Apollonius of Perga

7/13/23, 11:12 AM Apollonius of Perga - Wikipedia
Apollonius of Perga
Apollonius of Perga (Greek: Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Περγαῖος,
translit. Apollṓnios ho Pergaîos; Latin: Apollonius Pergaeus;
c. 240 BCE/BC – c. 190 BCE/BC) was an Ancient Greek geometer
and astronomer known for his work on conic sections. Beginning
from the contributions of Euclid and Archimedes on the topic, he
brought them to the state prior to the invention of analytic
geometry. His definitions of the terms ellipse, parabola, and
hyperbola are the ones in use today. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
stated “He who understands Archimedes and Apollonius will
admire less the achievements of the foremost men of later
times.”[1]
Apollonius worked on numerous other topics, including

Depiction of Apollonius from a 1537
astronomy. Most of this work has not survived, where exceptions
edition of his works
are typically fragments referenced by other authors like Pappus of
Alexandria. His hypothesis of eccentric orbits to explain the
apparently aberrant motion of the planets, commonly believed
until the Middle Ages, was superseded during the Renaissance. The Apollonius crater on the Moon is
named in his honor.[2]
Life
For such an important contributor to the field of mathematics, scant biographical information
remains. The 6th century Greek commentator, Eutocius of Ascalon, on Apollonius’ major work,
Conics, states:[3]
Apollonius, the geometrician, ... came from Perga in Pamphylia in the times of Ptolemy III
Euergetes, so records Herakleios the biographer of Archimedes ....
Perga at the time was a Hellenized city of Pamphylia in Anatolia. The ruins of the city yet stand. It was
a center of Hellenistic culture. Euergetes, "benefactor", identifies Ptolemy III Euergetes, third Greek
dynast of Egypt in the diadochi succession. Presumably, his “times” are his regnum, 246-222/221 BC.
Times are always recorded by ruler or officiating magistrate, so that if Apollonius was born earlier
than 246, it would have been the “times” of Euergetes’ father. The identity of Herakleios is uncertain.
The approximate times of Apollonius are thus certain, but no exact dates can be given.[4] Specific
birth and death years stated by the various scholars are only speculative.[5]
Eutocius appears to associate Perga with the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt. Never under Egypt, Perga in
246 BC belonged to the Seleucid Empire, an independent diadochi state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty.
During the last half of the 3rd century BC, Perga changed hands a number of times, being
alternatively under the Seleucids and under the Attalids of Pergamon to the north. Someone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga 1/21
designated “of Perga” might well be expected to have lived and worked there. To the contrary, if
Apollonius was later identified with Perga, it was not on the basis of his residence. The remaining
autobiographical material implies that he lived, studied and wrote in Alexandria.
A letter by the Greek mathematician and astronomer Hypsicles was originally part of the supplement
taken from Euclid's Book XIV, part of the thirteen books of Euclid's Elements.[6]
Basilides of Tyre, O Protarchus, when he came to Alexandria and met my father, spent the
greater part of his sojourn with him on account of the bond between them due to their
common interest in mathematics. And on one occasion, when looking into the tract
written by Apollonius about the comparison of the dodecahedron and icosahedron
inscribed in one and the same sphere, that is to say, on the question what ratio they bear to
one another, they came to the conclusion that Apollonius' treatment of it in this book was
not correct; accordingly, as I understood from my father, they proceeded to amend and
rewrite it. But I myself afterwards came across another book published by Apollonius,
containing a demonstration of the matter in question, and I was greatly attracted by his
investigation of the problem. Now the book published by Apollonius is accessible to all; for
it has a large circulation in a form which seems to have been the result of later careful
elaboration. For my part, I determined to dedicate to you what I deem to be necessary by
way of commentary, partly because you will be able, by reason of your proficiency in all
mathematics and particularly in geometry, to pass an expert judgment upon what I am
about to write, and partly because, on account of your intimacy with my father and your
friendly feeling towards myself, you will lend a kindly ear to my disquisition. But it is time
to have done with the preamble and to begin my treatise itself.
The times of Apollonius
Apollonius lived toward the end of a historical period now termed the Hellenistic Period,
characterized by the superposition of Hellenic culture over extensive non-Hellenic regions to various
depths, radical in some places, hardly at all in others. The change was initiated by Philip II of
Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great, who, subjecting all of Greece in a series of stunning
victories, went on to conquer the Persian Empire, which ruled territories from Egypt to Pakistan.
Philip was assassinated in 336 BC. Alexander went on to fulfill his plan by conquering the vast Persian
empire.
The short autobiography of Apollonius
The material is located in the surviving false “Prefaces” of the books of his Conics. These are letters
delivered to influential friends of Apollonius asking them to review the book enclosed with the letter.
The Preface to Book I, addressed to one Eudemus, reminds him that Conics was initially requested by
a house guest at Alexandria, the geometer, Naucrates, otherwise unknown to history. Naucrates had
the first draft of all eight books in his hands by the end of the visit. Apollonius refers to them as being
“without a thorough purgation” (ou diakatharantes in Greek, ea non perpurgaremus in Latin). He
intended to verify and emend the books, releasing each one as it was completed.
Hearing of this plan from Apollonius himself on a subsequent visit of the latter to Pergamon,
Eudemus had insisted Apollonius send him each book before release. The circumstances imply that at
this stage Apollonius was a young geometer seeking the company and advice of established
professionals. Pappus states that he was with the students of Euclid at Alexandria. Euclid was long
gone. This stay had been, perhaps, the final stage of Apollonius’ education. Eudemus was perhaps a
senior figure in his earlier education at Pergamon; in any case, there is reason to believe that he was
or became the head of the Library and Research Center (Museum) of Pergamon. Apollonius goes on to
state that the first four books were concerned with the development of elements while the last four
were concerned with special topics.
There is something of a gap between Prefaces I and II. Apollonius has sent his son, also Apollonius, to
deliver II. He speaks with more confidence, suggesting that Eudemus use the book in special study
groups, which implies that Eudemus was a senior figure, if not the headmaster, in the research center.
Research in such institutions, which followed the model of the Lycaeum of Aristotle at Athens, due to
the residency of Alexander the Great and his companions in its northern branch, was part of the
educational effort, to which the library and museum were adjunct. There was only one such school in
the state. Owned by the king, it was under royal patronage, which was typically jealous, enthusiastic,
and participatory. The kings bought, begged, borrowed and stole the precious books whenever and
wherever they could. Books were of the highest value, affordable only to wealthy patrons. Collecting
them was a royal obligation. Pergamon was known for its parchment industry, whence “parchment” is
derived from “Pergamon.”
Apollonius brings to mind Philonides of Laodicea, a geometer whom he introduced to Eudemus in

Ephesus. Philonides became Eudemus' student. He lived mainly in Syria during the 1st half of the 2nd
century BC. Whether the meeting indicates that Apollonius now lived in Ephesus is unresolved. The
intellectual community of the Mediterranean was international in culture. Scholars were mobile in
seeking employment. They all communicated via some sort of postal service, public or private.
Surviving letters are abundant. They visited each other, read each other's works, made suggestions to
each other, recommended students and accumulated a tradition termed by some “the golden age of
mathematics.”
Preface III is missing. During the interval Eudemus died, says Apollonius in IV, again supporting a
view that Eudemus was senior over Apollonius. Prefaces IV–VII are more formal, omitting personal
information and concentrating on summarizing the books. They are all addressed to a mysterious
Attalus, a choice made “because”, as Apollonius writes to Attalus, “of your earnest desire to possess
my works.” By that time a good many people at Pergamum had such a desire. Presumably, this Attalus
was someone special, receiving copies of Apollonius’ masterpiece fresh from the author's hand. One
strong theory is that Attalus is Attalus II Philadelphus, 220-138 BC, general and defender of his
brother's kingdom (Eumenes II), co-regent on the latter's illness in 160 BC, and heir to his throne and
his widow in 158 BC. He and his brother were great patrons of the arts, expanding the library into
international magnificence. The dates are consonant with those of Philonides, while Apollonius’
motive is consonant with Attalus' book-collecting initiative.
Apollonius sent to Attalus Prefaces V–VII. In Preface VII he describes Book VIII as “an appendix” ...
“which I will take care to send you as speedily as possible.” There is no record that it was ever sent or
ever completed. It may be missing from history because it was never in history, Apollonius having
died before its completion. Pappus of Alexandria, however, provided lemmas for it, so at the very least
some edition of it must once have been in circulation.
Documented works of Apollonius

Apollonius was a prolific geometer, turning out a large number of works. Only one survives, Conics.
Of its eight books, only the first four have a credible claim to descent from the original texts of
Apollonius. Books 5-7 are only available in an Arabic translation by Thābit ibn Qurra commissioned
by the Banū Mūsā. The original Greek is lost.[7] The status of Book VIII is unknown. A first draft
existed. Whether the final draft was ever produced is not known. A "reconstruction" of it by Edmond
Halley exists in Latin. There is no way to know how much of it, if any, is verisimilar to Apollonius.
Halley also reconstructed De Rationis Sectione and De Spatii Sectione. Beyond these works, except
for a handful of fragments, documentation that might in any way be interpreted as descending from
Apollonius ends.
Many of the lost works are described or mentioned by commentators. In addition are ideas attributed
to Apollonius by other authors without documentation. Credible or not, they are hearsay. Some
authors identify Apollonius as the author of certain ideas, consequently named after him. Others
attempt to express Apollonius in modern notation or phraseology with indeterminate degrees of
fidelity.
Conics
The Greek text of Conics uses the Euclidean arrangement of definitions, figures and their parts; i.e.,
the “givens,” followed by propositions “to be proved.” Books I-VII present 387 propositions. This type
of arrangement can be seen in any modern geometry textbook of the traditional subject matter. As in
any course of mathematics, the material is very dense and consideration of it, necessarily slow.
Apollonius had a plan for each book, which is partly described in the Prefaces. The headings, or
pointers to the plan, are somewhat in deficit, Apollonius having depended more on the logical flow of
the topics.
An intellectual niche is thus created for the commentators of the ages. Each must present Apollonius
in the most lucid and relevant way for his own times. They use a variety of methods: annotation,
extensive prefatory material, different formats, additional drawings, superficial reorganization by the
addition of capita, and so on. There are subtle variations in interpretation. The modern English
speaker encounters a lack of material in English due to the preference for Neo-Latin by English
scholars. Such intellectual English giants as Edmund Halley and Isaac Newton, the proper
descendants of the Hellenistic tradition of mathematics and astronomy, can only be read and
interpreted in translation by populations of English speakers unacquainted with the classical
languages; that is, most of them.
Presentations written entirely in native English begin in the late 19th century. Of special note is
Heath's Treatise on Conic Sections. His extensive prefatory commentary includes such items as a
lexicon of Apollonian geometric terms giving the Greek, the meanings, and usage.[8] Commenting that
“the apparently portentious bulk of the treatise has deterred many from attempting to make its
acquaintance,”[9] he promises to add headings, changing the organization superficially, and to clarify
the text with modern notation. His work thus references two systems of organization, his own and
Apollonius’, to which concordances are given in parentheses.
Heath's work is indispensable. He taught throughout the early 20th century, passing away in 1940,
but meanwhile another point of view was developing. St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe), which
had been a military school since colonial times, preceding the United States Naval Academy at
Annapolis, Maryland, to which it is adjacent, in 1936 lost its accreditation and was on the brink of
bankruptcy. In desperation the board summoned Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan from the
University of Chicago, where they had been developing a new theoretical program for instruction of
the Classics. Leaping at the opportunity, in 1937 they instituted the “new program” at St. John's, later
dubbed the Great Books program, a fixed curriculum that would teach the works of select key
contributors to the culture of western civilization. At St. John's, Apollonius came to be taught as
himself, not as some adjunct to analytic geometry.
The “tutor” of Apollonius was R. Catesby Taliaferro, a new PhD in 1937 from the University of
Virginia. He tutored until 1942 and then later for one year in 1948, supplying the English translations
by himself, translating Ptolemy's Almagest and Apollonius’ Conics. These translations became part of
the Encyclopædia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World series. Only Books I-III are
included, with an appendix for special topics. Unlike Heath, Taliaferro did not attempt to reorganize
Apollonius, even superficially, or to rewrite him. His translation into modern English follows the
Greek fairly closely. He does use modern geometric notation to some degree.
Contemporaneously with Taliaferro's work, Ivor Thomas an Oxford don of the World War II era, was
taking an intense interest in Greek mathematics. He planned a compendium of selections, which
came to fruition during his military service as an officer in the Royal Norfolk Regiment. After the war
it found a home in the Loeb Classical Library, where it occupies two volumes, all translated by
Thomas, with the Greek on one side of the page and the English on the other, as is customary for the
Loeb series. Thomas' work has served as a handbook for the golden age of Greek mathematics. For
Apollonius he only includes mainly those portions of Book I that define the sections.
Heath, Taliaferro, and Thomas satisfied the public demand for Apollonius in translation for most of
the 20th century. The subject moves on. More recent translations and studies incorporate new
information and points of view as well as examine the old.
Book I
Book I presents 58 propositions. Its most salient

content is all the basic definitions concerning cones
and conic sections. These definitions are not exactly
the same as the modern ones of the same words.
Etymologically the modern words derive from the
ancient, but the etymon often differs in meaning from
its reflex.
A conical surface is generated by a line segment rotated

about a bisector point such that the end points trace
circles, each in its own plane. A cone, one branch of the
double conical surface, is the surface with the point
(apex or vertex), the circle (base), and the axis, a line
joining vertex and center of base.
A “section” (Latin sectio, Greek tome) is an imaginary

“cutting” of a cone by a plane. The conic sections, or two-dimensional figures
formed by the intersection of a plane with a cone
Proposition I.3: “If a cone is cut by a plane through at different angles. The theory of these figures
the vertex, the section is a triangle.” In the case of was developed extensively by the ancient Greek
a double cone, the section is two triangles such mathematicians, surviving especially in works
that the angles at the vertex are vertical angles. such as those of Apollonius of Perga. The conic
Proposition I.4 asserts that sections of a cone sections pervade modern mathematics.
parallel to the base are circles with centers on the
axis.[10]
Proposition I.13 defines the ellipse, which is conceived as the cutting of a single cone by a plane
inclined to the plane of the base and intersecting the latter in a line perpendicular to the diameter
extended of the base outside the cone (not shown). The angle of the inclined plane must be
greater than zero, or the section would be a circle. It must be less than the corresponding base
angle of the axial triangle, at which the figure becomes a parabola.
Proposition I.11 defines a parabola. Its plane is parallel to a side in the conic surface of the axial
triangle.
Proposition I.12 defines a hyperbola. Its plane is parallel to the axis. It cut both cones of the pair,
thus acquiring two distinct branches (only one is shown).
The Greek geometers were interested in laying out select figures from their inventory in various
applications of engineering and architecture, as the great inventors, such as Archimedes, were
accustomed to doing. A demand for conic sections existed then and exists now. The development of
mathematical characterization had moved geometry in the direction of Greek geometric algebra,
which visually features such algebraic fundamentals as assigning values to line segments as variables.
They used a coordinate system intermediate between a grid of measurements and the Cartesian
coordinate system. The theories of proportion and application of areas allowed the development of
visual equations. (See below under Methods of Apollonius).
The “application of areas” implicitly asks, given an area and a line segment, does this area apply; that
is, is it equal to, the square on the segment? If yes, an applicability (parabole) has been established.
Apollonius followed Euclid in asking if a rectangle on the abscissa of any point on the section applies
to the square of the ordinate.[11] If it does, his word-equation is the equivalent of which is one
modern form of the equation for a parabola. The rectangle has sides and . It was he who
accordingly named the figure, parabola, “application.”
The “no applicability” case is further divided into two possibilities. Given a function, , such that,
in the applicability case, , in the no applicability case, either or . In the
former, falls short of by a quantity termed the ellipsis, ”deficit.” In the latter, overshoots
by a quantity termed the hyperbole, "surfeit."
Applicability could be achieved by adding the deficit, , or subtracting the surfeit,

. The figure compensating for a deficit was named an ellipse; for a surfeit, a hyperbola.[12]
The terms of the modern equation depend on the translation and rotation of the figure from the
origin, but the general equation for an ellipse,
Ax2 + By2 = C
can be placed in the form
where C/B is the d, while an equation for the hyperbola,
Ax2 - By2 = C
becomes
where C/B is the s.[13]
Book II
Book II contains 53 propositions. Apollonius says that he

intended to cover "the properties having to do with the
diameters and axes and also the asymptotes and other things
... for limits of possibility." His definition of "diameter" is
different from the traditional, as he finds it necessary to refer
the intended recipient of the letter to his work for a definition.
The elements mentioned are those that specify the shape and The animated figure depicts the method
generation of the figures. Tangents are covered at the end of of "application of areas" to express the
the book. mathematical relationship that
characterizes a parabola. The upper left
corner of the changing rectangle on the
Book III left side and the upper right corner on the
right side is "any point on the section."
Book III contains 56 propositions. Apollonius claims original The animation has it following the
discovery for theorems "of use for the construction of solid loci section. The orange square at the top is
... the three-line and four-line locus ...." The locus of a conic "the square on the distance from the
section is the section. The three-line locus problem (as stated point to the diameter; i.e., a square of the
by Taliafero's appendix to Book III) finds "the locus of points ordinate. In Apollonius, the orientation is
whose distances from three given fixed straight lines ... are horizontal rather than the vertical shown
such that the square of one of the distances is always in a here. Here it is the square of the
constant ratio to the rectangle contained by the other two abscissa. Regardless of orientation, the
distances." This is the proof of the application of areas equation is the same, names changed.
resulting in the parabola.[14] The four-line problem results in The blue rectangle on the outside is the
the ellipse and hyperbola. Analytic geometry derives the same rectangle on the other coordinate and the
loci from simpler criteria supported by algebra, rather than distance p. In algebra, x2 = py, one form
geometry, for which Descartes was highly praised. He of the equation for a parabola. If the
supersedes Apollonius in his methods. outer rectangle exceeds py in area, the
section must be a hyperbola; if it is less,
an ellipse.
Book IV
Book IV contains 57 propositions. The first sent to Attalus, rather than to Eudemus, it thus represents
his more mature geometric thought. The topic is rather specialized: "the greatest number of points at
which sections of a cone can meet one another, or meet a circumference of a circle, ...." Nevertheless,
he speaks with enthusiasm, labeling them "of considerable use" in solving problems (Preface 4).[15]
Book V
Book V, known only through translation from the Arabic, contains 77 propositions, the most of any
book.[16] They cover the ellipse (50 propositions), the parabola (22), and the hyperbola (28).[17] These
are not explicitly the topic, which in Prefaces I and V Apollonius states to be maximum and minimum
lines. These terms are not explained. In contrast to Book I, Book V contains no definitions and no
explanation.
The ambiguity has served as a magnet to exegetes of Apollonius, who must interpret without sure
knowledge of the meaning of the book's major terms. Until recently Heath's view prevailed: the lines
are to be treated as normals to the sections.[18] A normal in this case is the perpendicular to a curve at
a tangent point sometimes called the foot. If a section is plotted according to Apollonius’ coordinate
system (see below under Methods of Apollonius), with the diameter (translated by Heath as the axis)
on the x-axis and the vertex at the origin on the left, the phraseology of the propositions indicates that
the minima/maxima are to be found between the section and the axis. Heath is led into his view by
consideration of a fixed point p on the section serving both as tangent point and as one end of the line.
The minimum distance between p and some point g on the axis must then be the normal from p.
In modern mathematics, normals to curves are known for being the location of the center of curvature
of that small part of the curve located around the foot. The distance from the foot to the center is the
radius of curvature. The latter is the radius of a circle, but for other than circular curves, the small arc
can be approximated by a circular arc. The curvature of non-circular curves; e.g., the conic sections,
must change over the section. A map of the center of curvature; i.e., its locus, as the foot moves over
the section, is termed the evolute of the section. Such a figure, the edge of the successive positions of a
line, is termed an envelope today. Heath believed that in Book V we are seeing Apollonius establish
the logical foundation of a theory of normals, evolutes, and envelopes.[19]
Heath's was accepted as the authoritative interpretation of Book V for the entire 20th century, but the
changing of the century brought with it a change of view. In 2001, Apollonius scholars Fried &
Unguru, granting all due respect to other Heath chapters, balked at the historicity of Heath's analysis
of Book V, asserting that he “reworks the original to make it more congenial to a modern
mathematician ... this is the kind of thing that makes Heath’s work of dubious value for the historian,
revealing more of Heath’s mind than that of Apollonius.”[20] Some of his arguments are in summary
as follows. There is no mention of maxima/minima being per se normals in either the prefaces or the
books proper.[21] Out of Heath's selection of 50 propositions said to cover normals, only 7, Book V:
27–33, state or imply maximum/minimum lines being perpendicular to the tangents. These 7 Fried
classifies as isolated, unrelated to the main propositions of the book. They do not in any way imply
that maxima/minima in general are normals. In his extensive investigation of the other 43
propositions, Fried proves that many cannot be.[22]
Fried and Unguru counter by portraying Apollonius as a continuation of the past rather than a
foreshadowing of the future. First is a complete philological study of all references to minimum and
maximum lines, which uncovers a standard phraseology. There are three groups of 20-25
propositions each.[23] The first group contains the phrase “from a point on the axis to the section,”
which is exactly the opposite of a hypothetical “from a point on the section to the axis.” The former
does not have to be normal to anything, although it might be. Given a fixed point on the axis, of all the
lines connecting it to all the points of the section, one will be longest (maximum) and one shortest
(minimum). Other phrases are “in a section,” “drawn from a section,” “cut off between the section and
its axis,” cut off by the axis,” all referring to the same image.
In the view of Fried and Unguru, the topic of Book V is exactly what Apollonius says it is, maximum
and minimum lines. These are not code words for future concepts, but refer to ancient concepts then
in use. The authors cite Euclid, Elements, Book III, which concerns itself with circles, and maximum
and minimum distances from interior points to the circumference.[24] Without admitting to any
specific generality they use terms such as “like” or “the analog of.” They are known for innovating the
term “neusis-like.” A neusis construction was a method of fitting a given segment between two given
curves. Given a point P, and a ruler with the segment marked off on it. one rotates the ruler around P
cutting the two curves until the segment is fitted between them. In Book V, P is the point on the axis.
Rotating a ruler around it, one discovers the distances to the section, from which the minimum and
maximum can be discerned. The technique is not applied to the situation, so it is not neusis. The
authors use neusis-like, seeing an archetypal similarity to the ancient method.[20]
Book VI
Book VI, known only through translation from the Arabic, contains 33 propositions, the least of any
book. It also has large lacunae, or gaps in the text, due to damage or corruption in the previous texts.
The topic is relatively clear and uncontroversial. Preface 1 states that it is “equal and similar sections
of cones.” Apollonius extends the concepts of congruence and similarity presented by Euclid for more
elementary figures, such as triangles, quadrilaterals, to conic sections. Preface 6 mentions “sections
and segments” that are “equal and unequal” as well as “similar and dissimilar,” and adds some
constructional information.
Book VI features a return to the basic definitions at the front of the book. “Equality” is determined by
an application of areas. If one figure; that is, a section or a segment, is “applied” to another (Halley's si
applicari possit altera super alteram), they are “equal” (Halley's aequales) if they coincide and no
line of one crosses any line of the other. This is obviously a standard of congruence following Euclid,
Book I, Common Notions, 4: “and things coinciding (epharmazanta) with one another are equal
(isa).” Coincidence and equality overlap, but they are not the same: the application of areas used to
define the sections depends on quantitative equality of areas but they can belong to different figures.
Between instances that are the same (homos), being equal to each other, and those that are different,
or unequal, are figures that are “same-ish” (hom-oios), or similar. They are neither entirely the same
nor different, but share aspects that are the same and do not share aspects that are different.
Intuitively the geometricians had scale in mind; e.g., a map is similar to a topographic region. Thus
figures could have larger or smaller versions of themselves.
The aspects that are the same in similar figures depend on the figure. Book 6 of Euclid's Elements
presents similar triangles as those that have the same corresponding angles. A triangle can thus have
miniatures as small as you please, or giant versions, and still be “the same” triangle as the original.
In Apollonius' definitions at the beginning of Book VI, similar right cones have similar axial triangles.
Similar sections and segments of sections are first of all in similar cones. In addition, for every
abscissa of one must exist an abscissa in the other at the desired scale. Finally, abscissa and ordinate
of one must be matched by coordinates of the same ratio of ordinate to abscissa as the other. The total
effect is as though the section or segment were moved up and down the cone to achieve a different
scale.[25]
Book VII
Book VII, also a translation from the Arabic, contains 51 Propositions. These are the last that Heath
considers in his 1896 edition. In Preface I, Apollonius does not mention them, implying that, at the
time of the first draft, they may not have existed in sufficiently coherent form to describe. Apollonius
uses obscure language, that they are “peri dioristikon theorematon”, which Halley translated as “de
theorematis ad determinationem pertinentibus,” and Heath as “theorems involving determinations of
limits.” This is the language of definition, but no definitions are forthcoming. Whether the reference
might be to a specific kind of definition is a consideration but to date nothing credible has been
proposed.[26] The topic of Book VII, completed toward the end of Apollonius’ life and career, is stated
in Preface VII to be diameters and “the figures described upon them,” which must include conjugate
diameters, as he relies heavily on them. In what way the term “limits” or “determinations” might
apply is not mentioned.
Diameters and their conjugates are defined in Book I (Definitions 4–6). Not every diameter has a
conjugate. The topography of a diameter (Greek diametros) requires a regular curved figure.
Irregularly-shaped areas, addressed in modern times, are not in the ancient game plan. Apollonius
has in mind, of course, the conic sections, which he describes in often convolute language: “a curve in
the same plane” is a circle, ellipse or parabola, while “two curves in the same plane” is a hyperbola. A
chord is a straight line whose two end points are on the figure; i.e., it cuts the figure in two places. If a
grid of parallel chords is imposed on the figure, then the diameter is defined as the line bisecting all
the chords, reaching the curve itself at a point called the vertex. There is no requirement for a closed
figure; e.g., a parabola has a diameter.
A parabola has symmetry in one dimension. If you imagine it folded on its one diameter, the two
halves are congruent, or fit over each other. The same may be said of one branch of a hyperbola.
Conjugate diameters (Greek suzugeis diametroi, where suzugeis is “yoked together”), however, are
symmetric in two dimensions. The figures to which they apply require also an areal center (Greek
kentron), today called a centroid, serving as a center of symmetry in two directions. These figures are
the circle, ellipse, and two-branched hyperbola. There is only one centroid, which must not be
confused with the foci. A diameter is a chord passing through the centroid, which always bisects it.
For the circle and ellipse, let a grid of parallel chords be superimposed over the figure such that the
longest is a diameter and the others are successively shorter until the last is not a chord, but is a
tangent point. The tangent must be parallel to the diameter. A conjugate diameter bisects the chords,
being placed between the centroid and the tangent point. Moreover, both diameters are conjugate to
each other, being called a conjugate pair. It is obvious that any conjugate pair of a circle are
perpendicular to each other, but in an ellipse, only the major and minor axes are, the elongation
destroying the perpendicularity in all other cases.
Conjugates are defined for the two branches of a hyperbola resulting from the cutting of a double cone
by a single plane. They are called conjugate branches. They have the same diameter. Its centroid
bisects the segment between vertices. There is room for one more diameter-like line: let a grid of lines
parallel to the diameter cut both branches of the hyperbola. These lines are chord-like except that they
do not terminate on the same continuous curve. A conjugate diameter can be drawn from the centroid
to bisect the chord-like lines.
These concepts mainly from Book I get us started on the 51 propositions of Book VII defining in detail
the relationships between sections, diameters, and conjugate diameters. As with some of Apollonius
other specialized topics, their utility today compared to Analytic Geometry remains to be seen,
although he affirms in Preface VII that they are both useful and innovative; i.e., he takes the credit for
them.
Lost and reconstructed works described by Pappus
Pappus mentions other treatises of Apollonius:
1. Λόγου ἀποτομή, De Rationis Sectione ("Cutting of a Ratio")

2. Χωρίου ἀποτομή, De Spatii Sectione ("Cutting of an Area")
3. Διωρισμένη τομή, De Sectione Determinata ("Determinate Section")
4. Ἐπαφαί, De Tactionibus ("Tangencies")[27]

5. Νεύσεις, De Inclinationibus ("Inclinations")
6. Τόποι ἐπίπεδοι, De Locis Planis ("Plane Loci").
Each of these was divided into two books, and—with the Data, the Porisms, and Surface-Loci of
Euclid and the Conics of Apollonius—were, according to Pappus, included in the body of the ancient
analysis.[14] Descriptions follow of the six works mentioned above.
De Rationis Sectione
De Rationis Sectione sought to resolve a simple problem: Given two straight lines and a point in each,
draw through a third given point a straight line cutting the two fixed lines such that the parts
intercepted between the given points in them and the points of intersection with this third line may
have a given ratio.[14]
De Spatii Sectione
De Spatii Sectione discussed a similar problem requiring the rectangle contained by the two
intercepts to be equal to a given rectangle.[14]
In the late 17th century, Edward Bernard discovered a version of De Rationis Sectione in the Bodleian
Library. Although he began a translation, it was Halley who finished it and included it in a 1706
volume with his restoration of De Spatii Sectione.
De Sectione Determinata
De Sectione Determinata deals with problems in a manner that may be called an analytic geometry of
one dimension; with the question of finding points on a line that were in a ratio to the others.[28] The
specific problems are: Given two, three or four points on a straight line, find another point on it such
that its distances from the given points satisfy the condition that the square on one or the rectangle
contained by two has a given ratio either (1) to the square on the remaining one or the rectangle
contained by the remaining two or (2) to the rectangle contained by the remaining one and another
given straight line. Several have tried to restore the text to discover Apollonius's solution, among them
Snellius (Willebrord Snell, Leiden, 1698); Alexander Anderson of Aberdeen, in the supplement to his
Apollonius Redivivus (Paris, 1612); and Robert Simson in his Opera quaedam reliqua (Glasgow,
1776), by far the best attempt.[14]
De Tactionibus
De Tactionibus embraced the following general problem: Given three things (points, straight lines, or
circles) in position, describe a circle passing through the given points and touching the given straight
lines or circles. The most difficult and historically interesting case arises when the three given things
are circles. In the 16th century, Vieta presented this problem (sometimes known as the Apollonian
Problem) to Adrianus Romanus, who solved it with a hyperbola. Vieta thereupon proposed a simpler
solution, eventually leading him to restore the whole of Apollonius's treatise in the small work
Apollonius Gallus (Paris, 1600). The history of the problem is explored in fascinating detail in the
preface to J. W. Camerer's brief Apollonii Pergaei quae supersunt, ac maxime Lemmata Pappi in hos
Libras, cum Observationibus, &c (Gothae, 1795, 8vo).[14]
De Inclinationibus
The object of De Inclinationibus was to demonstrate how a straight line of a given length, tending
towards a given point, could be inserted between two given (straight or circular) lines. Though Marin
Getaldić and Hugo d'Omerique (Geometrical Analysis, Cadiz, 1698) attempted restorations, the best
is by Samuel Horsley (1770).[14]
De Locis Planis
De Locis Planis is a collection of propositions relating to loci that are either straight lines or circles.
Since Pappus gives somewhat full particulars of its propositions, this text has also seen efforts to
restore it, not only by P. Fermat (Oeuvres, i., 1891, pp. 3–51) and F. Schooten (Leiden, 1656) but also,
most successfully of all, by R. Simson (Glasgow, 1749).[14]
Lost works mentioned by other ancient writers
Ancient writers refer to other works of Apollonius that are no longer extant:
1. Περὶ τοῦ πυρίου, On the Burning-Glass, a treatise probably exploring the focal properties of the
parabola
2. Περὶ τοῦ κοχλίου, On the Cylindrical Helix (mentioned by Proclus)
3. A comparison of the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere
4. Ἡ καθόλου πραγματεία, a work on the general principles of mathematics that perhaps included
Apollonius's criticisms and suggestions for the improvement of Euclid's Elements
5. Ὠκυτόκιον ("Quick Bringing-to-birth"), in which, according to Eutocius, Apollonius demonstrated
how to find closer limits for the value of π than those of Archimedes, who calculated 31⁄7 as the
upper limit and 310⁄71 as the lower limit
6. an arithmetical work (see Pappus) on a system both for expressing large numbers in language
more everyday than that of Archimedes' The Sand Reckoner and for multiplying these large
numbers
7. a great extension of the theory of irrationals expounded in Euclid, Book x., from binomial to
multinomial and from ordered to unordered irrationals (see extracts from Pappus' comm. on Eucl.
x., preserved in Arabic and published by Woepke, 1856).[14]
Early printed editions
The early printed editions began for the most part in the 16th century. At that time, scholarly books
were expected to be in Latin, today's Neo-Latin. As almost no manuscripts were in Latin, the editors
of the early printed works translated from the Greek or Arabic to Latin. The Greek and Latin were
typically juxtaposed, but only the Greek is original, or else was restored by the editor to what he
thought was original. Critical apparatuses were in Latin. The ancient commentaries, however, were in
ancient or medieval Greek. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries did
editions in modern languages begin to appear. A representative list
of early printed editions is given below. The originals of these
printings are rare and expensive. For modern editions in modern
languages see the references.
1. Pergaeus, Apollonius (1566). Conicorum libri quattuor: una

cum Pappi Alexandrini lemmatibus, et commentariis Eutocii
Ascalonitae. Sereni Antinensis philosophi libri duo ... quae
omnia nuper Federicus Commandinus Vrbinas mendis Pages from the 9th century Arabic
quampluris expurgata e Graeco conuertit, & commentariis translation of the Conics
illustrauit (in Ancient Greek and Latin). Bononiae: Ex officina
Alexandri Benatii. A presentation of the first four books of
Conics in Greek by Fredericus Commandinus with his own
translation into Latin and the commentaries of Pappus of
Alexandria, Eutocius of Ascalon and Serenus of Antinouplis.
2. Apollonius; Barrow, I (1675). Apollonii conica: methodo nova
illustrata, & succinctè demonstrata (https://archive.org/stream/
apolloniiconicam00apol#page/n7/mode/2up) (in Latin). Londini:
Excudebat Guil. Godbid, voeneunt apud Robertum Scott, in
vico Little Britain. Translation by Barrow from ancient Greek to
Neo-Latin of the first four books of Conics. The copy linked
here, located in the Boston Public Library, once belonged to
John Adams.
3. Apollonius; Pappus; Halley, E. (1706). Apollonii Pergaei de
sectione rationis libri duo: Ex Arabico ms. Latine versi.
Accedunt ejusdem de sectione spatii libri duo restituti (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=p9cPAAAAQAAJ) (in Latin).
Oxonii. A presentation of two lost but reconstructed works of
Apollonius. De Sectione Rationis comes from an unpublished
manuscript in Arabic in the Bodleian Library at Oxford originally
partially translated by Edward Bernard but interrupted by his
death. It was given to Edmond Halley, professor, astronomer,
mathematician and explorer, after whom Halley's Comet later 1654 edition of Conica by
was named. Unable to decipher the corrupted text, he Apollonius edited by Francesco
abandoned it. Subsequently, David Gregory (mathematician) Maurolico
restored the Arabic for Henry Aldrich, who gave it again to
Halley. Learning Arabic, Halley created De Sectione Rationis
and as an added emolument for the reader created a Neo-Latin translation of a version of De
Sectione Spatii reconstructed from Pappus Commentary on it. The two Neo-Latin works and
Pappus' ancient Greek commentary were bound together in the single volume of 1706. The
author of the Arabic manuscript is not known. Based on a statement that it was written under the
"auspices" of Al-Ma'mun, Latin Almamon, astronomer and Caliph of Baghdad in 825, Halley dates
it to 820 in his "Praefatio ad Lectorem."
4. Apollonius; Alexandrinus Pappus; Halley, Edmond; Eutocius; Serenus (1710). Apollonii Pergaei
Conicorum libri octo, et Sereni Antissensis De sectione cylindri & coni libri duo (http://www.wilbour
hall.org/pdfs/apollonius/Apollonii_Pergaei_Conicorum_libri_octo.pdf) (PDF) (in Latin and Ancient
Greek). Oxoniae: e Theatro Sheldoniano. Encouraged by the success of his translation of David
Gregory's emended Arabic text of de Sectione rationis, published in 1706, Halley went on to
restore and translate into Latin Apollonius’ entire elementa conica.[29] Books I-IV had never been
lost. They appear with the Greek in one column and Halley's Latin in a parallel column. Books V-
VI came from a windfall discovery of a previously unappreciated translation from Greek to Arabic
that had been purchased by the antiquarian scholar Jacobus Golius in Aleppo in 1626. On his
death in 1696 it passed by a chain of purchases and bequests to the Bodleian Library (originally
as MS Marsh 607, dated 1070).[30] The translation, dated much earlier, comes from the branch of
Almamon's school entitled the Banū Mūsā, “sons of Musa,” a group of three brothers, who lived in
the 9th century. The translation was performed by writers working for them.[5] In Halley's work,
only the Latin translation of Books V-VII is given. This is its first printed publication. Book VIII was
lost before the scholars of Almamon could take a hand at preserving it. Halley's concoction, based
on expectations developed in Book VII, and the lemmas of Pappus, is given in Latin. The
commentary of Eutocius, the lemmas of Pappus, and two related treatises by Serenus are
included as a guide to the interpretation of the Conics.
Ideas attributed to Apollonius by other writers
Apollonius' contribution to astronomy
The equivalence of two descriptions of planet motions, one using eccentrics and another deferent and
epicycles, is attributed to him. Ptolemy describes this equivalence in the Almagest.
Methods of Apollonius
According to Heath,[31] “The Methods of Apollonius” were not his and were not personal. Whatever
influence he had on later theorists was that of geometry, not of his own innovation of technique.
Heath says,
As a preliminary to the consideration in detail of the methods employed in the Conics, it

may be stated generally that they follow steadily the accepted principles of geometrical
investigation which found their definitive expression in the Elements of Euclid.
With regard to moderns speaking of golden age geometers, the term "method" means specifically the
visual, reconstructive way in which the geometer unknowingly produces the same result as an
algebraic method used today. As a simple example, algebra finds the area of a square by squaring its
side. The geometric method of accomplishing the same result is to construct a visual square.
Geometric methods in the golden age could produce most of the results of elementary algebra.
Geometrical algebra
Heath goes on to use the term geometrical algebra for the methods of the entire golden age. The term
is “not inappropriately” called that, he says. Today the term has been resurrected for use in other
senses (see under geometric algebra). Heath was using it as it had been defined by Henry Burchard
Fine in 1890 or before.[32] Fine applies it to La Géométrie of René Descartes, the first full-blown work
of analytic geometry. Establishing as a precondition that “two algebras are formally identical whose
fundamental operations are formally the same,” Fine says that Descartes’ work “is not ... mere
numerical algebra, but what may for want of a better name be called the algebra of line segments. Its
symbolism is the same as that of numerical algebra; ....”
For example, in Apollonius a line segment AB (the line between Point A and Point B) is also the
numerical length of the segment. It can have any length. AB therefore becomes the same as an
algebraic variable, such as x (the unknown), to which any value might be assigned; e.g., x=3.
Variables are defined in Apollonius by such word statements as “let

AB be the distance from any point on the section to the diameter,” a
practice that continues in algebra today. Every student of basic
algebra must learn to convert “word problems” to algebraic variables
and equations, to which the rules of algebra apply in solving for x.
Apollonius had no such rules. His solutions are geometric.
Relationships not readily amenable to pictorial solutions were

beyond his grasp; however, his repertory of pictorial solutions came
from a pool of complex geometric solutions generally not known (or
required) today. One well-known exception is the indispensable
Visual form of the Pythagorean Pythagorean Theorem, even now represented by a right triangle with
theorem as the ancient Greeks squares on its sides illustrating an expression such as a2 + b2 = c2.
saw it. The area of the blue The Greek geometers called those terms “the square on AB,” etc.
square is the sum of the areas Similarly, the area of a rectangle formed by AB and CD was "the
of the other two squares. rectangle on AB and CD."
These concepts gave the Greek geometers algebraic access to linear

functions and quadratic functions, which latter the conic sections are. They contain powers of 1 or 2
respectively. Apollonius had not much use for cubes (featured in solid geometry), even though a cone
is a solid. His interest was in conic sections, which are plane figures. Powers of 4 and up were beyond
visualization, requiring a degree of abstraction not available in geometry, but ready at hand in
algebra.
The coordinate system of Apollonius
All ordinary measurement of length in public units, such as inches,

using standard public devices, such as a ruler, implies public
recognition of a Cartesian grid; that is, a surface divided into unit
squares, such as one square inch, and a space divided into unit cubes,
such as one cubic inch. The ancient Greek units of measurement had
provided such a grid to Greek mathematicians since the Bronze Age.
Prior to Apollonius, Menaechmus and Archimedes had already
started locating their figures on an implied window of the common
grid by referring to distances conceived to be measured from a left-
hand vertical line marking a low measure and a bottom horizontal
line marking a low measure, the directions being rectilinear, or Cartesian coordinate system,
perpendicular to one another.[33] These edges of the window become, standard in analytic geometry
in the Cartesian coordinate system, the axes. One specifies the
rectilinear distances of any point from the axes as the coordinates.
The ancient Greeks did not have that convention. They simply referred to distances.
Apollonius does have a standard window in which he places his figures. Vertical measurement is from
a horizontal line he calls the “diameter.” The word is the same in Greek as it is in English, but the
Greek is somewhat wider in its comprehension.[34] If the figure of the conic section is cut by a grid of
parallel lines, the diameter bisects all the line segments included between the branches of the figure.
It must pass through the vertex (koruphe, "crown"). A diameter thus comprises open figures such as a
parabola as well as closed, such as a circle. There is no specification that the diameter must be
perpendicular to the parallel lines, but Apollonius uses only rectilinear ones.
The rectilinear distance from a point on the section to the diameter is termed tetagmenos in Greek,
etymologically simply “extended.” As it is only ever extended “down” (kata-) or “up” (ana-), the
translators interpret it as ordinate. In that case the diameter becomes the x-axis and the vertex the
origin. The y-axis then becomes a tangent to the curve at the vertex. The abscissa is then defined as
the segment of the diameter between the ordinate and the vertex.
Using his version of a coordinate system, Apollonius manages to develop in pictorial form the
geometric equivalents of the equations for the conic sections, which raises the question of whether his
coordinate system can be considered Cartesian. There are some differences. The Cartesian system is
to be regarded as universal, covering all figures in all space applied before any calculation is done. It
has four quadrants divided by the two crossed axes. Three of the quadrants include negative
coordinates meaning directions opposite the reference axes of zero.
Apollonius has no negative numbers, does not explicitly have a number for zero, and does not develop
the coordinate system independently of the conic sections. He works essentially only in Quadrant 1,
all positive coordinates. Carl Boyer, a modern historian of mathematics, therefore says:[35]
However, Greek geometric algebra did not provide for negative magnitudes; moreover, the
coordinate system was in every case superimposed a posteriori upon a given curve in
order to study its properties .... Apollonius, the greatest geometer of antiquity, failed to
develop analytic geometry....
No one denies, however, that Apollonius occupies some sort of intermediate niche between the grid
system of conventional measurement and the fully developed Cartesian Coordinate System of Analytic
Geometry. In reading Apollonius, one must take care not to assume modern meanings for his terms.
The theory of proportions
Apollonius uses the "Theory of Proportions" as expressed in Euclid’s Elements, Books 5 and 6.
Devised by Eudoxus of Cnidus, the theory is intermediate between purely graphic methods and
modern number theory. A standard decimal number system is lacking, as is a standard treatment of
fractions. The propositions, however, express in words rules for manipulating fractions in arithmetic.
Heath proposes that they stand in place of multiplication and division.[36]
By the term “magnitude” Eudoxus hoped to go beyond numbers to a general sense of size, a meaning
it still retains. With regard to the figures of Euclid, it most often means numbers, which was the
Pythagorean approach. Pythagoras believed the universe could be characterized by quantities, which
belief has become the current scientific dogma. Book V of Euclid begins by insisting that a magnitude
(megethos, “size”) must be divisible evenly into units (meros, “part”). A magnitude is thus a multiple
of units. They do not have to be standard measurement units, such as meters or feet. One unit can be
any designated line segment.
There follows perhaps the most useful fundamental definition ever devised in science: the ratio
(Greek logos, meaning roughly “explanation.”) is a statement of relative magnitude. Given two
magnitudes, say of segments AB and CD. the ratio of AB to CD, where CD is considered unit, is the
number of CD in AB; for example, 3 parts of 4, or 60 parts per million, where ppm still uses the
“parts” terminology. The ratio is the basis of the modern fraction, which also still means “part,” or
“fragment”, from the same Latin root as fracture. The ratio is the basis of mathematical prediction in
the logical structure called a “proportion” (Greek analogos). The proportion states that if two
segments, AB and CD, have the same ratio as two others, EF and GH, then AB and CD are
proportional to EF and GH, or, as would be said in Euclid, AB is to CD as EF is to GH.
Algebra reduces this general concept to the expression AB/CD = EF/GH. Given any three of the
terms, one can calculate the fourth as an unknown. Rearranging the above equation, one obtains AB =
(CD/GH)•EF, in which, expressed as y = kx, the CD/GH is known as the “constant of proportionality.”
The Greeks had little difficulty with taking multiples (Greek pollaplasiein), probably by successive
addition.
Apollonius uses ratios almost exclusively of line segments and areas, which are designated by squares
and rectangles. The translators have undertaken to use the colon notation introduced by Leibniz in
Acta Eruditorum, 1684.[37] Here is an example from Conics, Book I, on Proposition 11:
Literal translation of the Greek: Let it be contrived that the (square) of BC be to the (rectangle)
of BAC as FH is to FA
Taliaferro’s translation: “Let it be contrived that sq. BC : rect. BA.AC :: FH : FA”
Algebraic equivalent: BC2/BA•BC = FH/FA
See also
Apollonian circles
Apollonian gasket
Apollonius point
Apollonian network
Apollonius' theorem
Circles of Apollonius
Descartes' theorem
Problem of Apollonius
Notes
1. "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Quotes" (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9856743-he-who-underst
ands-archimedes-and-apollonius-will-admire-less-the). goodreads.
2. Ji, Shanyu. "Apollonius and Conic Sections" (https://math.uh.edu/~shanyuji/History/h-11.pdf)
(PDF).
3. Eutocius, Commentary on Conica, Book I, Lines 5-10, to be found translated in Apollonius of
Perga & Thomas 1953, p. 277
4. Studies on the dates of Apollonius are in essence a juggling of the dates of individuals mentioned
by Apollonius and other ancient authors. There is the question of exactly what event occurred 246
- 222, whether birth or education. Scholars of the 19th and earlier 20th centuries tend to favor an
earlier birth, 260 or 262, in an effort to make Apollonius more the age-mate of Archimedes. Some
inscriptional evidence that turned up at Pompeii make Philonides the best dated character. He
lived in the 2nd century BC. Since Apollonius' life must be extended into the 2nd century, early
birth dates are less likely. A more detailed presentation of the data and problems may be found in
Knorr (1986). The dichotomy between conventional dates deriving from tradition and a more
realistic approach is shown by McElroy, Tucker (2005). "Apollonius of Perga". A to Z of
Mathematicians. McElroy at once gives 262 - 190 (high-side dates) and explains that it should be
late 3rd - early 2nd as it is in this article.
5. Fried & Unguru 2001, Introduction

6. Thomas Little Heath (1908). "The thirteen books of Euclid's Elements" (https://archive.org/stream/t
hirteenbookseu03heibgoog#page/n521/mode/2up/search/Antiphon). Cambridge, The University
Press.
7. Toomer, Gerald J. (1990). Apollonius: Conics Books V to VII : the Arabic Translation of the Lost
Greek Original in the Version of the Banū Mūsā (https://books.google.com/books?id=THTgBwAA
QBAJ&pg=PR16). New York, NY: Springer New York. pp. xvi–xviii. ISBN 1461389879.
8. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, pp. clvii–clxx
9. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, p. vii
10. Note that the Greek geometers were not defining the circle, the ellipse, and other figures as conic
sections. This would be circular definition, as the cone was defined in terms of a circle. Each
figure has its own geometric definition, and in addition, is being shown to be a conic section.
11. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, p. c
12. Note that a circle, being another case of the deficit, is sometimes considered a kind of ellipse with
a single center instead of two foci.
13. Note that y2 = g(x) is not the equation for a parabola, which is y2 = kx, the x being a lower power.
14. Heath 1911, p. 187.
15. Many of the commentators and translators, as well, no doubt, as copyists, have been explicitly
less than enthusiastic about their use, especially after analytic geometry, which can do most of the
problems by algebra without any stock of constructions. Taliaferro stops at Book III. Heath
attempts a digest of the book to make it more palatable to the reader (Apollonius of Perga &
Heath 1896, Intersecting Conics) Fried is more true to Apollonius, supplying an extensive critical
apparatus instead (Apollonius of Perga & Fried 2002, Footnotes).
16. Fried & Unguru 2001, p. 146
17. Fried & Unguru 2001, p. 188
18. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, Normals as Maxima and Minima
19. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, Propositions Leading Immediately to the Determination of the
Evolute
20. Fried & Unguru 2001, p. 148
21. Normalis is a perfectly good Latin word meaning "measured with a norma," or square. Halley uses
it to translate Pappus' eutheia, "right-placed," which has a more general sense of directionally
right. For "the perpendicular to," the mathematical Greeks used "the normal of," where the object
of "of" could be any figure, usually a straight line. What Fried is saying is that there was no
standard use of normal to mean normal of a curve, nor did Apollonius introduce one, although in
several isolated cases he did describe one.
22. Fried & Unguru dedicate an entire chapter to these criticisms:Fried & Unguru 2001, Maximum and
Minimum Lines: Book V of the Conica
23. A summary table is given in Fried & Unguru 2001, p. 190
24. Fried & Unguru 2001, p. 182
25. A mathematical explanation as well as precis of each proposition in the book can be found in
Apollonius of Perga & Toomer 1990, pp. lxi–lxix Note that translations of the definitions vary widely
as each English author attempts to paraphrase the complexities in clear and succinct English. In
essence, no such English is available.
26. A summary of the question can be found at Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, p. lxx. Most writers
have something to say about it; for example, Toomer, GJ (1990). Apollonius Conics Book V to VII:
the Arabic Translation of the Lost Greek Original in the Version of the Banu Musa. Sources in the
History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences 9. Vol. I. New York: Springer. pp. lxix–lxx. "we may
regard the establishment of limits of solution as its main purpose" Toomer’s view is given without
specifics or reference to any text of Book VII except the Preface.
27. Mackenzie, Dana. "A Tisket, a Tasket, an Apollonian Gasket" (https://web.archive.org/web/201704
10035040/http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/a-tisket-a-tasket-an-apollonian-gasket).
American Scientist. 98, January–February 2010 (1): 10–14. Archived from the original (http://www.
americanscientist.org/issues/pub/a-tisket-a-tasket-an-apollonian-gasket/) on 2017-04-10.
Retrieved 2015-02-05.
28. Boyer, Carl B. (1991). "Apollonius of Perga" (https://archive.org/details/historyofmathema00boye/p
age/142). A History of Mathematics (Second ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 142 (https://archive.
org/details/historyofmathema00boye/page/142). ISBN 0-471-54397-7. "The Apollonian treatise On
Determinate Section dealt with what might be called an analytic geometry of one dimension. It
considered the following general problem, using the typical Greek algebraic analysis in geometric
form: Given four points A, B, C, D on a straight line, determine a fifth point P on it such that the
rectangle on AP and CP is in a given ratio to the rectangle on BP and DP. Here, too, the problem
reduces easily to the solution of a quadratic; and, as in other cases, Apollonius treated the
question exhaustively, including the limits of possibility and the number of solutions."
29. He said in his Praefatio of 1710, that although Apollonius was second only (in his opinion) to
Archimedes, a large part of his elementa conica was “truncated” and the remaining part “less
faithful;” consequently he was now going to emend it. The question of exactly what items are to be
regarded as “faithful” pervades today's literature.
30. For a more precise version of the chain see Wakefield, Colin. "Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian
Library" (http://www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/books/Russell-1994-Arabick/Russell-1994-
Arabick-128-146-Wakefield.pdf) (PDF). pp. 136–137.
31. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, p. ci
32. Fine, Henry B (1902). The number-system of algebra treated theoretically and historically. Boston:
Leach. pp. 119–120.
33. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, p. cxv
34. Apollonius, Conics, Book I, Definition 4. Refer also to Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, p. clxi
35. Boyer, Carl B. (1991). "Apollonius of Perga" (https://archive.org/details/historyofmathema00boye/p
age/156). A History of Mathematics (Second ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 156–157 (https://ar
chive.org/details/historyofmathema00boye/page/156). ISBN 0-471-54397-7.
36. Apollonius of Perga & Heath 1896, pp. ci–cii
37. Cajori, Florian (1993). A history of mathematical notations (https://archive.org/details/historyofmat
hema00cajo_0). New York: Dover Publications. p. 295 (https://archive.org/details/historyofmathem
a00cajo_0/page/295). ISBN 9780486677668.
References
Alhazen; Hogendijk, JP (1985). Ibn al-Haytham's Completion of the "Conics". New York: Springer
Verlag.
Apollonius of Perga; Halley, Edmund; Balsam, Paul Heinrich (1861). Des Apollonius von Perga
sieben Bücher über Kegelschnitte Nebst dem durch Halley wieder hergestellten achten Buche;
dabei ein Anhang, enthaltend Die auf die Geometrie der Kegelschnitte bezüglichen Sätze aus
Newton's "Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica." (in German). Berlin: De Gruyter.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Heath, Thomas Little
(1911). "Apollonius of Perga". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.).
Cambridge University Press. pp. 186–188.
Apollonius of Perga; Halley, Edmund; Fried, Michael N (2011). Edmond Halley's reconstruction of
the lost book of Apollonius's Conics: translation and commentary. Sources and studies in the
history of mathematics and physical sciences. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1461401452.
Apollonius of Perga; Heath, Thomas Little (1896). Treatise on conic sections (https://archive.org/d
etails/treatiseonconic00heatgoog). Cambridge: University Press.
Apollonius of Perga; Heiberg, JL (1891). Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant cum
commentariis antiquis (https://books.google.com/books?id=Tf4IAQAAMAAJ) (in Ancient Greek
and Latin). Vol. I. Leipzig: Teubner.
Apollonius of Perga; Heiberg, JL (1893). Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant cum
commentariis antiquis (https://books.google.com/books?id=0XS4AAAAIAAJ) (in Ancient Greek
and Latin). Vol. II. Leipzig: Teubner.
Apollonius of Perga; Densmore, Dana (2010). Conics, books I-III. Santa Fe (NM): Green Lion
Press.
Apollonius of Perga; Fried, Michael N (2002). Apollonius of Perga's Conics, Book IV: Translation,
Introduction, and Diagrams. Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.
Apollonius of Perga; Taliaferro, R. Catesby (1952). "Conics Books I-III" (https://archive.org/details/i
n.ernet.dli.2015.126332). In Hutchins, Robert Maynard (ed.). Great Books of the Western World.
Vol. 11. Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius of Perga, Nicomachus. Chicago, London, Toronto:
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Apollonius of Perga; Thomas, Ivor (1953). Selections illustrating the history of greek mathematics
(https://archive.org/details/selectionsillust02bulmuoft). Loeb Classical Library. Vol. II From
Aristarchus to Pappus. London; Cambridge, Massachusetts: William Heinemann, Ltd.; Harvard
University Press.
Apollonius of Perga; Toomer, GJ (1990). Conics, books V to VII: the Arabic translation of the lost
Greek original in the version of the Banū Mūsā. Sources in the history of mathematics and
physical sciences, 9. New York: Springer.
Apollonius de Perge, La section des droites selon des rapports, Commentaire historique et
mathématique, édition et traduction du texte arabe. Roshdi Rashed and Hélène Bellosta, Scientia
Graeco-Arabica, vol. 2. Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2010.
Fried, Michael N.; Unguru, Sabetai (2001). Apollonius of Perga's Conica: text, context, subtext.
Leiden: Brill.
Knorr, W. R. (1986). The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser
Boston.
Neugebauer, Otto (1975). A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Pappus of Alexandria; Jones, Alexander (1986). Pappus of Alexandria Book 7 of the Collection.
Sources in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, 8. New York, NY: Springer New
York.
Rashed, Roshdi; Decorps-Foulquier, Micheline; Federspiel, Michel, eds. (n.d.). "Conica" (https://w
ww.degruyter.com/view/serial/22272). Apollonius de Perge, Coniques: Texte grec et arabe etabli,
traduit et commenté. Scientia Graeco-Arabico (in Ancient Greek, Arabic, and French). Berlin,
Boston: De Gruyter.
Toomer, G.J. (1970). "Apollonius of Perga". Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. 1. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 179–193. ISBN 0-684-10114-9.
Zeuthen, HG (1886). Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertum (https://archive.org/details/diel

ehrevondenk01zeutgoog) (in German). Copenhagen: Höst and Sohn.
External links
Many of the popular sites in the history of mathematics linked below reference or analyze concepts
attributed to Apollonius in modern notations and concepts. Since much of Apollonius is subject to
interpretation, and he does not per se use modern vocabulary or concepts, the analyses below may not
be optimal or accurate. They represent the historical theories of their authors.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica (2006). "Apollonius of Perga" (https://www.britannica.com/

biography/Apollonius-of-Perga). Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Kunkel, Paul (2016). "Conics of Apollonius" (http://whistleralley.com/conics/conica/). Whistler Alley
Mathematics. whistleralley.com. Retrieved 15 February 2017.
O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Apollonius of Perga" (https://mathshistory.st-andrews.
ac.uk/Biographies/Apollonius.html), MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St
Andrews
"Mathematics and Mathematical Astronomy" (http://www.wilbourhall.org). Brown University.
"Apollonii Pergaei Conicorum" (http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm/ref/collection/math/id/1904). Linda
Hall Library Digital Collection.
David Dennis; Susan Addington (2009). "Apollonius and Conic Sections" (http://quadrivium.info/M
athInt/Notes/Apollonius.pdf) (PDF). Mathematical Intentions. quadrivium.info.
Stoudt, Gary S. "Can You Really Derive Conic Formulae from a Cone?" (http://www.maa.org/pres
s/periodicals/convergence/can-you-really-derive-conic-formulae-from-a-cone). Mathematical
Association of America. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
McKinney, Colin Bryan Powell (2010). Conjugate diameters: Apollonius of Perga and Eutocius of
Ascalon (http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1896&context=etd) (Ph.D.). University of
Iowa.
Scans of old editions of some of Apollonius' works in several languages (https://wilbourhall.org/ind
ex.html#apollonius) at wilbourhall.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollonius_of_Perga&oldid=1153520722"

Apollonius of Perga

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apollonius of Perga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/13/23, 11:12 AM Apollonius of Perga - Wikipedia

Apollonius worked on numerous other topics, including

The times of Apollonius

The short autobiography of Apollonius

Apollonius brings to mind Philonides of Laodicea, a geometer whom he introduced to Eudemus in

Documented works of Apollonius

Book I presents 58 propositions. Its most salient

A conical surface is generated by a line segment rotated

A “section” (Latin sectio, Greek tome) is an imaginary

Applicability could be achieved by adding the deficit, , or subtracting the surfeit,

where C/B is the d, while an equation for the hyperbola,

where C/B is the s.[13]

Book II contains 53 propositions. Apollonius says that he

Lost and reconstructed works described by Pappus

Pappus mentions other treatises of Apollonius:

1. Λόγου ἀποτομή, De Rationis Sectione ("Cutting of a Ratio")

4. Ἐπαφαί, De Tactionibus ("Tangencies")[27]

Lost works mentioned by other ancient writers

Early printed editions

1. Pergaeus, Apollonius (1566). Conicorum libri quattuor: una

Ideas attributed to Apollonius by other writers

Apollonius' contribution to astronomy

As a preliminary to the consideration in detail of the methods employed in the Conics, it

Variables are defined in Apollonius by such word statements as “let

Relationships not readily amenable to pictorial solutions were

These concepts gave the Greek geometers algebraic access to linear

The coordinate system of Apollonius

All ordinary measurement of length in public units, such as inches,

The theory of proportions

5. Fried & Unguru 2001, Introduction

Zeuthen, HG (1886). Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertum (https://archive.org/details/diel

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica (2006). "Apollonius of Perga" (https://www.britannica.com/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollonius_of_Perga&oldid=1153520722"

You might also like