Notes for reading Archimedes’ Quadrature of the Parabola

Here is a recipe for reading any piece of mathematics. As you look

over the material you are trying to read, you should make sure that you
are either familiar with—or at least are trying to be familiar with—the
basic vocabulary, with the principal “objects of discussion” and, also,
with the aim of the discussion. We will not be getting very far, in these
notes, in the actual reading of QP, but I want to (at least) set the stage,
here, for reading it.

1. Some of the basic vocabulary in QP:

1.1. Vocabulary in Propositions 1-5.

• Quadrature
• Right circular conical surface (or right angled cone) S
• Conic section (is the intersection of a plane P with a right
circular conical surface S)
• the axis of a right circular conical surface

• a Parabola is a conic section whose plane P is parallel to the

axis.

• a Segment (of a parabola)

1.2. Vocabulary for lines in the plane of the Parabola. There

are three sorts of lines that “stand out.”

• Chords between any two points on the parabola. These define

segments.
• Tangents to any point on the parabola.
• lines parallel to the axis

1.3. Vocabulary in Propositions 6-13.

• Lever
• Horizontal
1
2

• Suspended
• Attached
• Equilibrium
• Center of gravity

For people familiar with Archimedes’ The Method here is a question:

to what extent does Archimedes use the method of The Method in his
proofs in Propositions 6-13?

2. The results

I’ll discuss my “personal vocabulary:” the triangle inscribed in a

parabolic segment; and the triangle circumscribed about a parabolic
segment. The fundamental result that QP aims toward is

Proposition 16: The area of a parabolic segment is 1/3 the area of

its circumscribed triangle.

and

Proposition 17, 24: The area of a parabolic segment is 4/3 the area
of its inscribed triangle.

3. A modern secret:
If you prove these propositions for any single parabolic segment,
there is an argument that shows that you’ve done it for all.

4. General questions to think about while you read

Propositions 14-16

Question 4.1. What is the basic diagram set up in the first paragraph
of each of these propositions?
 3

Answer: This diagram which gives the circumscribed triangle of a

parabolic segment.

I’ll use the terminology BOΓ to denote the pictured segment of a

parabola bounded by the straight line BΓ. As in Archimedes, the
straight line B∆ is drawn parallel to a diameter, and Γ∆ is tangent to
the parabola at Γ.
Question 4.2. Return to the basic diagram above. Bisect B∆ at K.
Draw the straight line ΓK.
4

(1) Why does ΓK intersect the parabolic arc?

(2) Why does it intersect the parabolic arc at exactly one point?
(3) Given that ΓK intersects the parabolic arc at one point, call
that point O and draw the straight line through O parallel to a
diameter, labeling Π and Σ its intersections with BΓ and B∆,
respectively. Is this a special case of the diagrams you are asked
to draw in Propositions 14,15, and 16?

Question 4.3. Can you go through the proof of Propositions 14, and
15 using the above diagram as a special case? To begin to do this
concentrate on the following figures
• the rectangle KΠ
• the triangles ΣΠΓ, OΠΓ, and BΓ∆
• the segment BOΓ
(1) Show ( or rather, note) that

OΠΓ < BOΓ < KΠ + ΣΠΓ.

Where, in Archimedes’ text of Props 14, 15 are these inequal-
ities acknowledged?
(2) Where and how, in Archimedes’ Props 14, 15, do we see the
inequalities
1
OΠΓ < B∆Γ < KΠ + ΣΠΓ
3
proved?1
(3) Note that the difference between KΠ + ΣΠΓ and OΠΓ is
KΠ + ΣOΓ.
Why is this difference2 equal to the triangle BΓK?

Question 4.4. Return to the basic diagram above3 and now trisect
B∆ at E and K, so that BE, EK, K∆ all have the same length. Draw
1In this very particular instance, of course, you can say more precisely what OΠΓ
and KΠ + ΣΠΓ are, as fractions of B∆Γ.
2i.e., the difference between the upper bound and the lower bound in the chain
of inequalities in (1) and (2) above; i.e., the inequalities that sandwich both BOΓ
and 31 B∆Γ
3BOΓ is the segment of a parabola bounded by the straight line BΓ, B∆ is
parallel to a diameter, and Γ∆ is tangent to the parabola at Γ.
 5

the straight lines EΓ, KΓ. Draw the two indicated lines parallel to the
diameter of the parabola4.

(1) Which quadrilaterals in this figure can you show have the same
area?
(2) How can you show this?
(3) Which triangles in this figure can you show have the same area?
(4) Where in Archimedes’ text is it demonstrated that they do have
the same area? How is it demonstrated?
(5) What role does it play in the proofs of these propositions?
(6) Proposition 14, 15 proves inequalities of areas of figures. In the
special case we are discussing, state explicitly the inequalities
that are being proved.
(7) Run through the proof—in the text of Archimedes’ Propositions
14,15—for this case.

Question 4.5. Proposition 16 is proved by an indirect argument.

Looking at the second paragraph, Archimedes supposes that the equal-
ity of areas (asserted by the proposition) is not true and he wishes to
(eventually) draw a contradiction. He supposes—first— that the area
of the parabolic segment is bigger than one third the triangle B∆Γ.
How does this lead him to construct the diagram for Proposition 16?

Question 4.6. Make sure that you know exactly the place(s) where—
in Props 14, 15, 16—the hypothesis that the parabolic segment is in-
deed a parabolic segment. Where—and exactly how—is it used?
Query 4.7. (For people who know Calculus)

4These two lines should intersect the parabola at the points at which EΓ and
KΓ (respectively) intersect the parabola.
6

(1) Compare (and contrast) Archimedes’ work on this problem with

the standard Calculus approach?
(2) For an example of some of the many things to note: Archimedes
comes at it with an explicit “indirect argument” formulation
(discussed in Question 4.5 above). Do you see clearly what this
corresponds to in the standard Calculus approach?
Query 4.8. As has been already noted in class discussions, Archimedes
working with his levers, often replaces a figure (or a part of figures
such as 13 B∆Γ )with a “space” (chorion) whose shape is completely
irrelevant but whose area5—abstracted from its shape—is considered.
Did the word chorion play—at least a bit— this role (i.e., meaning a
space, but where area is of concern and particular shape not) earlier?

5in other contexts he does the same thing with volume, or length