occount the port thot Theon of Alexondrio octed in iÍs trodition. About ihis Diiksterhuis (2) writes the Íollowing, "The woy in which the text of the Elemenls hos reoched us hos been greotly inÍluenced by the version oÍ it written by Theon of Alexondrio (end of the 4th century A.D.). Theon's obiect seems to hove been noï so much to render the text os pure os possible os to moke the confenls os cleor os posslble; he rectified ,ên-ors, or whcrt he thought to be errors, modernised the mode of expression, inserled propositions, corrollories ond coses thot Euclid opporently hod thought superfluous, ond elucidoted the course of prooÍs where he thought it lioble for possible difíiculties. The consequence of this opening up the work wos thot loter Greek outhors used Theon's iext olmost exclusively, ond perhops one never wculd hove Íound out how much he oltered in ihe other wordings, if Peyro.rd hod not discovered in I 8l 0 o monuscript the Íext of which wos older thon Theon's. This so-ccrlled monuscript P wos used by Heiberg in composing ihe fomous text-edition thot by this time generolly underlies the study of Euclid." 3. The firsi seven definitions in Book 5 occording to Heiberg ore, oc'. Mépoq èoci péye0oe g.eyé0ouq cà l. A mogniiude is o port oÍ o mogniëÀorooov roU peí(ovoq, 6rav xxrutude. the less of the greoter, when perpï rà peï(ov. it meosures the greoter. p'. IIo),Àocn).áotov 8è cà preï(ov coU 2. The greoter is o multiple of the less èÀ&rcovoq, (nav x*ragerpicar, órà when it is meosured by the less.

. Al-Dioiiónï.wrote his commentory (l) in deíence of Euclid's work becouse some people were not sotisfied with it ond tried io moke it complele or cleor occording to their own thinking' ln porticulor in view of Euclid's definiiion of proportionol mogniiudes he remorks' For mony think thot Euclid opprooches the explonotion of rotio from o door olher thon ils proper door, ond introduces it in o wrong woy by his definiiion oÍ it by ioking multiples, ond in his seporoting írom its deÍinition concerning its essence thot which is understood by the very conception of rofio; ond they iudge ihot there is no obvious conneclion between rotio ond ioking multiples. 2. BeÍore veriíying os to how Íor oiher monuscripts beor oui ihis slolement of ol-Dioiióni's, lom bound to discuss the Greek text thot wos subiected to the soid criticism, confining myself os much os possible to Euclid's conception of roÍio qnd his

à'. Àóyov ë7.er,.r rpàq ,ii).l1).oc


& 8óvorrar no),),ocrcÀocor,a(ó5.

pr,eva riÀtrí1Àcov órcepéXer,v.

Mognitudes ore soid to hove o rolio to eoch other thqt con be multiplied so os to exceed eoch other.


'Ev rQ arlcQ ).óyqo g.e1é01 ),êye'cat eïv*r, rp6rov npàg àeócepov xai tpírov Yrpàq cérapcov, 6tav td, coU npótou xocl cpítou iod.xr.6 no),),otr\cítovtx ràv roU àeurépou v"d.i 'cerdpcou ioáxr,q no),ÀocnÀaoí<,.tv xotO' ónor,ovoUv zroÀÀarc).ocor,ao6r,àv ëx,i' Íepov êxo(Íépou i &pa ónepé11 i &p"aïo,x fi t &p" êÀÀeíq tr190évca

Mognitudes ore soid to be in the some rotio, the first to the second ond the third to the Íourth, when ony equinumerol multiples of the first ond third simultoneously exceed, ore

equol to, or foll shorl of the equinumerol multiples of the second ond íourth Íoken in corresponding order.

q'. Tà àe ràv aritàv ëXovcoc tróyov
pe"1éfu d,váÀo"1ov xaÀeío0o.

Let mognitudes which hove Íhe sotne rotio be colled proportionol.


"Otav 8è tóv ioáxr,q no).ÀazcÀocouóv cà pèv toU npótou zcoÀ).ctn),&otov órepé1p coii 'roU Seucépou rcoÀ),azctraoiou, cà 8è toU tpí'rou roÀ).orco$ co6 tec&.p' nÀd.ouov g,l '5zepéX1 Íou rcoÀlo(?rlaoiou, róte tà rcpótov
àeócepov pr.eí(ova Àóyov ëXerv Àéyecar, iinep tà cpítov rcpàg

of the equinumerol multiples the multiple oÍ the first exceeds the multiple of the second, the multiple
of rhe third however does not exceed the multiple of the Íourth, then the Íirst is sojd lo hqve o greoier rotio

to the second ihon the third hos
the fourih.


cà técaptov.
These must b,e completed by the following oddltions'


in y':

npà6 &trÀr1)'a (rcor,à oXéorq),
(some siole)

to be tronsloied os,

with regord io eoch olher; ond


roU ë),ártovoq. Àóyoq êoti àóo pr.eye0óv ópr.oyevdv \ xa-rà n"r1)l.N6r7rà now otrê,or,q.

b. oíter



Rotio is some stote of two mognitudes

d,vaÀoyíoc 8è

i cóv Àóy<,rv revÍóÍ\e


in conneciion with


to be tronsloted os' Proportion is the identity of rotios;



c. or ofter 6': d,vaÀoyíor 8é êotrv { róv Àóy<ov óp,orór46 to be tronsloted os: Proportion is the conÍormity oÍ rotios.


by ïhem, the numbers of times (quoiients) in lhese meosurements ore the some; ond
thus crd inÍinitum." So Íor ol-M6hdnï.


On these definitions Thêbir ibn Qurro (3) hod giverr his opinion, with reÍerence to which ol-Mêhêni (4) wrote o treotise (5). ln this -he remorks ihoi the former íor o betïer understonding oÍ rotio hod referred to numerol rotios (iumkinu li,l_)insóni on (olo'rhi min qiboli 'l-mo(rifori bi'l-nisboti (oló ,l-sobïli ,l-lodo<Jïioti). ioqiÍo under th.e heoding "ratio" (Íi 'l-nisboti) he writes, ,,The rotio of two homogeneous mognitudes ond olso thot of two numbers is the stote (ol_hólu) of either of them when meosured by the other ((indo toqdïrihi li-sóhibihi) or. .onuur."ly. Three coses must


be distinguished:


th9 less tokes up the greoter entirely (istoghroqohu) sc thot no remcrinder of it
is left;

2. the less does not ioke up the greoÍer
less thon the less; when

is thot the stote oÍ one mognitude (ol-monsObu) of the first poir with regord to the other (ol-monsObu iloihi) os to Íoking up entirely in meosuring, ond olso ihe number of times (quotient) in thot meosuring, is like the itote oÍ one Àognitude of the second poir wifi regord Ío the other.os ro meosuring ond the numbers of times (quoiients).,, Ïhe outhor remorks thot this holds good likewise when the mognitudes of 'eoch poir qre interchonged, ond besides lhot being proportionol in the iwo other coses is in occordqnce with this one, i.e. thot if the order of meosurement is mointoined the numbers oÍ times (quotients) ore the some. Under the heoding "proportion" (fï 'l-mundsoboti) he wrires: ,,The mognitudes thot hove one rotio ore those hoving the property thot when the first ond third oru meosured by the second ond {ourth, or conversely, the numbers oí times (quotients) in both meosurements ore rhe some; ond thot, if oÍ both (mognitudes) (remoinders) ore left less thon ihe two less (mognitudes), ond if the less Àognitudes ore meosured

remoinder) orld when this is done continuously, then o remqinder is orrived ot thot tokes up the Íoregoing rest entirely, èr 3. one does not orrive ot o remoinder toking up the foregoing entirely. Thg first two coses 'belong to rhe .or", oi comporotive meosurement Íound with numbers os well os wilh mognitudes, the third is only found with mognitudes.,, After this ol-Móhónï writes under the heoding ',being pr:oportionol,, (Íï,1-tánêsubi): ,,This

entirely but of the greoter (something) is Íhe less is meosured by rhis (reÀoinder), then it àkes it up entirely èr (something) is left less ïhon the firsÍ remoinder; when now the íirst (remoinder) is meosured by this (second remoinder) then it tokes it up entirely, èr o remoinder is leÍt; when now the second (remoinder) is meosured by'this (thiiJ

The well-known commenÍory (ó) oÍ ol-Noirizi (Z) is olso importont in view of the trodition oÍ the text, os it is odded lo the tronslotion of the Elements by ol-Hodidlódi (8). The definiïions begin os Íollows, "The less mognitude is o port (diuz'un) of the greoter when it meosures the greoier (kêno iuqoddiru)." To this is odded in the morgin, "Parl, such is o mogniïude of n mognitude, the less of the greoter, when jt meqsures the greoter". "Also the greoler is o multiple oÍ the less when it is meosured by the less" ond further' "Rotio is o cerioin relotion (idóÍotun) os to meosure (qodrun) between Íwo mognitudes of the some species", to which is odded in the morgin: "Rotio is the identiÍicotion (oiiiio,Íun) (9) of the meosurement of two homogeneous mognitudes, eoch of ihem with regcrrd io the other, whotever the meosure might be." Then Íollows thot "rotio is the slote of one quoniiiy (qodrun) with regord to onother quontity of the some species." This stoie is "o reloiion of one of two mognitudes with the other, I meon thot the first is meosured by the oÍher". OÍ this stoïe two vorieties crre found, viz. the stote of commensurobility (ol-isitirêku) ond the stote of incommensurobility (ol-tobdiunu). As to the stote of commensurobility, it implies for the two mognitudes ihe existence oÍ onother mogniiude thot meosures both entirely (iotudduhumê diomï(on), or thot one oÍ them meosures the other. lÍ one of them meosures the other the stote oÍ the less with regord to lhe greoter is the stote of ihe port (ol-djuz'u) ond the stote of ihe greoter with regord to the less is the stote of the multiple (ol-od(ófu). lf however oÍ the greoter o remoinder is left less thon the less mognitude, ihen this remoinder is bound to meosure the less mognitude orrd to toke it up entirely (iostoghriquhu) in meosuring (bi'l-(oddi), èr oÍ the less o remoinder is leít less thon the first remoinder. When this meosures the less mognitude ond tokes it up entirely in meosuring, ïhen this remoinder is the third mognitude thoÍ meosures lhe fwo commensuroble mognitudes. lf however o remoinder is left less ihon ihe {irst remoinder, lhen this second remoinder is ogoin bound to meosure the Íirst remoinder ond to toke it up entirely in meosuring,

o remoinder is left less thon the second remoinder. lf it meosures this (second remoinder) ond tokes it up entirely in meosuring, then fhis remoinder, I meon the third remoinder, is the third mognitude thot meosures the two commensuroble mognitudes entirely (diomïton). lf however o remoinder is left less thon the third remoinder, ïhen there ore two possibilities (fo)inno hódhihi 'l-hólo nrino 'l-toÍóduli loisot tochl0 rnin diihotoini), either the meosuring oÍ the remoinders orrives ol o remoinder thot meosures the foregoing ond tokes ii up entirely, so thot this remoinder is the third mognitude Íhot meosures the two mognitudes ond the stote of the less with regord lo the greoter



is lhe stoÍe of porïs (hólu'l-'odizó)i), whirst ihot remoinder is one of the ports oÍ the greoter, or the oÍfoir dces noi orrive ot o remoinder thot meosures the foregoing enÍirely, but the process continues od inÍinitum. This losi stote of one mognitude wilh regord fo the other is the stote of incommensurobility.,,

(with regord to eoch other)." The outhor then eloborotes this point giving due ottention the numbers of Íimes (quotients) thot eoch remoinder meosure-s thJ foregoing, o Iess remoinder olwoys being left ot the end. Thereupon he soys,,,When thi. áqrËnce (ol-todówulu) in meosuring the remoinders never ceoses to lurn out equolly od infinitum. then it is soid thot the mogniiudes, their stote being os mentioned, ore proporlionol, ond this stote is Íhe stote of similority oí roÍios.,, After this Íhe outhor first gives on exomple ond extends his reosoning to the stote of being greoter in rotio, whereupon he soys thot Euclid gives ihe deÍinition,,,Four mogniludes ore soid to'be in one roiio (fï nisboiin wêhidoiin), the first to ihe second ond the third 1o the fourth, when equinumerol (ol-mutosówiiotu 'l-morróri) multiples of the first ond third, eiiher olike exceed, or olike ore equol to, or olike foll short of equinumerol multiples of the second ond fourih, when compored consecutively (idhê qisot colê'l-wiló)i) one with the other. The outhor expresses his opinion,,thot tLis is o mcrÍler lhot does not need o prooÍ, becouse it belongs to the principles for him who hos odvonced so {or. For every book (10) hos its principles occording to its ploce in the ronge of books (inno hódhó sioi)un loiso luhtódiu (oloihi iló burÉónin li-onnohu mino (indo

(ow só)iru ohwóli 'l-nisbofi 'ilêiï hiio li'l-moqódïri ,l-musiiorikoii), rhen the lrote of ihe two olher mognifudes with reqord to eoch other is the some stote too. This is o quolity ond not o quontity. And in occordonce with this is the stote oÍ incommensurobles

He (i.e. Euclid) soys similority, becouse this stote is o quolity (koifiiotun) ond noÍ o quo.ntity (kommïiotun)' For when the stote of ihe íirst two mognitudes (with regord to eoch other) is the stote of equolity, then the stote of the othár two mognitudes (with regord to eoch other) is the stote of equolity too; ond when the stote of Íhe Íirst two mogniÍudes is the stote of multiple, or the siote of port, or the stote of poris, or one of the other slotes of rotio thot ore found in the cose of commensuroble mognitudes

olherwise, then this siole is noÍ the siote of similority ond there is no being proporÍionol.

After this the outhor remorks thot Euclid soys: ,,Being proporiionol is similority of roïíos", ond thcrt this similority implies "o comporison -(muqálosotun) the stote of of two mognitudes (with regord Ío eoch other) ond ihe sfote of two (other) msgn;1gjs5 (wit'h regord io eoch other) thot ore in ihe some rotio ((oló nisboti,hi),,.,,Wíen fhis sloie oí the first two mogniiudes is olso Íhe stote of the other two mognitudes, then it is soid thoi this stote is the siote of similority of rotios. When however motters stond

bihosbi morÍoboii tilko 'l-moqdloli)." Then follow Euclid's words"'Let mognitudes fhot ore in one rotio be colled proportionql (muionÓsibotun)", ond "when ihe equinumerol multiples ore such thot the multiple of the first of them exceeds the multiple of the second, ond the multlple of the third does not exceed the multiple of the fourih, then it is soid thot the rotio of the first tot ihe second is greoter thon the rotlo of the third

to ïhe fourth."
So for ol-Noirizï.
Ibn ol-Hoithom (l l) in his commentory on Euclid's premisses (.l2), so for os Book 5 is concerned, writes the following, "Rotio is o certoin relotion, ond when there is o certoin relotion it is only found with two things." Then he divides rotio into the generol rotio (ol-nisbotu 'l-mudjmolotu) ond the deÍinjÍe rotio (ol-nisbotu 'l-mu(oiionotu). The first contoins ossertions obout greoier ond less, or something like such porï, etc,. The definite roiio however is subdivided into three species; l the roiio of equolity;2. the double, or o certoin multiple, or the holf, or o certoin port, or certoin ports, or whot is composed oÍ these; 3. when we soy: the rotio oÍ this mognitude to this mognitude is the rotjo oÍ this other mognitude to this other mognitude. These three species ore (ododiioiun) ond ïhe rotio thot combined in two species: "the numerol rotio (nisbotun


is not numerol (ghoiru .ododïlotin)." Numerol roiios ore the rotio of equolity, the multiple ond the ports, o non-numerol rotio is the roiio Íhot con be Íound bui connot be expr,essed (hiio md iumkinu on i0diodo wo Id iumkinu on iuntoqo bi-hÓ). This rotjo is found wiih the continuous quoniities (Íi'l-kommïioti 'l-muitosiloti), buï it moy olso be Íound with numbers, íor inslonce where irrotionol roots ore concerned. On the rotio Íound with continuous mognitudes ïhe outhor soys thot fhis rotjo is subdivided


mon inrohó iló hódhó'l-mowdi(i idh kóno li-kulli moqólotin owó)ilu

into two species, the numerol rotio ond the non-numerol one. "The numerol rotio in the cose of continuous mognitudes, one of Íhem to the other, is like the rotio oÍ o number to o number; ond this is cleor. For omong mognitudes (couples) ore found one (mogniude) of whlch is o multiple of the other, or a port oÍ it, or porïs of it, or equol to it. All these rotios ore found with numbers too." As to the mogniiudes with o non-numerol rolio the outhor remorks thot it is chorocter(old istic of eoch poir oÍ mognitudes of thjs kind (min chós,soti kulli miqdóroini hódhihi 'l-sifoti) ïhot when one is meosured by the other, etc., the successive remoinders do not orrive ot o remoinder meosuring the Íoregoing one. After hoving expotioied on the numerol rotio the outhor soys: "The de{inition of rotio found in oll specles oÍ ïhe continuous quontiiy, which comprises oll rotios used by ihe oncients, is thot rotio is the idenïlÍicotion of the meosure (oijïiotu qodri) of one of two mognitudes with regord to the other. A porophrose (tofsïrun) of it is thot when the quontity of mognltudes is in question, rotio is the very notion inquired (ol-nisbotu hiio



'l-mo(nó 'llódhi

kommijori 'l-moqódiri

.proportionol mognitudes ore Íhose hoving the soid chorocteriiiic l.há*oírni "And", soys ibn ol-Hoithom, "upon my liÍe, it is on indispensoble chorocleristic (chêssoÍun lózimotun) oÍ. proportionol mognitudes. However, when only stoted ii is not cleorly underslood (illê onnohó loisot zóhiroton li 'l-fohmi bi- mudiolrodi ,l-qouli), but needs o proof." To the proof he gives lwill return loter on (13).
So for ibn ol-Hoithom.


oulhors defined rcrtio with other worclings (bi-olÍêzin ghoiri hódhihi) ond this is whoÍ they soid: lt is o cerloin relotion (idófotun mó) of t*o"ho,nog"neous rnognitudes os io mognitude (fi 'l-miqdóri). Euclid mentions the definirion of iotio in Book V; in some monuscripts (Íï bo(di 'l-nusochi) it is found in the {irst wording, irr other lronus.ripts; in the second one." lbn ol-Hoithom's opinion is ihot both qreïorrect. Then he enters into detoils obout ports ond multiples, bringing up,or" geometricol questions ond one of linguisiic r.roture too when soying th*ot-,,di'.Íun,, ,"átty rrl"on, "equol" (ol-di(fu huwo,l-motholu). Then íollows the definition: "The mognitucJes thot hove o rotio to one onother ore those thot mulriplied (idhó d0(ifot) ore topoble of exceecling on, ánoth"r.,, The outhor demonsiroles thot it points to being of ihe some species. The next de{inition runs os Íollows"'Mognitudes ore soid to be in one rotio, the first Ío the second qnd the third to the Íourth, when equimultiples token of the Íirst ond the ihird either olike exceecl equimultiples of the second ond the íourth, or olike ore equol to them, or fqll short of the,m, when token in (due) order, whotever the mulripies moy be.,, The outhor eloborotes on this point,. ofter which he quotes Euclid,s words, ,,Leí mognitudes which hove one rotio be colled proporlionol." He then recopitulotes the foregoing by soying

'llódhï jus)olu .onhu bi-oilin). More recenr

Of lhe commentory 7.. "roiio ond


meosu.re*.(oijï1otu qodri) of two homogeneous mognitudes, one wiih regord to the other." Then the ouÍhor exploins the meoning of htmogeneous by meons oÍ Euclid,s next deÍinition (the 4th), ofter which he returns to the foregoing one. He develops the succession of possibilities in the usuol woy, viz. orguing- thJt the less is either o port of the greoter ond tokes it up entirely when they ors reloted to one onother, or it is ports oÍ it, or yet something else ((olo wodihin óchoro).,, After this he soys thot "it is chorocteristic oÍ quontity to be submittobie to the considerotion of eqrol or unequol. Now rotio is ihe essence of this considerotion when two homogeneous mognitudes ore reloted lo one onolher ond of the consideroiion of someth'Ág else connected with it, ond this is the mogniÍude (miqdêru) of thot rotio when it is J rotio

being proportionol ond the true essence of either.,, lt begins os follows, "ïhe element-writer soys obout the essence of rotio thot it is the ideniificotion oÍ the

of cUmor ol- Choiiêmi (lS) rhe second chopter deols


of mognitudes (nisboïun miqddriiotun). This is more cleor in the cose of numerol rotios (ol-(ododïldtu). The Íirst thing found os to roiios is Íound with numerol rotios, viz. thot numbers ore reloted to one onother, ond it is íound thot they ore eiiher equol or unequol. Then unequols ore compored ond it moy be found thor ïhe less meosures (icr(uddu) the greoter, os three (meosures) nine. Then the number of times (quotient) is looked for thot three meosures nine, ond three is found: lherefore ihree meosures nine three Íimes. Of this the nome is deduced in occordonce wifh linguistic rules, ond it is soid to be the thi,rd port; hence the roiio is one ihird." The outhor extends this considerofion to ihe cose of poris, ofter which he continues, "Then one looks Íor this notion with mognitudes too ond finds wiïh them, besides thêse t'wo coses, o third cose in consequence of the fqct thot mogniïudes ore noï composed of indivisible ports, ond thot their division hos no definite end os is the cose with numbers (wo dhóliko onno'l-moqódiro ghoiru murokkobotin mino'l-odizê'i 'llótï lê tondjozi)u wo loiso li-'nqisêmihimê nih6jotun mohd0dotun komê li'l-'ododi). For numbers ore composed of indivisible ports, eoch of which being the unit." AÍter this the outhor discusses how the less is subtrocted Írom the greoter until o remoinder is left less thon the less. ond how this process leods io on end in the cose oÍ numbers. For ihis he refers to Book 7. With mognitudes however fhis process is not .l0. bound te leod to of end, which Euclid discusses in Book tUmor declores, "we do not need this in our reosoning. When this is "However", how motters stond it does noi {ollow os o motter of course lhot of two orbitrory mognitudes the less is either o port of the greoter, èr ports of it, but yet onother possibilily is to be observed, not in the woy of numbers, but in the woy of mognitudes. lf now somebody should soy thot these ihree coses do not present themselves oi oll, bui only the two coses thot occur with numbers, then we reply ond soy thot ii does not give us crny trouble to view Íhe rules oÍ rotio ond proporiion from these three ongles. Should this subdivision prove io be obsurd in the course of the reosoning, well, we would not be to blome íor ii. Should it prove however noÍ to be obsurd, lhen we hove mentioned it ot leost ond hove exhousted oll possible coses. For this is o mysrery írom which other very deep logicol mysteries ore to be leorned. ThereÍore, try to grosp it l" "Then he (Euclid) comes to being proportionol qnd sols: This is similority of rotios. From the linguistic point of view this is o nice phrose, but in his interpretotion (ló) of it he deviotes excessively from the ïrue essence (hoqïqotun) of being proportionol." After this the outhor quotes the sth definition ot Íull length, togeiher with the óth, remcrrking however thot it does not infringe upon tlre importonce of ïhe true esseniiol. For when, for instonce, ihe first is the holf of the second Íhe third is bound to be the holf oÍ the fourth ioo. Then he quotes the definition of whot hos o greoter roiio ond

Lt^ JíT


continues os follows: "These ore his (Euclid's) words obout being proportionol, ond we will coll it the common woy of being proportionol (ol-tonêsubu 'l-mosjh0ru). As for ourselves we will deol with the true woy of being proportionol (ol-tonêsubu'l-hoqiqïiu), whilst the whole Sth book deols with the common woy." ïhen the outhor develops his own ideo, the first port of which he recopitulotes os Íollows, "When there ore four mognitudes ond the íirót is o port oí the second, ond fhe third the some port of the fourth; or the Íirst is ports of the second ond the third the some ports of the fourth, ihen the rotio oÍ the first to the second will not íoil to

o,taussroN oF THF




be like the rotio of the third io the Íourth. This is the numerol rotio (ol-nisboiu 'l-(ododilotu)." AÍter this follows on exposiiion of whot is found when the mognitudes ore incommensuroble ond the successjon of remoinders in the we]lknown process does not come io on end. lf under lhese circumsionces the number of ïimes (quotient) thot o remoinder rneosures the foregoing (remoinder) in the relotion of the íirst (mognitude) to the second mognitude is equol ïo the number o{ times (quotlent) thoï the corresponding remoinder meosures ïhe foregoing (remoinder) in the relotion of the third (mognitude) to the fourth mognitude, ihen he soys thot the rotio of the íirst to ïhe second is like the roiio of ihe third to the íourth, "and", he soys, "this is the true woy oÍ being proportioncrl in the geometricol kind."

for cUmor ol-Choiiênri.

similority. As opposed to Euclid's woy o{ deoling with the subiect motter of Book 5 they propose onother method, which is in oll four coses essentiolly the some. Hence the question orises whether we ore entilled to toke this foct Íor o symptom of o monner of thinking typicol of the scientists oí the Moslim period. All Arobion mothemoticol octivity however wos so lorgely dependent on the Greek trodiiion thot we connot help being very suspicious of conclusions obout essentiolly new ideos. iri recent yeors the birth ond growÍh of Greek mothemoilcs were ïhoroughly investlgoted (1). The notion we ore now oble to form of ils evolution, on the outhority oÍ Dijksterhuis o.o., shows o twoÍold crisis cri the end of the 5rh century B.C. (2). Leoving oside the difficulties with regcrrd io continuity ond inÍinity I will poy due oltention to the other stumbling-block' the discovery thot irrotionolity is o generol phenomenon, viz. thot "the implied ossumption thot eoch poir of homogeneous mognitudes hos o roiio oÍ o number to o number" is incorrect. ln this connecïion we must becrr in mind thot the Greek notion o{ number comprised only the iniegers 2,3, 4, etc.. An excellent solution of the diÍficulties orising from the soid discovery wos incorporoted in the woy Euclid deolt with proportions in Book 5 of the Elements. However Íhe question remoins to be seen whether the Greeks could hove cieored fheir reputotion of hoving bosed their notion of proportionoliiy on the oforesoid error in o woy more in line with their originol conception of rotio.


The Arobion commenlories quoted

in the foregoing chopier show o


2. lt is more thon likely thot

oitempts of the kind hove been mode by the Greeks presumobly olmost crt ihe some time in which Eudoxus moulded his theory of proportion ln the concrete Íorm known to us Írom the prefoce of Book 5 of the Elemenis (3). The following short exposition moy support the conlecture {ormuloted ot its end. lf two homogeneous mognitudes ore commensuroble they hove o common meosure, viz. o mognitude exists going into both precisely when they ore meosured by it. Lei us suppose for o moment thoi ihe common meosure of two mogniludes o ond b goes 35 times in o ond ló times in b, which numbers however ore unkn,own to us. Now we meosure lhe greoter by the less ond find,thot is goes 2 times, leoving o remoinder 11, less thon b. This remoinder is 3 times the common meosure, but this too is unknown to us. Then we meosure the less by this first remoinder ond find thot it goes 5 iimes in it, leoving o second remoinder 12, less thon 11 . This second remoinder is the common meosure itself, but we do not know this beforehond. We therefore meosure the Íirst

remoinder by the second remoinder ond Íind thot
Hence we








in it




ï:; =lï;ïJi,=àfl;

ln Íhis woy we find the rotio oÍ two mognitudes together wiih iheir common meosure. Euclid proctised the method in the Books 7 ond 10, using the term d,v()ugar,peïv to denote the olternote meosuremenl oÍ the successive remolnders. Now we toke two different poirs of mognitudes ond try to find the roïio oÍ either poir in the qforesoid woy. Eoch poir for itself musÍ be homogeneous but no more is required. The relotion of the mognitudes of one poir "in respecï oÍ size" is effectively chorocterized by the series of numbers (quotients) indicoting how mony times eoch mognitude or rernoinder goes into the {oregoing (i.e. next greoter) one. Therefore it is not for-fetched to soy ihot it would hove been in perfect occordonce with the originol (numerol) Greek notion of rolio to coll the rqtio of the {irst poir equol to the rotio of ihe second poir iÍ the soid series oÍ quolients in both coses is the some. However, of the end oÍ the Sth century B.C. the Greeks were well owore of the foct thot Íor from oll poirs oÍ mogniiudes hove o common meosure. Hence they olso knew perfectly well thot the series o{ quotients in mony coses does not orrive ot o definiie end. For if it does o common meosure is found ond the rotio will be numerol. lÍ now, finolly, iwo pcrirs of mognitudes produce the so,me in{inite series of quotients, neither hos o rotio in the originol (numerol) sense. Nevertheless it would not hove been o lorge step for the Greeks to declore: Two poirs oÍ mognitudes hove the some rotio if the series of quolients in one poir is the some os the series of quotients in the other

Zeuthen's solution is the following.

ln his commentory Alexonder soys upon the possoge mentioned: "The definition now proportionol ore mognitudes to one onother of proportion 'hove thot the oncients used is this: however colled the dv0ugaí9eol6 . Aristotle the so,me d,v0ugcrípE6tq which ." &vravaLpectq It is evldent ihot for Alexonder the meoning of dv0ugaípeor,q must hove been perfectly cleor. From where then did he get the ierm? An obvious coniecture is: from Euclid, whom he cites more thon once ond whose work he supposes to be common knowledge. Now Euclid does noÍ use lhe noun, but in 7; 1,2 ond l0; 2,3 he uses fhe verb civ0ugaupeÏv in the sence of subtrocting in turn one mognÍtude or number or o remoinder of ii from the other or its remoinder in order to find the greotest common hqndled o proportion by meons of on d,v0ugotípeor,6 , i.e. ihey developed it into meosure. At this point of the reosoning Íhe conclusion leops to the eye: the "oncients"

o continued Íroction. They were perÍectly owore of the foct thoï in the cose of iwo equol rotios, "the relotion in respecï of size" being the sqme, the immediote consequence of this someness wos the oppeoronce of two identicol "choins" oÍ quotienÏs, whether Íinite or infinite. Their definition there{ore covered rotionol os well os irrotionol proportions Why then, we might osk, did it foll into the bockground? A plousible onswer would be , becouse oÍ its improcticobility. This solution however wos disproved by Becker, who developed o generol Íheory of proportion bosed on the onthyphoireticol definition ond exten.ded so Íor os to cover the needs of Euclid l0 (ó)'

ond in this respect wos not inferior to the Euclideon one.

poir, irrespeciive of whether these series ore finite or infinite.
"Thot this method hos ployed o port in Greek mothemotics onyhow", soys Diiksterhuis in 1929 (4), "is confirmed by the monifoid occurrence oí opproximofions of irrotionol volues thot upon exominoiion oppeor io be opproximoting froctions of developments into continued froctions". ln our exomple of this porogroph the rotio oÍ o to b con be
expressed by'




which in o corresponding woy lecrds to on infinitely continued froction in cose the rotlo for lock of o common meosure is "irrotionol", tippq'coq. Moreover we hove evidence yet more closely connected with the Íheory of rolio.

ln Topics Vlll.3, 158b, 29-35 Aristoile refers to o definition of "hoving the some rotio" ihot comes ïo "hovlng lhe some d,vravaipeor,q ". Heoth (in ,l908) reolised thot it wos not identicol with the Euclideon one, but {oiled to give o sotisfoctory explonotion. This wos, probobly for the Íirst time, given by Zeuthen (in lglZ), but it
seems to hove remoined unobserved until 192ó when Junge independently of the former


pointed to lhe some obvious solulion. A more eloborote study of it wos then produced by Hosse ond Scholz (in 'l928) (5) ond in porticulor by Becker (in 'l93ó) (ó).

Hoving thus found by o lucky chonce o single possoge in Aristotle (ond not even in o mothemoticol work) pointing to the existence in the flowering oge of Greek mothemotics of o current conception of rotio devioting essentiolly from the Euclideon one, we find in the Moslim period on ovowed preference for the very ideos thot Íhe Greeks seem to hove kept dork so coreÍully thot it oppeors to hove been done intentionolly. ln olmost every writing on the subiect fhe Euclideon process oÍ Íinding ïhe greotest common meosure of two mognitudes is ossumed os the noturol source of oll ideos obout rotio ond proportionolity. Nevertheless we must noi lose sight oÍ the {oct thot qn eloborote Arobion theory of proportions, bosed on the onthyphoireticol conception of rotio hos noï been found u,p to the present. I think it proboble thot this is moinly o consequénce oÍ the greot perfection of Ëuclid's woy of deoling with the subiect motter, o woy thot took the wind out of the soils of his rivols. Thot the Greeks did not so much qs mention the whole theory is not so surprising

oíter oll. At thot time their ospirotion for beoufy on'd virtue, for perfection indeed, hod met with ïhe temptotion of octuol finolity. Perfection seemed to hove come within



fheir reoch, thence they wei"e impotient wiih oll thot could noi stond its ïest. For Sporton worrjors to dispose of weok infonts wos os noturol os the proctice of Greek mothemoticions in Euclid's oge never to publish onything in o siote oÍ deÍeciiveness or unÍinished development; ond crs long os the onthyphoireiicol woy of deoling with proporiions could not beor comporison wiih the Euclideon method the)r were rglhêr inclined to ignore il. They invented the synthetic woy of enuncioting fhe outcome of fhe)r invesligotions, ihot up io the present is used in most mothemoticol textbooks. The exception thot proved the rule wos Íound in 'l90ó by Heiberg, the so-colled Ephodos of Archlmedes, o writing by the greot mothemoiicion deoling with ïhe woy in which he hod deduced some theorems thot he hod proved elsewhere in o rigorous woy b,y
exhoustion (7). mothemoticol proc{uctivity must ïoke occount of o diÍference in ottitude belween the Greeks ond the Arobion scientists oÍ the middle o'ges. The Iotier enterloined o deeprooted venerotion for the Greek clossics, toking them for perfect olmost by oxiom. As to their own work, however, they hod no pretensions of

coses the reosoning storts from the numerol rotio, whilst the Euclideon process

of finding privote o view to ïo oppose ottempts oll meosure underlies Íhe greotest common Fuclid's conception of rotio ond his definition of proportionol mognitudes. Once more I will troce this briefly in the quoied references. Al-Mohênï (respectively Thêbit ibn Qurro) brings out cleorly ihot for him rotio is the mutuol be,hoviour of two mogniiudes when compored with one onother by meons of ïhe Euclideon process oÍ finding the greotest common meosure; ond thot two poifs of mognitudes ore proportionol when the two series oÍ quotients oppeoring in thot process ore identicol.
Al-Noirïzï develops esseniiolly the some iheory. He builds no bridge to Euclid's definition oÍ proportionol mognitudes, but expresses his opinion thot the lotter hos the chorocïer of o principle.thot must be ossumed ond connol be proved. lbn ol-Hoithqm disiinguishes between numerol ond non-numerol rotios qnd remorks thot it is chorocteristic of the lotter thoi the Euclidesn process of Íinding the greotest common meosure does not orrive ot on end with mogniÍudes hoving such o rotio to one onother. As opposed to ol-Noirizi's his opinion is thot Euclid's definition needs o proof. This prooÍ functions os o bridge between the two difÍerent ideos obout proportionolity. Through the intermediory of iï lbn ol-Hoithom hopes to preserve the odvontoge of eiihe'r conception, viz. psychologicol sotisfoction os well qs logicol iustlíicotion. ln short it comes

5. A posiÍive evoluotion of Moslim

the kjnd, ond they reveoled iheir troin of thoughts without ony diÍfidence, being inïerested ot the some time in thoÍ of olhers. This mode ïhem view the study of mothemotics from the psychologicol ongle more thon ihe Greeks did, who confined themselves olmost exclusively to logic. The Euclideon doctrine of proportions indeed mel the relentless requirements oÍ contemporory logic, when previous woys of deoling with roiio hod become disc'redited crs o result of the discovery oÍ irrotionolity os o
generol phenomenon. From the form in which it wos presented, however, liitle or norhing could be deduced regording lhe woy in which it hod come into being. Now obouï rolio ond proportionolity, unlike most other diíficult notions in mothemotics, o certoin omount of knowledge will originote more or less intuitively ond spontoneously in the mind of ony person occupying himself with them in on oitentive woy. lf he is o iroined mothemoticion he will no doubt be disposed to odmiï thot o logicol iustificction oÍ his views is required. When, however, o iustiíicotion of the kind ossumes the chorqcter of o theory not reminding him in ony woy of his own conceptions, then his, inner self will rebel ogoinst ii, irrespeciive of his possible odmission thot the soid theory connot be opposed on logicol grounds. The chonces ore thot he will either try to obtoin on equivolent resulÍ in o woy more in line with his own thoughts, or try to build o bridge between them ond the unsotisfying theory.

to the following.

Three premisses precede:


The quoted commentories show thoÍ both otlempts hove been mode in the Moslim world, olthough the Íirst does not oppeor crnywhere to be corried through to qn ext'enf .l933. like Becker's effort in The different methods exhibit o morked similority. ln oll

When there ore four mognitudes ond the rotio of the first to the whole second is the rotio óf the third to the whole fourth, then the rotio of fhe first to o portion (8) of ihe second is the rotio of the third io o portion of ihe Íourth. 2. Eoch mogniiude is copoble of being holved ond eoc,h holf is copoble o{ being holved ond e'och holÍ of o holf is copoble of being holved, until the number of ports becomes grêoter fhon o prescribed number. 3. When there ore two diÍ{erênt mognitudes the less is copoble of being doubled, until the multiple becomes greoter thon the greoter mognitude. Then the outhor tokes Íour mognitudes, supposes them to be proportionol ond tokes equimultiples oÍ the first ond third ond of the second ond Íourth ond proceeds to prove thoi the property of olike exceeding, folling short, or being equol is chorocteristic of them. He reminds fhe reoder of the Íoct thot the rotio of the Íirst to the second is numerol or not numerql ond begins by supposing thot it is numerol. ln this cqse he is oble to prove ïhot the mognitudes hove the property in question. When however the rotio of the first to the second is not the rotio oÍ o number to o number the outhor begins by supposing the multiple of the first to foll short of the multiple of the second. Using his premisses he now tokes o mognitude M1, o little less





thon the second, hoving o numerol roiio to the Íirst. lt follows thot olso o mognitude M2 con be Íound, less thon the fourth, ,hoving the some numerol r.otio to the third. He is oble to moke the difference beïween the mognitude M1 ond the second mognitude os smoll os he desires, so smoll indeed thot the multiple of the first mogniÍude is still less thon the multiple of M1 . The lotter mognitudes hqd o numerol rotio fo one onother, whence it follows thoi the multiple of the third mognitude ïoo is less thon the multiple of M2, which is less thon the fourth. But then ihis multiple is less thon the multiple o{ the {ourth mognitude o fortiori. In other possible coses the reosoning runs in o corresponding woy. (umor ol-choiiêmï cleorly tokes his stond right owoy. He too boses his reosoning on the numerol rolio ond from there deols with non-numerol roÍios by meons of Euclidt process of finding the greotest common meosure. His definition is: proportionolity is similorify of rotios. He tokes Euclid's definition for on interpretotion oí lhe former,-but he is not ot oll content with it. lnsteod he is of the opinion thot Euclid deviqtes excessively {rom ïhe true essence of being proporlionol, embodied in the identity of the oforesoid series of quotients. ïhis true woy of being proporfionol is the subiect motter
his treotise.

fo the mind", Íor in this cose "the size of the Íirst os compored with the second is not like the size of the third os compored with the fourth". This, opporently, is the view of the cited critics too when they speok oÍ the meosure oÍ o mognitude with regord to onother mognitude, whilst Euclid coníines himself to "some siote of two mognitudes in conneclion wiih size", o view not unknown to the soid critics either but insufficiently distinguished from ihe former. The subtle diíference is thot Íhis non-Euclideon view leods to meosuring o rotio, whilst Euclid only meont to introduce o definition oÍ the similority oÍ fwo rotios. Al-Dioiióni is convinced thot his stotement is cleor ond does not need o prooÍ, "since Íhings ihot ore cleor ond evident to the mind without need of prooÍ ore not mode cleorer by prolixity in the explonotion, becouse there is no method to moke cleor whoÍ is olreody cleor in it". Aíter this the outhor opporently hos Íocussed his otiention on whot he wonted to prove, viz. thot the Euclideon condilion of multiples implies the irue essence oÍ proportion. Hoving exploined olreody whot he meons by " true essence" he now

to moke the connection. For thot purpose he converts Euclid's multiples


reosoning; hence he desires io convince others too. ln order lo ensure o reosonoble omount of succes he íirst needs o common bose occeptoble for both porties. He tokes the line thot o primitive conception oÍ rotio ond proportionoiity is {ound in the mind of every right-thinking person. From this he derives o number of truihs chorocreristic of proportionol mognitudes, whic,h he tokes íor perfectly evident (9). The íirst is thot in o proportion Íhe first Í'er'm contoins os mony ports of the second qs the third contoins ports of the fourih. Expressly he soys thot this is so evideni thot o closer proof is superfluous. ln view oÍ the phenomenon of irrotionolity, however, this truth constitutes no fruitful ideo to be used os o storiing-point for the theory of proportions in the cose of mognitudes. lf however the Íirst is o whole number of poris of ïhe second ond the third the some number of porls of the fourth, then proporïionolity is ossured. But yet sornething else is not. open to ony doubt' if the first contoins more or less ports of ihe second ond the third the some.number of ports of the fourth, then proportionolity is oltogether out of the question. This too needs no proof "becouse it oppeols immedioíely

Coming bock to ol-Dioilênï lwish to begin by stoting thot the criticism of Euclid which he so violently obiected to reolly existed. Even the rother strong ossertions os 1o the lock of connection between rotio ond the muliiples we find bock-in the treotise of (Umor ol-Choiiómi, who must hove been o coniemporory oÍ his, As for h'imself ol-Dioiiónï is full o{ odmiroiion for Euclid. Thot is why he undertook to defend him. He is convinced of the correciness of Euclid's definitions ond subsequent


porls, whot comes to porting by the number oí the Íirst multiple. When this is done it is evident thot mognitudes Íruly proportionol occording Ío his own views sotisfy Euclid's condition too, For otherwise, if some ports of the second, Íor instonce, exceeded the first mognitude while the some ports of the fourth did not exceed ihe third, the Íirst would contoin fewer ports of the second thon the third oÍ the Íourth, ond of this he hod olreody proved the impossibility. Now only the converse wos yet io be proved, viz. thot mognitudes proporiionol in the Euclideon woy were proportionol in virtue oÍ his own consid.erotions too. The proof he produces is on indirect one showing much resemblonce Ío the proof of lbn ol-Hoithom. The existence of o {ourth proportionol ond the unlimited divisibility of mognitudes underlie his reosoning. The demonstrotion tokes the following course.

o kind thot ; C à AB entoils - F =- DE ond conversely, then AB : C : DE : F. For if such were not lrue m< but,forinstonce, AB ' C - DG, F (DG; DE),wetoketheÍirstportHof Fthot is less thon GE. Lei us suppose H : -1 f. No* o number q con be found to the p q rl p 9 efÍectihot F < DG. Of C we toke the some ports ond find 4 DE <
AB, C, DE ond F ore

lf Íour mogniïudes



rhot I C < AB occording io the supposition. However o :- ] C > AB, becouse p-p q+1 F > DE. ïherefore q+1 c ) AB, whilsr --ql1 F < DG. This is Ppp


(). t

inconsistent with the supposilion
musï be reiected.






F. This supposition thereÍore DG


ln the some woy it con be proved thot the supposition AB : C : controdiction i{ DG < DE Therefore, soys ol-Dioiiónï, it

is only true

, F leods to o

thon the rotio oÍ C to D. Then, however, we would hove proporiioncrlitiy ot vcrr.ionce with the supposition. All this is converÍed into rnultiples, oÍter which the outhor reploces Euclid's definltion of o greoter rotio by o convertible proposition.

Afier hoving demonstroted in this woy thot Euclid's chorocteristic of proportionol mogniÍudes ogrees with the conception of proportionolity thot will orise spontoneously in o mon's mind, ol Dioiiênï inlroduces the Euclideon multiples. This would come to o simple multiplicotion by m in our, more modern. notoiion, but the ouihor, not hoving ïhe disposol oÍ our surveyoble meons of expression, needs Íour poges. Then he roises in o rother unconvincing woy the odvontoges of Euclid's multiples. He closes the second port recopituloting Euclid's "introduction", only chonging his order. ln occordonce with his previous orgumentotion, however, this meons thot he reploces Euclid's s,totement, which is o mere definition. by o convertible proposiïion.
The third port of ol-Dioiidnï's treotise deols with unequol rotios. The storting-point, once more not needing o proof, is thot the first rotio is greoter tho,n the seco-nd, if the Íirsi mogniiude contoins more ports of the second mognitude thon the third oÍ the some ports oÍ the fourth. When, on lhe other hond, the first roiio is greoter thon the 'second, then "some ports moy be Íound of the second ond fourth so thot the first contoins more ports of the second thon ihe third of ihe fourth."
Before possing on to the proof fhe outhor first introduces the following simpliÍicotion. ln order to be sure oÍ pro'portionolity, he soys, it is sufficient to know
goes with -m\

io remork thoi the siudy of our treotises of Moslim mentolity difÍerent from ihe Greek siote of mind. This is, Íirst, o consequence oÍ the foct thot they ore not the creotor-s, bui only ihe commentotors of the molhemoticcil ocquisitions under considerotion. However, the stress they loy on convincing olongside of proving points to their open eye Íor the difficulties connecied with ihe tronsÍer of science, which con not be mojntoined by mere priniing (or in their iime "copying"). ïhey kepi the fire burning. ln Íhis woy lbn ol-Hoithom become, os o noturol philosop'her, ihe predecessor ond leocher of Roger Bocon ond no doubt deserves o slmllor honour os o mothemoticion. And when in loier cenluries the spirit gives woy to erudition, the productiviïy ef 11.'u Arobic scholors, losing its intrinsic
By woy of summory I now wish


mothemoiiciens betroys


volue, dries up in o desert of drob sterility. To conclude my writing lwish to illustroïe this view by the following quototion from ol-TOsï (,l0).

9. ln his introduction Ío

Book 5 ql-T0sï declores thot meosuring one mognitude by the other is the essence of rotio. He distinguishes four coses, viz. equolity, port or


thot ; B ?




C, without equolity being mentioned. ln point of foct he demonstrotes

thot the relotion of the inequoliiies entoils the relotion oí the equolities. When now the Íirst rotio is greoter thon the second the ports of the second mognitude will only exceed Íhe ports of the Íirst mognitude, if the ports of the fourth too exceed the third mognitude. For otherwise the third would contoin more ports oÍ the fourth thqn the first of the second, so thot the second roiio would be the greoter.
Then follows the proof thoï it must be possible to Íind ports of the second less thon the first, whilst the some ports of the'fourth exceed the third, os soon os it is estoblished thot the Íirst rotio is greoier thon the second. For iÍ, for instonce, this would not opply

multiple, porÍs, ond the cose of incommensurobility. When mognitudes ore copoble oÍ exceeding one onoiher ihey ore homogeneous ond no doubt hove o roiio to one onother. lf two oiher (or portly ihe snme) mognitudes hove o rotio ïo one onother ihot in no respect is different f rom ihe {ormer, ihe four (or three) mognitudes ore colled proportionol. The woy oÍ meosuring is the woy of Íinding (or not finding) the common meosure ond ihe ouihor's reosoning intimotes thot, consciously or unconsciously, his conception of proporïionolity is: "hoving thesonie kind oÍ relotion to one onother in finding the common meosure, i.e. hoving the some
o nto no


to the mognitudes A, B, C ond D, thenï
B > Awould cxception,while? q-9'

t a A would entoil p D < C without entoil I O > C, becouseiheroiioof AtoBisgreoter

Concerning proporlionol mogniludes the or,thor slotes thol when of Íhe Íirsi ond third ony some multiple is token ond likewise of the second crnd fourth, the multiple of the third will exceed the multiple of the íourth if the multiple o{ the first exceeds the multiple oÍ the second; ond likewise in the cose of equolity or folling short. Of this "definition" of Euclid's the outhor gives on ingenious but less convincing "prooÍ", which I reproduce ot full length. lt runs os follows. "Let the rotio of A to B be os the rotio of C to D, ond let some multiple be tciken of A ond C, viz. E ond F; ond oÍ B ond D some muliiple, viz. H ond K. Then I soy, if E exceeds H, then F exceeds K, ond if it is equol it is equol, ond iÍ it íolls shorf it íolls short.



Proof' As ïhe rotio of

of A ond C, therefore F exceeds D iÍ E exceeds B, ond is equol if it is equol, ond folls short if it Íolls short. Bul H ond K ore equinumerol multiples of B ond D; lherefore F exceeds K if E exceeds H, ond is equol iÍ it is equol, ond folls shorÍ if it folls short; ond this is whot we wonted to demonstrote.
equinumer.o'l multiples

ond is equol

iÍ it is equol to it, ond Íqlls short iÍ il Íolls short. But E ond F ore

A to B is os the rotio oÍ C to D, C exceeds D if A exceeds B,




8.3 8.9
b. zó

And when there ore Íour mognitudes ond the rqtio oÍ the Íirsï Ío the second is unlike the roiio of the third to the íourth, then it is impossible when some equinumerol multiples oÍ the first ond third ore token ond likewise of the second ond {ourth, thot the multiple o{ the f irst does not exceed the multiple of the second unless the multiple of the third exceeds H the mul,tiple oÍ the fourth, ond is not equol to it unless it is equol to it, ond does not foll short of it unless it folls short of it. For if otherwise, let the roiio of A to B be unlike the rotio of C to D, ond let be token some equinumerol multiple of A ond C, viz. E ond F, ond let be token some equinumerol multiple of B ond D, viz. H ond K. Becouse E does not exceed H unless F exceeds K, ond is not equol to it unless it is equol to it, ond does not foll short oí it unless it folls short of it, ond K these ore equinumerol multiples of A ond C, iherefore A does not exceed H unless C exceeds K, ond is not equol to it unless it is equol to it, ond does not foll short of it unless it íolls s,hort

C. 1B D.5 D. l4

I reod , I reod ' I reod , I reod ' I reod , I reod ,

bi-kithroii tod(ïfin iuqólu lo-humê 'l-mutobo(inêni




E. 12,13 E. 17,18 E. r9 E. 23,24

' I reod , I reod ,



sioi)un wo-lê on ioqOlo ond ot the end : wo-lê onno (on-hu nóqisoton ond holÍ-woy : oqollu mim-mê


idhó kónor odlzó'u 'l-r6bi(i iusêwi'l-miqdóro'l-thêlithq illê wo-odjzó)u z nêqisotun tr:n dh _ ond further, ío-oq0lu onno nisboto 'ob ilÓ di I reod , Ío-in kdno h-h osghoro min z I reod , wol-tokun titko 'l-fus0lu dh lrn mn I reod , nisbotu 'áU lta a1 I suppress the second , wóhidin

"ï I.

r. t.

H. 17 H. 23 K.4 K,B K. lr


of it. And H,ond K ore equinumerol multiples of the mognitudes B ond D, therefore A does not exceed B unless C too exceeds D, ond is noi equol Ío it unless il is,equol io it, ond does not foll short of it unless it folls shorr of it. But A exceeds B ond C does not exceed D, or is equol to B ond C is not equol to D, or folls short of B ond C does'not Íoll short oÍ D by ossumption. This is q controdiction; Íherefore the sentence is well-founded ond ïhot is whot we wonted to demonstrote."

I reod ' dhO od'ófin I reod , wo-uqoddomu mê iuhfddju iloihi mithdluhu I reod , mo(o 'l-od'ófi li'l-dchoro iozhoru fï 'l-odizê)i wo jo(ridu Íï-hê I reod (ot the end) li 'l-thênï I reod ' li-ihdêhumo' I reod , lê t0diodu qd(ê{u 'l-owwoli I reod, íol-ju)chodh li-áwo Ji od'ófun mutosêwiiotuÍr

N.2 N. I4 N 19,20

N. 2r N. 22


I reod , wo-min-d dkóliko 'l-diuz)o I reod ot the end : ollqtï I reod , osghoru min hh I reod, fo-jok0nu toÍ okboro min )ob komê onno dn okboru min dh I reod , 'oÍ okboru min Eb I reod , odlzê'u i nóqisoion I reod ' ol-mo'ch0dholu min d I reod ' Íï hódhê 'l-kitAbi I reod ' li 'l-thênï wo 'l-rdbi(i
I insert ot the beginning : Ío-in lom lr)diod

ond Íurther


wo-lijb wo



P, I P. t8







(2) (3) (4) (5)

ProoÍ' Supposethotsuch pond q could nol be Íound, then

I t




I do not know ony commentotor of this nome. The word remotely recolls'oóvo8o€ too. The 2nd PostuloÍe.

The oddition to the ISth Definition of Book l. This ossertion used to be known os the óth Postulote or os the 9th or the l2tlr
Axiom. unnesessory oddition. Thot numbers ore mognitudes does not ogree with the Aristóteleon (ond no doubt'
Proc'los olreody considered

* O a C without exception. ButA : B > C' D,thereÍore, I B > A involves l A, B : C, D, which leods to o controd,iction.



il on



5; l2 hos nothing oÍ the kind, but ó; l2 gives the construction oÍ the fourth proportionol. Ïhe possoge is not quite cleor.

Euclidesn view

thot mognitudes ore divisible od infinilum, while numbers



(ó) I do not know o Greek oouivolent. (7) This deÍinition ossure6 the possibility oÍ the Íollowing (8) A striking deviolion from fhe Eucl,ideon view. (9) This implies the view thot o rotio is o froction.
The existence of such

composed of lndivisible units ore not.


This reosoning must hove met with opposition even in ol-Dioiiênï's rime.

o mognitude DG is not colled in


S mB. (12\ lf I A S g.ihennA ">"-' m't(13) lf 1B 5Ainvoluurl p5C m>
ond vice

thennB -< mAinvolvesnD 5


(14) lf a C: ne involves I r àDE.then I c-ng m< C, DE > ! P. Proof:ossumeAB: ! qq Now we toke D G = L, F.


LetbeH: qq + F<DE-DGondr:1 c. Then itispossibleto Íind p' soihot: DE > 1 f > OO. q HoweverAB:C - DG, F;thereÍore a t AB, while i ï
is incompotible with the supposition.


a DE, which
p q



A, B > C,

D,then itispossibletoíind some p ond q, sothoÍ


! o àc.


CHAPTER , , .:


i I







Algiers 1446, 30.
Diiksterhuis, Dr. E. J., De ElemenÍen von Euclides. Historische Bibliotheek voor de Exocte Wetenschoppen, deel I (.l929)l en deel lll (1930), 1P. Noordhóff N.V.,

(l) (2) (3) (4)

Diiksterhuis, De Elementen von Euclides, deel l, ofd. l.

(3) (4) (5)

ldem, l.c. hoofdstuk V. ldem, l.c. hoofdstuk V, 4. ldem, l.c. blz.73.
Hosse, Helmut und Scholz, Heinrich.

Groningen. Deel
l);lo-. 8

l, blz. 109. :


of Íhe suryey in chop,tgr


No. 7 of idem. Poris 2467, 160, 197 Vo (-207). Probobly (portly) the some, Berlin ó009, I 34 b - 38 o; Corulloh 1502, 50, 25 o - 26 b.


Die Grundlogenkrisis der Griechischen Mothemotik. Chorlottenburg, Pon-Verlog,


Krokou 5ó9. Anoritii in decem Iibros priores elementorum Euclidis commentorii. Tronslotion by Gerord of Cremono. Books I - 10. 'l899 (Euclidis opero omnio, Suppleldem edidit Mox. Curtze, Teubner, Leipzig,

(ó) (7)
(8) (9)

2, H. 4,31 I - 333, 1933.
Dijksierhuis, Lc. blz. 58. The

Becker, oscor. Eudoxos-studien l. Quellen und studien z. Gesch.

d. Moth. Abt.


Codex Leidensis 399, l. Euclid,is Elemento ex interpreiotione ol-Hodschdschodschii cum commenÍoriis ol-Norizii, Arobice el Lotine ediderunt notisque instruxerunÍ R.O. Besthorn ef J. L. Heiberg. (Books I - 4; Ihe Books 5 ond ó were loter published by G. Junge, J. Roeder ond W. T,homson.) lB93 ond loter.

oufior here uses bo(dun, not diuz)un.


No. I I of the survey in chopter L (8) No. 2 of idem. (9) lhove been in doubt obout this tronslotion, but lthink it
word did not occur in t'he dictionories I consulted.

Cf. Korl Duncker, Zur Psychologie des Produktiven Denkens; Berlin, Julius Sprin,ger,


is right ofter oll.


(10) No. 43 of the survey in chopter

(]0) Add' oÍ fhe


l) No. 3l oÍ the survey in chopter L (12) Algiers 1446, 10. Probobly (portly) the some: OxÍord I 908, I 0. Feyzulloh 1359,2o, 150-237o. Seroy 3454,20, (Books 5 ond ó only). Brusso, Horroccizode, Heyet 20, I o. Steinschneider, Hebr. Uebers, 314, 24.
(r 3) Poge ó1.

ïhe some: Leyden, Cod. or. 'l99 (8). (r5) No. 33 of the survey in chopter l. fió) From this lunderstond th,ot (Umor ol-Choii6mi tokes Euclid's 5Íh definition for on inÍerpretotion or commentory (siorhun) of the 4th.
(14) Paris 4946,40.





Ten onrechte schriift Klomroth (Ueber den Arobischen Euklid, Z.D.M.G. Bd 35,

". . . . und Íijr

metrein wird qodoro oder (oddo geselzt,



continuirliche oder discrete Gróssen hondelt./'


nochdem es sich um

De mening von Oscor Becker (Eudoxos-Studien l, Quellen und Studien z. Gesch. d. Moth. Abt. 8,2, H.4, 3l l-333, 1939) ". . dosz von der onthyphoiretischen Theorie ous keine direkte Beweismóglichkeit von V, ïó fijr olgemeine Grósse besteht" (dot in een redenïheorie geboseerd op de onÍwikkeling von verhoudingen in kettingbreuken de stelling, dot in een evenredigheid de binnentermen verwisseld mogen worden, niet voor olgemene grootheden bewezen kon worden) is ongegrond.

AmsÍerdom, 'l943) een syslemoiische opbouw te geven von de continue intrestrekening uitsluilend op de grondslogen von de infinitesimoolrekening is door een gedeelteliik oniuiste opzet niet voldoende verwezenliiki. tv. De evolutietheorie voor slerren von Hoyle en Lyttleton (Proceedings of the Combridge Philosophicol Socieiy, i939 en i940) vindt een onvoldoende quontitotieve bqsis in het hierbij in oonmerking genomen occretie-mechonisme.

De bedoeling von W. de Geus om in zijn dissertotie (Continue lntrestrekening,

Dot voor het volgen von wiskundeonderwiis op de middelbore school een specifieke oonleg nodig is, is nief bewezen.

Met de woorden: "souvenez-vous que le hosord ne fovorise que les esprits préporés'/ (in .]854 gesproken lot de studenten te Rijssel) formuleerde Posteur de hoofdwet vqn hef produciieve denken.

vll. Bii her Voorbereidend Hoger Onderwiis kon en moet de wiskunde dienen ols oefonstoí voor het productieve denken.

De leer von otto selz (versuche zur Hebung des !ntelligenzniveous. Z. Psych. Bd. 'l34, 'l935), die uitgoot von hel grondbeginsel, dot intelligentie niet een ononolyseerbore gove is, moor gedefinieerd kon worden ols een structuur von speciÍiek psychische gedrogingen, ingesteld op het verwerven en qcnwenden von inzicht, is een goede grondslog voor de opbouw von een didoctiek der wiskunde.

Het door Korl Duncker (Zur Psychologie des Produktiven Denkens, Berlin, r935, s. ó2) uitgesproken beginsel, ". . . . dosz ein sochverholt sich in der Regel durch weniger Momenle (Aspekte) oufbouen lciszt, ols nochher vermóge neuer ,,Betrochtungsweisen" ihm von obgelesen werden kónnen", kon een ruirne loepossing vinden in de didqctiek -

der wiskunde.


Uit de betreffende literotuur (o.o. Hófler, Psychische Arbeiï, in Z. ps.8 (lB9S) 44 e.v. en lól e.v.; Binet et Henri, Lo fotigue intellectuelle, lB98; Lehmonn, Die kórperlichen Aijszerungen psychop'hysicher Zustcin,de ll ('l901) I l8 e.v.; Foucoult, Les lois les plus generoles de l'octivjté mentole, in An. Ps. l9 (.l913) z5 e.v.; E. L. Thorndike, Educotionol Psychology lll, 1914; F. G. en C. G. Benedict, Mentol efíort in relotion io goseous exchonge, heort rote, ond mechcrnics of respiroiion ('l933); J. Jongbloed, De invloed von geesteliike orbeid op de toÍole sfofwisseling, in het Ned. T. v. Gen. 86 lll 32 (1942) blz. 2012 e.v.) bliikr, dot vermoeidheid no geesreliike orbeid moet worden toegeschreven qon de insponning der willekeurige (d.i. door de wil gerichte) qondochtsconcenlrotie.


Dot de bloedinÍoxicotie von Mosso en de stofwisselingsverhoging von Jongbloed direcÍ verbond stoon met de eigenliike geesteliike orbeid, is niei bewezen.


Voor de opleiding von toekomstige leroren kon de besÍoonde opleiding von toekomstige ortsen ioi voorbeeld slrekken.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful