A CRITICAL AMD HISTORICAL STUD!

OP THE ROLE OP RULER AMD COMPASS

CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE TEACHING OF HIGH SCHOOL GEOMETRY

IN THE UNITED STATES

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of tbe Requirements

for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State
University

By

Valter August Albrecht, Jr., B.S., M.A.

I
The Ohio State University

1952
 i

contents

Pa^e

1 INTRODUCTION

statement of the Problem 1

Importance of the Problem 3
Scope and Limitations of the Study 4
Definitions of Terms 5
Basic Assumptions 6

II REMARKS ON GEOMETRICAL INSTRUMENTS, POSTULATES, AND

HYPOTHETICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Geometrical Instruments o
Postulates of Construction 9
Hypothetical Constructions 1r

III A HISTORICAL PICTURE OF THE ROI£ OF CONSTRUCTIONS IN

GEOMETRY

Early Geometry in Egypt 14

Greek Geometry IT
Euclid and the Elements 20
Three Famous Problems 21
Other Sets of Restrictions upon Instruments 27
Geometry During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance 29
Geometry from the l6th to the 19th Centuries 30
Sucanary 34

IV GEOMETRICAL CONSTRUCTION IN HIGH SCHOOL TEXTS

Introduction 36
Justification for the Restriction to Straight-edge
and Coiqpasses 37
1* The restriction Is not even mentioned* 37
2. The restriction is specifically mentioned but
is not Justified. 4l
3« Ike restriction is Justified on the basis of
convention or historical usage. 48
4. ike restriction to straight-edge and coqpasses
is Justified on the basis of being demanded by
postulates. 53
5- The restriction is Justified on the basis of
theoretical accuracy. 59
6 . The restriction is Justified as being one rule
of a game. 64
7 • Miscellaneous other Justifications 66
 ii

Treatment of Concepts Closely Related to the Ruler-And-

Compass Constructions 69
1. Carrying distances with the corqpasaes 65
0
c. • frisection of any angle 70
3. Construction of the regular polygons 71
u. The approximation of n 73
5. Discussion of inqpossible constructions 75
6. Improper use of the word ■^neasure* 7b

Summary of Discussions of Justifications Proposed for

the Use of the Ruler and Cotq?ass Restriction 77

V GEOMETRICAL CONSTRUCTIONS AITD JUSTIFICATIONS OR THE RULER AND

COMPASS RESTRICTION APPEARING IH WORKS OTHffl THAN PIANE GE­
OMETRY texts

Teaching Manuals 80
Committee Reports 89
Miscellaneous.Standard andPopular Works 98
Articles Appearing inPeriodicals 107
Summary ill

VI SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Earlier Chapters ll6

Sumnary of the Role of the Classical Restriction 119
Recommendations 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part I: A List of the Seventy High School Geometry Text­

books Examined in this Study 125

Part IB Bibliography Relating to the Classical Construc­

tion Problems and to Constructions With Other
3ets of Restrictions 129

Part His Books Other Than Geometry Textbooks Consulted in

this Study 131
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Whenever geometrical constructions are mentioned, most persons

who are at all familiar with geomstry recall the straight-edge and

compasses, but they remember them as the only tools or Instruments

allowed in geometry, and those with which all the constructions must

be made. For example, the problem "to draw a straight line through

a given point and parallel to a given line" is easily solved by the

use of a pair of triangles or a parallel-ruler, but students are re­

quired to use straight-edge and compasses only. Those who study plane

geometry in our high schools come under the Influence of teachers and

textbooks which, almost without exception, continue in the tradition

of universal and unquestioning acceptance of the so-called Tlatonic"

or ’Euclidean" restriction to straight-edge and compasses as an inte­

gral part of demonstrative geometry. After a year of high school ge­

ometry, students remain unaware of the origin and the great Influence

upon mathematical thinking of the restriction to straight-edge

compasses; they have little or no Idea of what is meant by "impossi­

ble" ; they think it strange that so much stress is laid on these two

instruments when all about them they see a great variety of instruments,

such as T-square, triangles, protractor, carpenter'a square, and paral­

lel rulers, used in solving practical problems of geometry which con­

tinually arise in carpentry, navigation, engineering, architectural

drawing, and other practical occupations and trades.

 Educators in general, and writers on the teaching of imthematlcs

In particular, have seldom seriously questioned or given critical at­

tention to the role and importance of ruler-and-compass constructions

in the teaching of geometry. It Is possible, of course, that other

phases of geometry are felt to be so much more Important than are con­

structions, that the former merit practically all of our attention; on

the other hand, the apparent ignoring of constructions may indicate a

passive acceptance of the traditional restriction to straight-edge and

compasses as an Integral part of plane demonstrative geometry. There

Is little evidence in the literature of mathematics education to Indi­

cate whether or not this restriction on the Instruments of geometric

construction Is contributing to generally accepted objectives of geom­

etry teaching.

Many textbooks place a rather strong emphasis upon the mechanics

of construction, and because the usual geometry course la governed by

the textbook, much time is devoted to manipulating the instruments. Al­

though major stress is purportedly placed upon reasoning and the nature

of proof, few students gain a correct concept of the postulates or as­

sumptions which underlie the ruler-and-compass constructions, or of the

logical way in which the constructions follow from the basic assumptions.

Most students and many teachers have never heard that other equally valid

and acceptable sets of restrictions might have been Imposed upon the in­

struments of construction, and many do not make the distinction between

drawing and constructing geometric figures.

 Construction*, for the most pert, continue to be taught in the

traditional manner, used for two thousand years with little variation,

of memorizing medals presented in the texts, and attempting to prove

that the construction procedure is correct. The pupil has little con­

cept of what he is doing or of why it is being done.

The problem, therefore, is this: there is little written evidence,

as will be shown, that much critical thought has been given to the pos­

sibility of using constructions effectively in the course in plane ge­

ometry. Teachers, on the whole, are not familiar enough with geometric

constructions, the classical restriction to the use of ruler and compasses,

and related ideas and concepts to assign to them their proper role In the

teaching of high school geosmtry.

The purpose of this study will therefore be to Investigate the role

of geometric constructions In the geometry teaching of the past; to in­

quire Into their Importance and possible contributions in a modern course

in demonstrative geometry; and to present materials which should help

teachers and prospective teachers to understand the whole problem of ge­

ometric constructions and to make good use of them in the classroom.

Importance of the Problem

Comparatively little work of this nature has been done. This study

should serve to focus the attention of high school geometry teachers and

those who train teachers, upon a phase of geometry normally overlooked

when critical examination and analysis of values are brought to bear upon

the teaching of geometry. It should assist teachers and those who train

teachers to determine for themselves what uses can be made in their own
classrooms of geometrical construct Iona in tbs development of important

learning values. Tbs study will bring together in one place information

and materials relating to geometric constructions, which la of value to

teachers, those who train teachers, and textbook writers, and which is

now found in scattered places.

The study should further assist teachers and prospective teachers of

high school geometry to decide how to Justify the ruler-and-compass re­

striction to their pupils, to determine the amount and kind of stress to

be placed upon constructions, to stimulate their own and their pupils*

interest In the further implications of the restriction. A thorough

knowledge of ruler-and-compass constructions and an understanding and

appreciation of their role in geometry will result in a much more inter­

esting and meaningful geometry course.

Bcope and Limitations of the Study

The study will gather reasons and Justifications that have been pro­

posed for the original restriction Imposed by the early Oreeks, and trace

the role and influence of geometrical constructions through to modern

times. Other sets of restrictions will be briefly examined. Tbs various

ways in which modern authors Justify the Platonic" restrictions to stu­

dents will be determined and compared with the objectives of geometry

teaching. An attempt will be made to evaluate recent implications that

constructions are over-emphasised, improperly taught, or, as suggested

by Hathan Lasar in classroom lectures and public talks, a hoax foisted

upon the pupils.

 Information will be gathered from original and secondary sources

Including:

(1) old and recent high school geometry texts,

(2 ) works pertaining to the teaching of plane geometry,
(3 ) reports of Important regional and national councils
and committees on geometry teaching,
(4) articles in periodicals and Journals of mathematics
and mathematics education,
(5) other books which include material on geometry and
constructions, such as works on the history of math*
ematlcs, books on mathematical recreations, math­
ematical works of a popular nature, and works devoted
to the study of special problems.

The study will confine itself mainly to materials published end used in

the United States, and to a lesser degree In Canada and England. German

and French works which have had an Important Influence on geometry teach­

ing in the United States will also be used; but the great difficulty in

obtaining modern textbooks and manuals from countries outside the United

States has made it necessary to eliminate all such works from consider­

ation. The study is further confined to plane, demonstrative geometry,

with little reference to solid geometry or to Informal geometry.

Definitions of Terms

The familiar term "ruler-and-compass constructions" will be used

to designate "geometrical constructions performed with the aid of only

an unmarked straight-edge and a pair of compasses." A geometrical

construction is regarded as a problem situation in which It Is required

that a desired figure be drawn with the aid of specified Instruments

(such as the straight-edge and compasses) and using specific given data.

Textbook will mean any book containing a definite body of systemati­

cally arranged subject matter and intended for use as a principal and
primary source of atudy material for a high achool course In plana

geometry (uaually given in the tenth grade). Objectivea of a courae

of lnatructlon are the deaired behavlora or changea in behavior of

the pupil aa a reault of experiencea originating in and arlaing from

the courae. Content of a courae will dealgnate the factual informa­

tion, knowledges, and attltudea which are to be imparted to the pupils,

and methods are the proceaaea ueed to impart the mathematical informa­

tion and underatandlnga. Authorltlea are thoee lndlviduala and groupa,

who ty virtue of their works, writInga, and pronouncemanta concerning

nathematlca and mathematics education, or poaitlona aa outatandlng

teachera of mathenatlca, are regarded by the profeeelon to be sourcea

of productive thinking in the field of mathenatlca education. Elemen­

tary geometry will include the uaual theoreme, principles, construc­

tions, and applications found in good textbooks. When It is confined

to points, straight lines, polygons, and circles in a plane, it con­

stitutes elementary plane geometry.

Throughout the paper the following distinctions will be made: to

construct a figure means to effect its completion with the straight­

edge and compasses only; to draw a figure will mean that any instru­

ments deaired may be used, such as ruler, protractor, compasses, tri­

angles; to sketch a figure will imply a freehand drawing, made with­

out aid of Instruments, which represents the required figure.

Basic Assumptions

A study of this kind must necessarily proceed from a number of

general assumptions, such as: that geometry is of sufficient importance

as a high school subject to warrant a study of one of Its Important

phases; that constructions constitute a large and important phase of

plane demonstrative geometry; that a problem, as stated above, does exist

with regard to constructions; and that the sources of Information ere

authentic, reliable, and adequate.

It will be further assumed that, since most high school courses In

geometry are determined by the textbook used, an examination of text­

books will reveal the content of the usual course In plane demonstrative

geometry and, for the purposes of this study, the role assigned to the

classical constructions.
 8
CHAPTER II

REMARKS ON GEOMETRICAL INSTRUMENTS, POSTULATES,

AND HYPOTHETICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Geometrical Instruments

When we speak of geometrical instruments we refer to various imple­

ments or tools which aid in the drawing of specific lines and curves.

Many geometrical Instruments are in common use in such practical affairs

of dally life as mechanical and architectural drawing, navigation, sur­

veying, carpentry, road-‘building, the making of plans and models, and

many others. Some of the instruments used are the protractor, compasses,

carpenter's square, scale or narked ruler, parallel rulers, T-square and

triangles, proportional dividers, and the pantograph. Many of these In­

struments are used with great ease and convenience and with sufficient

accuracy for the practical needs they serve. For purposes of this paper,

field instruments (as the alidade, angle mirror, transit, plane table,

etc.) are omitted.

The geometric instruments seem to fall roughly into three classes.

The protractor and the scale utilize measurement in the drawing of fig­

ures and diagrams. Others, as the straight-edge and the triangle, are

In reality patterns. When we use the straight-edge in drawing the seg­

ment Joining two given points, we actually trace the required line along

the edge of the pattern. The carpenter'8 square conveniently combines

measurement with a pattern. A pair of compasses, on the other hand, is

not a pattern, nor does It utilize measurement. Because of its construc­

tion, it constrains the continuous motion of a point which is a part of

Itself in such a manner that the path of the moving point is necessarily
 9
a circle. Other more complicated instruments, called linkages, also con­

strain the continuous notion of sone point of themselves to a path deter­

mined by the geometry of the Implement. A linkage consists of a set of

rigid rods connected together In various ways by pivots or movable Joints,

and the compasses Is really the simplest linkage. It Is of Interest to

note here, and to inform the students, that the " Peaucelller*s cell" ,

a linkage invented in 1864 and based on the principles of geometric in­

version, vas the first mechanical device to produce rectilinear motion.1

Despite Its extremely simple form, the compasses constitute one of

the most powerful and useful of all geometric instruments. While a single

straight-edge (or stretched thread, or creased paper) will serve as a

pattern for any straight-line we may wish to draw, it is readily seen that

if we were forced to rely on patterns for the drawing of circles, a dif­

ferent pattern-disk would be needed for each circle of different radius.

This would be highly inconvenient in practice, and valueless in geomet­

ric theory, for however many pattern-disks were available, they would rep­

resent small but discreet steps, rather than continuous variation in the

length of the radius. Hence, to draw a circle with any radius would be

Impossible without the compasses.

Postulates of Construction

For centuries, mathematicians and textbook writers have adhered to

the traditional instruments of construction. Many of them have Justified

the exclusive use of the straight-edge and compasses by referring to sev­

eral "postulates** of Euclid. These will be discussed briefly.

^Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins, What is Mat>^«*tlcsTTp. 155.

 10

Many of the older geometry texta define the word ** postulate" some­

what as follows: V proposition which states that something can be done,

and which Is so evidently true as to require no process of reasoning to

convince us that it is possible."^ The word "problem" or 'tonstruction"

Is, In these older texts, defined to be the representation of a required

figure by means of points and lines. Euclid's three postulates are

stated essentially aa follows:

(1) Let It be granted that a straight line may be drawn from

any one point to any other point,
(2) That a terminated straight line may be produced to any
length in a straight line,
(3) And that a circle may be described about any centre, at
any distance from that centre.3

The remark Is then frequently made that these postulates amount to a

demand for the use of straight-edge and compasses exclusively. Actually,

the postulates demand only that we agree to accept these most elementary

constructions as being possible. They imply nothing as to the instru­

ments to be used, and indeed it Is not even necessary for the purposes

of formal geometry to be able to carry them out in practice. Heath

writes, "There is, of course, no foundation for the idea which has found

Its way into many textbooks, that "the object of the postulates is to de­

clare that the only Instruments the use of which is permitted In geometry
k
are the rule and compass'" it Is probable that the early geometers who

actually carried out the constructions found the straight-edge snri com­

passes to be far the most convenient practical aids.

p
Edward Olney, A Treatise on Special or Elementary Geometry, p. 2.

^Robert Simeon, The Elements of Euclid, p. 10.

^T. L. Heath, Euclid. thf Elements. p. 12k.

 Few high school teachers realize that Euclid*s third postulate as

stated above meant literally that the given radius had to be measured

from the given point vhich was to serve as the center of the circle to

be constructed. Euclid regarded his compasses (If he actually used

them) as being so constructed that as soon as a particular circle or

arc was drawn and the Instrument lifted from the paper, the compasses

snapped shut. Coolidge states, Ttuclld shows a considerable lack of

confidence In the way he handles his compass...fearing that the compass

opening might alter In the process (of transferring lengths)".*’ Thus

he could not transfer lengths or distances from one part of the paper to

another, and was obliged to resort to the Ingenious Proposition 2 of

Book Z of the Elements to show that “from a given point, a straight

6
line can be drawn equal to a given straight line.*' Restatement of

the third postulate can eliminate this confusing proposition. For in­

stance, Wilson, in 1876, one of the earliest textbook writers to make

this point clear, states it: "A circle may be described from any center

with a radius equal to any finite line. He then remarks: H It will

be seen that these postulates amount to a request to use the straight

edge of a ruler, and a pair of compasses; the latter being such that a

distance can be carried from one part of the paper to another."^

^J. L. Coolidge, A History of geometrical Methods, p. 44.

6
Robert Simson, op. clt.. p. 12.
7
J. M. Wilson, Elementary Geometry, p. 11.
8
Ibid.. p. 11.
 12
It would seem that although these Euclidean postulates do not in

themselves demand the use of any particular Instruments, yet the habit

of using the straight-edge and compasses became general, even before

Euclid's day, and later writers came to Interpret the use of these instru­

ments as the embodiment of the postulates, and hence as an integral part

of plane geometry. Today, the use of other Instruments In the plane ge­

ometry course Is permitted, but care Is taken to designate the work per­

formed with the aid of these instruments as ''drawing*, in contrast to

''construction", and all too often it is relegated to a position of In­

feriority with respect to construction with the classical instruments.

It must be recalled that Euclid wished to build his logical system on

a minimum basis of assumption,^ while the trend today is not to limit

the number of basic assumptions in geometry, but to make as many of them

as is felt necessary with a given group of students. To require students

to confine themselves to the use of the straight-edge and compasses in

the work of geometry is in direct opposition to this trend.

Hypothetical Constructions

A further important concept which must be discussed here Is that of

hypothetical constructions, or lines and figures which sure assumed to

exist. The existence of such lines and figures is postulated, and the

possibility of constructing them Is not demonstrated or even considered,

although frequently, at some later part of the geometry course, the con­

struction will be proved. For example, in the usual proof of the pro­

position that "the base angles of an Isosceles triangle are equal",

^British Mathematical Association, A Second Report on the Teaching of

Geometry, p. 71*-
 13
which Appears very early In the course, the bisector of the vertex angle

of the Isosceles triangle Is used In the argument. The construction of

the bisector has not yet been demonstrated to the student at the time

he studies this proposition. Ve assume, at this point, only the ex­

istence of such a bisector, and do not even question whether or not

the bisector can be constructed with the traditional Instruments of

construction. The proof of the theorem does not depend upon the accura­

cy of the diagram, so it does not matter whether the line drawn Is the

exact bisector of the angle or not.

Xuclld, however, ruled out the use of such hypothetical construc­

tions, or constructions which are postulated and used In proofs of

propositions* In his glements. Kuclld first demonstrates each con­

struction before he allows it to be used as a tool for use in further

proofs and demonstrations. Christofferson has proposed a method of

beginning the geometry course which will eliminate the need for hypo­

thetical constructions. Be feels them to be very confusing to pupils;

for instance, it is hard for the pupil who is allowed to postulate the

existence of the bisector of an angle to see why he should not postu­

late the existence of an angle trisector, which is to him an equally

simple concept. Christofferson's sequence is totally different from

that of Buclid, and is entirely in keeping with modern developments

In geometry and in pedagogy. High school teachers of geometry are

strongly advised to familiarise themselves with Christofferson*s pro-

! 10
posal.

10H. C. Christofferson, Oeometry Professionalised for Teachers. pp. 1*0-

and H. C. Christofferson, "A Different Beginning for Plane OeometryJ*
The Mathematics Teacher 21; 1*79-1*82, December, 1928.
 14

CHAPTER III

A HISTORICAL PICTURE OF THE ROLE OF CONSTRUCTIONS IN OEOMETRY

Early Geometry In Egypt

Traces of geometry are present at the very beginnings of recorded

history. The earliest dated event In human history Is the introduc­

tion, in 4241 B. C., of the Egyptian calendar of twelve thirty-day

months plus five feast d a y s T h i s excellent calendar evidences a

highly developed knowledge of astronomy, which Involved soma geome­

trical knowledge and some ability in computation.

Early geometry had three aspects, the aesthetic, the practical,

and the theoretical. The aesthetic Involved ornamentation and deco­

ration of pottery and of temple walls, and probably had no connection

with either practical geometry or with geometrical theory. Practical

geometry developed from the need for measuring and surveying lands,

for building canals and aqueducts, and for constructing and properly

orienting temples and other buildings. Theoretical geometry was al­

most entirely in the hands of the ancient priests and was used by

them In the practice of their various crafts*

The thirtieth century B. C. was a period of phenomenal develop-

2
ment In architecture In Egypt. The Great Pyramid of Olzeh, built

during this period, testifies to the remarkable accuracy of censur­

ing and planning secured by these ancient surveyors and builders.3

^David Eugene Smith, History of Mathematics. Vol. I, p. 42.

gIbld*. p. 42.

3Ibid., p. 43
 15
During the reign of the energetic Amenemhat III, about 1850 B. C., aa

extensive program of irrigation was carried out, which necessitated a

highly developed knowledge of levelling, surveying, and mensuration.

Raineses II, about 1^00 B. C., divided Egypt into equal squares of land

for convenience in taxation, but the floods of the Nile erased

boundaries and sometimes washed away parts of the land. Bence It was

necessary for the king's surveyors to re-establish boundaries, or to

levy new taxes on a property-bolder In proportion to the part of land

remaining to him. The word "geometry*, derived from the Greek ge

(the earth) and matron (to measure), suggests the great importance of

surveying and land measure.

It is probable that most or all of the formulas of the Egyptians

were empirical. Many of them are actually incorrect, or are correct

only for special cases. For example, the area of a triangle was al­

ways computed as half the product of the base and a side.5

KarpInskl implies that monuments and surveying represent only a

small part of the Egyptian mathematical knowledge, and that they had

an almost purely intellectual interest in mathematics.^ This is prob­

ably true of the priests, who explored mathematical mysticism and ham­

pered the develops*nt of practical geometry by their slavery to tra­

dition, their obstinate conservatism, and their fear of having to

**Alva Walker Stamper, History of the Teaching of Elementary Geometry.p.7.

5Vera Sanford, A Short History of Mathematics. pp. 3, 231.

^L. C. Karplnskl, *^The Parallel Development of Mathematical Ideas,

Numerically and Geometrically." School Science and Mathematics 20:
821-6, December, 1920.
 16

change the rules of their crafts.^ The Egyptians apparently transmitted

their mathematical knowledge by oral tradition, leaving but fev records.

The Ahmes Papyrus, copied about 1650 B.C. by the scribe A'h-mose, or

Ahmes, from an earlier manuscript now lost, is the best-known record of

early Egyptian mathematics. It Is not a textbook, but a sort of prac-

o
tlcal handbook containing 'feardly any general rules of procedure, but

chiefly statements of results.1^ Cajorl states: *Ve see from It that

the Egyptians cared but little for theoretical results. In geometry

the forte of the Egyptians lay In making constructions and In determln-

10
ing areas."

Cantor, in his pber Oeschlchte der Natheaatlk, quotes

Democritus (c. U20 B.C.) as saying, "In the construction of plane fig­

ures with proof no one has yet surpassed me, not even the so-called

harpedonaptae of Egypt. There is evidence to indicate that as long

ago as 3000 B.C. these 'Vope-stretchers" made use of the properties

of the triangle whose sides are in the ratio 3*^:5 In erecting perpen­

diculars. Some early Egyptian murals contain geometric designs In­

cluding squares, the rhombus, the Isosceles trapecoid, the division

of circles (by the requisite diameters) into H, 6 , 6 , and 12 parts,

12
etc. There Is no evidence, however, that use was made of the

?Vera Sanford, op. clt.. p. 228 and Alva Walker Stamper, oj>. clt..p.9.

®David Eugene Smith, op. clt.. p. 1*8.

^James Gov, A Short History of Qreek Ma+>*«»m*tlce. p. 16.

Cajorl, A History of Mathematics. p. 10.

ll*lva Walker Stamper, op. clt., p. 5.

lgIbld.. p. 6 .
 17
straight-edge and compasses aa the only permissible instruments whose

aid could be enllated in performing geometrical conatructlona. It la

almost certain that the Egyptians had no interest In studying the the­

ory underlying any geometrical constructions*

Qreek Oeometry

During the 7th century B.C., the geometrical knowledge of the

Egyptians became known to some of the early Greek scholars. Thales

(c* 6U9 B.C. - c. 550 B.C.), a merchant and statesman and later a phi­

losopher and astronomer, studied the applied mathematics and astronomy

of Egypt during his travels there. Instead of merely accepting the

geometric theorems on the basis of intuition or experiment, he took

the Important step of proving deductively several theorems .^3 While

these theorems appear very simple to us, the use of deductive reason­

ing in geometry was a novel thing in 600 B.C. Intuitive geometry is

almost universally found among the peoples of the earth, however prim­

itive, but geometry as a logical science Is almost purely a product of

western civilisation, and Thales is sometimes referred to as the

'Tather of demonstrative geometry. He developed the elements of the

geometry of lines, as contrasted with the Egyptian geometry of areas

and volumes. Thales and his successors idealised the concepts of vol­

ume, surface, line, and point, and these became abstractions In the

minds of the Greeks. The Greeks liked to reason about things, using

the techniques of deductive logic; they sought to understand why

13vera Sanford, op. clt., pp. 252-253 and David Eugene Smith, op. clt.,
pp. 6h-69.
11*David Eugene Smith, sj>. clt.. p. 59-
 18

things vere true .^ They treated from the standpoint of geometry a

number of concepte which today are approached from the standpoint of

arithmetic or algebra; among these are lncosmensurables and ratio and

proportion.

The Pythagoreans vere the first to break entirely vlth the practi­

cal and to treat geometry as a liberal science They vere much In­

terested in the regular solids and are credited vlth their construc­

tion. If this is so, ve should expect them to be familiar vlth the

construction of the regular plane polygons of 3, W, and 5 sides.

Allman^ takes this stand, and 8anford^ feels it highly likely that

they could construct the pentagram, their mystic symbol. Gov admits

of less speculation and attributes the first construction of the reg-

19
ular pentagon to Plato.

The period from Pythagorus to Plato vas characterized by wealth,

power, travel, and the attraction of scholars to Greece. These scholars,

as well as the Greeks themselves, vere familiar with the facts of geom­

etry, and some of them had arranged portions of the geometric subject-

matter into systems of one kind and another. Later, this knowledge vas

organised into one logical system by Suelid* The Pythagoreans vere fa­

miliar vlth the construction of a polygon equal in area to a given

1^Lee Emerson Boyer, Mathematics. A Historical Development, p. 301.

l^Q. J. Allman, Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid. p. U7.

^ I b l d .. p. VO.

l£W a Sanford, op. clt., p. 255.

^James Gov, op. clt., p. 153.

 19
polygon but similar to another given polygon. This problem depends upon

several Important and advanced theorems and testifies to their progress

In geometry.^ Oenlpldes (c. 500 B.C. - c. U30 B.C.) Is supposed to have

solved the problems of constructing a perpendicular to a line from a

point outside It, and constructing an angle equal to a given angle.

Sanford states that much of the work of this period centered about the

three famous problems of doubling the cube, trisecting an arbitrary

angle, and squaring the circle.^ This would Imply that even prior to

Plato, Greek geometers gave thought to restricting the instruments of

construction to the straight-edge and compasses.

The Pythagoreans and all later Greek mathematicians regarded mathe­

matics as being divided Into four highly compartmentalized branches:

22
arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. These were the famous

quadrlvlum of the early schools. The Idea of motion was ruled out of

geometry and relegated to astronomy, and geometry became essentially a

study of forms in fixed positions. Algebra was not yet invented, and

since the practical Aristotle (38*1-322 B.C.) adhered to the tendency to

keep the several branches of mathematics Isolated from one another, nmth-

ematical development was retarded many centuries.

20
Alva Walker Stamper, op. clt., p. 19.

21V e m Sanford, op. clt.. p. 258.

2^Alva Walker Stamper, op. clt., p. 19

23JM£., p. 19.
 20

Euclid and the Elements

Little la known of the life of the moat famous mathematician,

Euclid. Even the datea of hia birth and death are unknown, but It la

rather certain that he flourished at Alexandria aa a teacher and wrote

hia moat famoua work, the Elements. about 300 B.C. This work, compris­

ing thirteen scrolls of parchment called blblla or books, summarizes

and arranges In a logical order practically all that was known to the

Greeks of elementary geometry, theory of numbers, and what later became

algebra. He apparently contributed little new subject-matter — prob­

ably only a few theorems, but he did supply some original proofs. He

Is the great compiler, noted for the manner In which he arranged, log­

ically, what his predecessors had done. The Elements is a philosoph­

ical treatise to be read and pondered; Its reasoning Is deductive, and

It Is not suitable as a guide for the development of the Intuitional

and experimental work in geometry often called for at the high school

level.

The sequence of propositions In the Elements does not correspond

to the chronological order In which they were discovered. The Greeks

were Interested In deductive reasoning and Euclid, writing for the mature

scholar, eliminated all mensuration and Intuitional practical work,

and tried to evolve geometry from "within itself** - I.e., from a set of

definitions, axioms, and postulates. He further reflected the traditions

of the Greek scholars In restricting constructions to those which could

be effected with the aid of ruler and compasses only. He does not per­

mit hypothetical constructions, but In every case he demonstrates the

possibility of performing the constructions with the Instrunmnts he

 21

limited hiw e If to, before using them In further work. This Is peda-

goglcally sound, hut It vas carried to an extreme, and we now as sums

the possibility of constructing figures while postponing the proofs

until a rather large body of theorems has been developed. No exercises

were Included in the Elements. The proof of each proposition is given

In full and according to a standard plan, but no hint of the analysle,

by which the synthetic proofs were devised, Is given.

The Elements vas far superior to earlier and contemporary Greek

works on geoemtry both In scope and in logical arrangement, and It came

to be respected by the Greek scholars as the standard work on elemen­

tary geometry. This probably gave rise to the feeling that perfection

had been attained in this field, and that neither the Elements nor any

portion of it could be assailed.

Three Famous Problems

Throughout all mathematical history the problems of Moubllng the

cube", "•trisecting any angle", and ^squaring the circle" have occupied

a foremost position of importance and Interest* The first of these re­

quires that the side of a cube, whose volume Is twice that of a given

cube, be constructed with straight-edge and compasses; the second re­

quires that, with straight-edge and compasses alone, any given angle

be trisected or divided Into three equal parts; and the third requires

that, with only these Instruments, the side of a square vhoee area Is

exactly equal to that of a given circle be constructed. "These prob­

lems arose naturally In the course of Investigations by the Greeks In

transforming figures Into others of equal area, In constructing regular

 22

polygons, and In constructing solids whose volumes were in s given

oL
ratio. They are dealt with at length in many excellent works on

mathematics, so that a few remarks will suffice here. The reference*

listed In Part II of the Bibliography pertain especially to the Classi­

cal Construction problems and should be carefully studied by teachers

of geometry.

The Oreeks were highly skilled geometers. They could construct

with straight-edge and compasses a great many regular polygons, Includ­

ing the square, pentagon, hexagon, decagon, qulndecagon (polygon of 15

sides), and polygons the numbers of whose sides are 2° times the number

of sides in each of the figures named above. Of the many regular poly­

gons not capable of being constructed under the restriction the Oreeks

had placed upon themselves, the one with the least number of sides, and

hence the one upon which attention would first be focussed, Is the hepta­

gon. While construction of a regular heptagon is not classed with the

three famous problems of antiquity, the Oreeks spent much time attempting

its solution. It was not until the 19*year-old Gauss proved, In 1796,

that the regular polygons of 22&+l sides, (n an integer, and 22D+1 prime),

are capable of being constructed that anything was added to the list of

regular polygons whose constructions vere known to the Oreeks. The first

five polygons in Gauss' list are those having 3, 5, 17, 257, and 65536

sides, and since the Oreeks could construct the regular polygons having

3 and 5 sides, the first new one added to the list is the 17-gon. Its

construction, however, is extremely complex. Gauss also proved that i

2Sfera 8anford, op. clt., p. 257.

 23
polygon* other than those constructed by the Greeks and those discovered

by himself are not capable of being constructed vlth straight-edge and

compasses alone.

The Greek* were also highly skilled In constructions which Involved

rectilinear figures other than the regular polygons. Vlth their two in­

struments, they were able to construct a square having the same area as

(Equivalent to") any given triangle. They could also transform any given

polygon into a polygon having one fever side. Thus, any given polygon

could be transformed, by successive steps, into a square, and then into

a triangle. For example, a pentagon could be readily transformed into

an equivalent quadrilateral, and then the quadrilateral was transformed

Into an equivalent triangle, nils triangle was converted into an equi­

valent square by constructing the mean proportional between the altitude

of the triangle and half the length of its base. This mean proportional

is the length of the side of the required square. An even more complex

problem solved by the Greeks is that of constructing a polygon equivalent

to one given polygon and similar In shape to a second given polygon.

Thus, while the Greeks could "square” any polygon whatever, they

could not construct, with straight-edge end compasses, a square equal

In area to a given circle. This was no doubt a cause for great concern

among the Greek mathematicians, because the circle was such a familiar,

simple, and easily constructed figure. This problem of "squaring the

circle** is the most famous of the classical problems.

Most people, Including far too many high school teachers of mathe­

matics, do not have a clear or correct picture of the meaning of the

word "impossible" as It.applies to these problems. Several times each

 24

year nevepaper* carry sensational stories about amateur "mathematicians"

who have solved a problea *Vhich has baffled mathematicians for over

2000 years. It should be understood that the Greeks had many solu­

tions for each of these problems. Hipplaa of Klls (c. 425 B.C.) Invented

the quadratrix.a curve by means of which the circle can be squared and

any angle can be trisected, or Indeed, divided into any number of equal

parts. Antlphoa (c. 430 B.C.) and Bryson (c. 4^0 B.C.) used the method

of exhaustion to approximate ths area of the circle. Hippocrates of

Chios (c. 460 B.C.) reduced the duplication of the cube to the problem

of finding two mean proportionals between a given line and one twice as

long, but did not succeed in finding a construction for these means.^

Many special curves were Invented to solve these problems, and various

mechanical devices for constructing the special curves solving the

problems were invented by Archltas (c. 400 B.C.) and others. Plato ob­

jected to mechanical devices saying that they destroyed the value of ge­

ometry as an intellectual exercise, and subsequent Greek geometers con­

fined themselves to the use of only the straight-edge and compasses.

But the Greeks did not find the solutions to the famous classical

problems by means of elementary geometry - that Is, by the exclusive

use of straight lines and circles* It is highly probable that some of

the Greeks suspected that these problems might be impossible of solution

under the restriction to straight-edge and compasses, but their contin­

ued attempts to find solutions led to the discovery of many new theorems
and processes.2*^

2Robert c. Yates, The Trlsectlon Problem, p. 57.

Rouse Ball^ of £4athsmatlcss, pp. 3^“^^-* and Vera Sanford,

W. Rouse Ball, op. clt.. p. 39.

 25
Coolldge remarks, *It vould be interesting to know for certain who

It was that first established this canon of permitting only those con­

structions which can be effected with the aid of a ruler of Indefinite

length and a compass capable of Indefinite opening* The general opinion

seems to be that Plato was responsible. Plato seems to have regarded

the straight line and the circle as the most perfect lines and as objects

of pure intelligence, and hence the most worthy of contemplation.^ He

objected to those who sought help from mechanical or material methods

In the solving of geometrical problems.3° Coolldge feels that the Greek

philosophers must have reflected at length on the question of permis­

sible constructions, and suggests that one reason for the great stress

on geometrical constructions was that they served as existence theorems

for the desired figures.3^

The Greeks had proposed and demonstrated a tremendous number of

problems which were actually solvable by means of straight-edge and

compasses.3^ The most significant part of constructions, however, lay

not In the study of difficult and complicated constructions which they

were able to effect, but of the apparently simple ones which they were

not able to effect. The popular Idea that any problem whatever can be

solved by straight-edge and compasses provided only that a person is

sufficiently adept In their use, Is totally false. Failure to find a

2®J. L. Coolldge, A History of Mathematical Methods, pp.

^^Erlc Temple Bell, Development of Mathematics. p. 69.

■^°G. J. Allman, ep. cit.. pp. 156-9 .

3^-J. L. Coolldge, op. clt.. p. 45.

3gibld.. p. 53*
 26

solution to a problem, even after centuries of study, does not mean that

the problem cannot be solved; but when It Is proved that a problem can­

not be solved under the given conditions, It is foolish to continue to

seek a solution. It was not until the 19th century that mathematicians

were able to prove that certain constructions were beyond the limits of

elementary geometry. These proofs did not come from further study of

elementary geometry, but through the application of algebra, trigonometry,

analytic geometry, and modern algebraic theory to the problems.

The high school mathematics teacher should be thoroughly acquainted

with the general algebraic background and proofs of the "impossible"

constructions. He should know that the operations possible with straight­

edge and compasses can be expressed algebraically as addition, subtrac­

tion, multiplication, and division, and the extraction of real square

roots. He should realise that the construction can be referred to a

system of coordinates, and that an algebraic equation can be W i t t e n

which represents the problem. The average mathematics teacher has had

sufficient college mathematics to be able to follow the setting-up and

analysis of the equations which represent the doubling of the cube, the

trlsectlon of the angle, and the construction of the regular heptagon.

Most high school teachers of geometry have had no work relating to num­

ber fields, but they should have little difficulty in understanding a

simplified, non-technlcal explanation of the correlation between the

operations possible with ruler and compasses and the field of rational

numbers including the extentIon of this field by the adjoining of quad­

ratic surds. Even without formal study of number fields, they can see

how the successive extentlons of these number fields will never permit
 27
the construction of any roots (of rational numbers), except those ex­

pressible as powers of 2. In particular, cube roots cannot be con­

structed by means of straight lines and circles, or straight-edge and

compasses. Teachers and prospective teachers vill be convinced of their

own understanding of "impossibility** if they can follow through the ar­

gument for at least one of the classical problems.

Other Sets of Restrictions upon Instruments

It is natural to wonder what constructions can be performed with

geometrical Instruments other than the straight-edge and compasses.

thirlously enough, the most Interesting results have come from the at­

t e s t not to enlarge the permissible amount of graphical or instru­

mental help, but to restrict it. One of the earliest attempts to re­

strict further the choice of instruments was made in 980 A.D. by Abul

Wafa who proposed to use a rusty coapass, that Is, a compass with only

one o p e n i n g . **33 Thus, he was able to drew circles of but one site.

Actually, however, it is necessary to use only the straight-edge and

one circle, with its center given, and drawn in the plane of the paper,

and still be able to effect all the constructions possible with

straight-edge and compasses, as shown by ponce let. Severl has demon­

strated that all we need is a straight-edge and a tiny arc of one circle

and its center. ^ Mohr, in 1672, and Maschsroni, 1750-1800, discovered

that all geometrical constructions possible with straight-edge and com­

passes can be made with the compasses alone.35

33ibid.. pp. 55~56.

3UIbld.. p. 57.
35ibld.. p. 1U7 .
 2d

A different set of restrictions might limit us to the use of s

straight-edge and calipers, vhere the latter is to be used only to trans­

fer distances, and not to draw circles. This restriction vlll permit

many, but not all, of the ruler-and-compass constructions.^ Strangely

enough, exactly the same constructions vhlch can be done vlth straight­

edge and dividers (calipers) are possible by the method of paper-fold­

ing. 37 By means of the straight-edge alone a very limited number of

the Kuclldean constructions are possible; but vhen the ruler has two

edges, either parallel to each other or oblique, all the ruler-and-

compass constructions can be effected.^

Most of the constructions become exceedingly lengthy, complicated,

and tedious vhen drawn vlth instruments other than straight-edge and

compasses. Justifications for using the straight-edge and compasses

are sometimes based on their ^iMpllclty" and convenience. However,

the high school teacher should be aware that other sets of restrictions

upon allowable instruments of construction are not only conceivable,

but have actually been used and studied. Bright pupils in the geometry

class might find a real interest and challenge in attempting a fev

problems vlth other sets of geometric instrumsnts as extra-credit work.

It is strongly recommended that all present and prospective high school

geometry teachers make a careful study of such works as Courant and

Robbins, Coolldge, and others listed in Part II of the Bibliography.

3^William h. Bussey, Geometrical Constructions without the Classical

Restriction to Ruler and Compasses.* The *«trlcan Mathe^tlcal
Monthly k2x 265-260, May 1936, p. 260.

L. Coolldge, op. cit., p. 58.

36ibid., p. 58.
 29
Qeometrv T>rri ng the Middle Agee tod the Renaissance

Seven centuries elapsed between the compiling of the Elements by

Euclid and the editing of the Elements by Theon, professor of mathe­

matics at the University of Alexandria In the fourth century, A.D.

During this time geometry was studied, but after about 200 A.D. the

geometry developed at Alexandria vas confined almost entirely to the

practical. Little or nothing was added to formal geometry, although

several futile attempts were made In the second century A.D. to prove

Euclid's axiom of p a r a l l e l s . 39 The practical Romans had little to do

with abstract mathematics and gave their attention to surveying en­

gineering. They took over from the Oreek mathematics and science only

that which would be of use in their work of laying out cities roads.

Alexandria was sacked by the Arabs about 640 A.D. and Oreek learn­

ing was carried by the Arab raiders to their homelands where transla­

tions into Arabic were made, and comentarles on the Elements were writ­

ten. Meanwhile, barbarian hordes had invaded Europe, and after the fall

of Rons In ^76 A.D. the Dark Ages had begun. Vhat little education ex­

isted In Europe was carried on in monasteries. Their mathsmat lcs, based

on the works of later Roman writers, dealt principally with theory of num­

bers and with calculation of the calendar. Up to the time of Oerbert

(1000 A.D.) instruction In geometry did not go beyond learning a few

definitions and making a few simple constructions with straight-edge

llA
and compasses.w Euclid was lost to Europe until, In 1120 A.D., the

English monk Adelard of Bath, studying In Moorish Spain, translated the

S^Alva Walker Stamper, op. clt., p. 38.

^ I b i d ., p. 47.
 30

Elements from Arabic Into Latin* Within the next two centuries sev­

eral other translations Into Latin were made, but the »i*wnts was sel­

dom studied In the universities of this period, except in Germany.

Leonardo of Pisa (1220 A.D.) wrote a practical geometry, some of

his material from Euclid, but he was not concerned with Euclid's logi­

cal viewpoint.

The geometry studied in the universities of the 12th and early 13th

centuries was not extensive. Advanced students at Oxford, for example,

read Boethius and Gerbert and covered Book X of Euclid and some parts of

Books III and IV. But most students did not get that far, mastering only
41
the definitions and enunciations of the first few propositions of Book I.

By the middle of the 15th century the mathematics required for a master's

degree Included only two books of Euclid and a little astronomy.

The invention of movable type printing about 1450 made possible a

wide circulation of important works. The first printed edition of Euclid

appeared in Venice in 1482, and a number of other editions appeared in

Europe within a generation. The first translation of the Elements into

English was published by Sir Henry Billingsley in 1570. The next really

important translation into English was made in 1756 by Robert Simson of

Edinburgh, and this work became a standard In for over a century.

Qeometrv from the 16th to the 19th Centuries

The general revival of learning had come into full operation by 1600

A.D., and study of the sciences was rapidly crowding study of the

^ V e r a Sanford, op. clt.. p. 380.

 31
k2
humanities out of first place in the universities. In addition to

many translations and editions of Euclid, many new texts appeared which

accented practical geometry and its applications and paid little atten­

tion to generalisation of results discovered. During the 17th Century,

geometry was taken up in most universities not already offering It, and

some attention to practical geometry was begun in the secondary schools

of Germany. The lecture method of instruction prevailed for centuries

in the universities, but by the 10th century, children in the secondary

schools and in the recently-established Realschulen learned simple geom­

etric constructions and performed other practical work in geometry. The

geometry of the secondary and lower schools of Germany was essentially

independent of Euclid.

In France, practically no attention was paid to science and mathe­

matics until the middle of the 18th century when the Jesuits were ex­

pelled from control of secondary education. The logical geometry stud­

ied in the French universities of the last half of the 10th century was

that of French authors who, although logical in their treatment of the

subject-matter, were essentially Independent of Euclid and not much con­

cerned with rigor.

Legendre, in his ments de Geometric. which appeared in 179^, a-

bandoned the sequence of Euclid and simplified the subject matter. He

allowed hypothetical constructions, and did not include ruler compass

constructions in his propositions, but treated them separately as " prac­

tical applications.1* Legendre does not isolate geometry from the rest of

^^F. V. Cokomoor, " The Distinctive Features of Seventeenth Century

Geometry.* Isis. 10: 367-^15, 1928, p. 367.
 32
mathematics as Euclid did, but refers the work on proportions to algebra,

and assumes the correspondence between a line segment and a number* De­

spite these fundamental differences, Legendre does not so such represent

a revolt against servitude to Euclid as he does a return to sound logic

In geometry after the loosely-written texts of 17th and l8th century

P r a n c e . ^3 French schools have generally, ever since his time, followed

Legendre or works based upon It, for It Is both logical and suited to

younger minds.

In England, during all of this period, Euclid reigned supreme;

there was little writing on practical geometry and few attempts were

made to correlate practical and logical geometry. It Is probable that

the study of geometry (Euclid) gradually seeped down from the universi­

ties Into the secondary schools from about 1750 on, although no geom-
I4.I1
etry was required at Harrow before 1837 and none at Eton until 1851.

In the American Colonies geometry Is first found In the last (third)

year of Harvard College, and when in 1655 * fourth year was added to the

college program, geometry was placed In the fourth y e a r . ^5 jn the 17th

and ldth centuries, comnencement theses, or propositions to be estab­

lished and defended by argument, formed part of the college comnencement

exercises. The statements In geometry Indicate that demonstrations were

included In Its study, and not merely geometrical constructions without

accompanying proofs such as form a part of the student notebooks of this

period.^
^3xiva Walker Stamper, op. clt.V p. 82.

Ibid.. p. 89
1+5
F. Cajori, The Teaching and History of Mathematics in the United States.
p. 22,
U6U o 0. Simons, Introduction of Algebra Into American Schools in the 18th
Century, pp. 30-^3- — —
 33
During the ldth end early 19th centurlee more and more colleges in­

cluded geometry in their curricula and placed it progressively earlier

in the program. Thus, in 17&7* geometry vas required of Harvard Sopho­

mores, and in l8l8 it vas required of all freshmen. In 1844, plane ge­

ometry vas first required for entrance into Harvard; other colleges soon

established similar requirements, and it became almost mandatory for

secondary schools to provide sound work in formal geometry.

At first the geometry studied in the Colonial colleges vas very

practical, but by the time of the Revolution the Influence of English

mathematics vas very strong and the geometry studied in America vas that

of Euclid. Following the Napoleonic Wars, the Influence of French

mathematics was felt in the United 8tates, and works based on Legendre

(as Davies, 1840, and Chauvenet, 1870) gained favor over Simeon's
46
Playfair's editions of Euclid. However, the English Influence has

been lasting, and the tendency to adhere to a textbook and to memoriae

propositions have remained in England, Canada, and the United States

more than in other countries.

It must be noted here that college students of the 18th century

were of the age our high school pupils are today. Boys of 1750 com­

monly entered college at age 14 or 15; Samuel Langdon's notebook in­

dicates that he was a Harvard Junior at age 16, and " graduated in 1740

at age 17 l/2 ."**9 Alexander Hamilton finished a three-year college

^Tvera 8anford, op. cit., pp. 382-383.

^SjUva Walker Stamper, op. cit.. p. 99.

^David Eugene Smith, "A Ollmpse at Early Colonial Algebra." School

and Society. 7: 8-11, January 5, 1916, p. 8 .
course at age 17, and George Washington received his commission as

county surveyor, equivalent to a degree In civil engineering, at age 17.

Many other such records show that although geometry started out as a

subject for college seniors and gradually vas lowered through the years

to a subject for tenth grade pupils in the high school, it vas probably

always in America, at least, a study for pupils of about age fifteen.

Furthermore, both quantity and quality of the geometry studied has

greatly increased, and the methods of teaching it have been vastly Im­

proved.

Summary

Ever since its compilation by Euclid in 300 B.C., the Elements

has had a large and lasting influence upon the study of geometry. It

continued as a study at Alexandria for some 900 years after Euclid,

and was preserved for some 600 years by the Arabs during the intellec-

ual blackout of the Dark Ages of Europe. Early in the 12th century,

the Elements returned to Europe and gradually, over the centuries, be­

came a leading study in the European universities. As the study of ge­

ometry worked its way down into the secondary schools of Oermany and

France, the practical geosmtry of the 16th and 17th centuries vas suc­

ceeded by a combination of logical and practical geometry in the 18th

and 19th centuries. In v w g i a n d in the United States geometry was

slower to enter the secondary school program, and vhen it did vas almost

entirely a study of Euclid.

50
F. Cajorl, Teaching and History of Mathematics. p. 36.
 35
Wherever the Influence of Euclid has been felt, geometric con-

etructlone vlth straight-edge end compasses have been unquestlonlngly

accepted ae an integral part of elementary geometry. The Instances

of departure from Euclid*a postulates and the classical Instruments

of construction have been rare Indeed, and those vho departed from

Euclid's sequence and method were regarded as heretics. It Is only

during the past 50 or 60 years that much headway has been made In de­

veloping alms and objectives for education, in determining the needs of

high school students, and in fitting course content and methods of In­

struction to these needs and objectives.

It Is only very recently that mathematicians have been able to

prove that the classical construction problems could not be solved

under the usual restriction to straight-edge and compasses. Gauss,

in 1796, had proved the construction of the regular heptagon to be

Isposslble; but It vas not until 1682 that Llndemann succeeded in

proving that * vas transcendental - not algebraic - and hence could

not be constructed. These proofs helped to make clear the nature of

the restriction and its role in elementary geometry.

 36
CHAPTER IV

GEOMETRICAL COHSTRUCTION IE HIGH 8CBOOL TEXTS

Introduction

Plane demonstrative geometry is almost always offered In the 10th

grade of our American high schools. In most of the schools, geometry

has become an elective, although students preparing for college an*

trance are usually required to take plane geometry to meet the entrance

requirements of most colleges and universities. The geometry course

almost always adheres vary closely to the textbook adopted by the teacher

or the school system for use in the classroom. Hence, to discover what

the high school pupils learn about constructions, It will suffice to

make a thorough study of the manner in which constructions are presented

in the many geometry textbooks in use throughout the country. For this

study, seventy textbooks, most of them widely used in their day, have

been carefully examined for the ways in which the authors Justify the

Platonic" restriction to their pupils, and for uses made of construc­

tions in contributing to the achievement of generally accepted aims of

geometry-teaching. The seventy textbooks studied are listed In Part I

of the bibliography at the end of this paper.

All of these texts use the restriction to straight-edge and com­

passes in the construction work of the course. The role of the restric­

tion in the high school course is probably revealed most clearly by the

ma n n e r in which the authors Justify the restrictions to the pupils and

the teachers. This chapter will present and discuss the Justifications

offered In the textbooks.

 37
Justification for the Restriction to
Straight-Edge and Compasses

The Justifications made to the students by the authors of the text­

books for the restriction to the use of straight-edge and compasses In

making geometrical constructions will be discussed under the following

seven headings: (1 ) the restriction is not even mentioned; (2 ) the re­

striction Is mentioned, but not Justified; (3 ) the restriction Is Jus­

tified on the basis of convention or historical usage; (h) the postu­

lates (either Euclid's or others) ^demand** the use of straight-edge and

compasses only; (5) the restriction Is Justified on the basis of theo­

retical accuracy; (6 ) geometry is regarded as a gams, and the restric­

tion to ruler and compasses is one of the rules of the game; and (7 )

miscellaneous other Justifications.

Each of the seventy texts has been assigned to one of these classes,

and In the few instances where several Justifications are offered, the

textbook will be discussed under each of the corresponding headings.

In each of the seven sections, the books are presented in chronological

order of publication.

1. The restriction Is not even mentioned.

Ten of the seventy books examined do not specifically state that the

constructions of plane geometry are to be performed with straight-edge

1 2
and compasses. Slmson and Playfair are editions of Euclid. They be­

gin with the usual definitions, axioms and postulates, and follow the

Euclidean sequence. Neither book mentions the words ’Vuler",■straight­

edge ”, or trompasses", and the instruments of construction are not stated.

T — ■ —1 — ■
Robert Simeon, The Elements of Euclid.
P
^ John Playfair, Elements of Oeosmtry.
Robinson^, ilk* Slnaon and Playfair, merely states Euclid's postulates

of construction (see page 10) and make no mention of the construction

Instruments.

Davies, who based his text on the work of Legendre, does not regard

constructions as a part of the system of plane geometry. Be lists nine

k
postulates, as follows:

1. A straight line can be drawn Joining any two points.

2. A straight line may be prolonged in length.
3* If two straight lines are unequal In length, the length
of the less nay be laid off on the length of the greater.
W. A straight line may be bisected.
5. An angle may be bisected.
6 . A perpendicular may be drawn to a given straight line
either from a.point without or from a point on the line.
7* A straight line may be drawn, waking with a given
straight line an angle equal to a given angle.
Q. A straight line nay be drawn through a given point
parallel to a given line.
9* A circumference can be described from any point as a
center and with any radius.

Humbers 1, 2, and 9 are essentially the same as the Euclidean postulates

quoted by other authors. The remaining six are hypothetical construc­

tions which Euclid would not permit without specific proof. Without

mentioning the words "construct”, •straight-edge”, or "compasses”,

Davies proposes, at the ends of his Books III and IV, and separated from

the work of the chapters, lists of Practical Applications**, which sure none

other than the usual Euclidean constructions.

Wentworth defines a construction to be "the representation of a re­

quired figure by means of points and lines.”5 He goes on to state that

o
H. H. Robinson, Elements of Geometry. p. 16.
L
Charles Davies, Elements of Geometry from the Works of A. M. Legendre.
pp. 19, 6 0.

5q . A. Wentworth, Plane Geometry, p. 4.

the solution of a problem consists of four parts: the analysis, or course

of thought by vhlch the construction of the required figure Is discovered

the construction of the figure vlth the aid of ruler and compasses; the

proof that the figure satisfies all the conditions; and the discussion of

the limitation, if any, vlthln vhlch the solution Is possible.^ Nothing

further Is said pertaining to constructions or instruments until, on

p. 112, he writes: •Hitherto we have supposed the figure constructed.

We now proceed to explain the methods of constructing simple problems,

and afterwards to apply these methods to the solution of more difficult

problems.” As Wentworth says nothing more about construction than this,

it is certain that the high school pupil who reads the text would never

guess that the " Platonic" restriction existed; hence this text is dis­

cussed as one vhlch does not state the restriction.

Sanders? does not mention the instruments of construction.

Williams and Williams discuss drawing Implements thus: "The fol­

lowing drawing implements are of greatest assistance in the construction

of accurate figures, and practice in using them will prove very helpful

in the future work of the pupils: ruler.•., triangles..., compass...,

protractor....^ Immediately following this statement is a two-page

paragraph on " Ready Methods in Constructions" using estimation, paper-

folding, triangles, scales, protractor, - everything but straight-edge

and compasses. On page 99 he states that the geometrical figures up to

^Ibld.,* p. 7*

?Alan Sanders, Elements of Plane and Solid Geometry.

Q
J. H. Williams and K. P. Williams, Plane Geometry, p* 19.
 **0

that point have been drawn somewhat informally, and that now the student

la ready to employ ,*the exact methods of construction based on the pre­

ceding propositions.” There is, however, not the least hint that the

ruler and compasses will be used or that triangles, scales, and protrac­

tors will not be used. In other words, the restriction upon instruments

Is not specifically mentioned.

The first construction problem appearing in Blackhurst is on page

47, **to bisect a given straight line.*1^ No mention of straight-edge

and compasses is made, and the constructions seem to be regarded as a

matter of course.On page 127, in a remark on the trisection of any

angle, he alludes to the impossibility of trisection by meansof com­

passes and straight-edge. The statement does hint at the existence of

a restriction upon geometrical instruments, but it is much too obscure

for high school students, and furthermore it occurs late in the course,

after most of the construction work is finished. The net effect, it

seems, is to fail to point out specifically to high school pupils the

existence of a restriction.

Veils and Hart say, **The only tool needed for studying the intro­

duction is the Hart Geometry Tool (a combination scale and protractor).

Constructions with compasses are postponed intentionally to the first

part of Book I, because the use of compasses is a ref<*w»d skill." ^

On page 14 of this book we read, Compasses are used for drawing a

circle on paper." Nothing is said about straight-edge and compasses

. H. Blackhurst,Humanized geometry, p. 47.

10Vebster Veils and V. V. Hart, Progressive Plane Geometry, pref. vi.

 kl

as the instruments of construction until late in the book where, buried

in a paragraph on Plato is found the remark, Tlato also introduced the

restriction that constructions in elementary geometry shall be made by

ruler and compasses alone, and it is for this reason that many construc­

tions are impossible * This remark is too obscure and occurs too late

in the text to assume that high school students would be made aware of

the existence of a restriction upon geometrical instruments.

Certainly, If a pupil is to be required to perform geometrical

constructions, he ought at least to be furnished with a complete de­

scription of the tools or instruments he will be required to use.

And more than this, be ought to be given some satisfactory reason as

to why the selected instruments are used.

2. The restriction Is specifically mentioned, but is not

Justified.

Twenty-three of the seventy texts under consideration specifically

and clearly mention the restriction to straight-edge and compasses ami

the permissible Instruments of plane elementary geometry, but do not

attempt to Justify it to the pupils.

Hunter writes, 'before commencing the study of the Propositions

of Geometry, It is absolutely necessary that the student should be pro­

vided with compasses and rulers.... The students must commence with

measuring, otherwise they are not studying geometry." This confused

statement, which implies that the use of straight-edge and compasses is

u rbid., p. 179.
12
Thomas Hunter, Elements of Plane Geometry, p. 16.
 1*2

measurement, offers no Justification at all for the restriction. Hunter's

book adheres very closely to Euclid, but includes a number of brief ex­

planatory notes.

Olney constantly uses the term '^dividers and scale", but these are

treated as if they were compasses and unmarked ruler, and the student

Is admonished to do the constructions over and over until he can do them

neatly and easily.1^

Milne states bluntly, "The only instruments used In solving problems

in plane geometry are the straight-edge and compasses. No Justifica­

tion for the restriction is made.

8laught and Lennes, in the 1910 edition of their book, tell the stu­

dent that "the straight edge or ruler and the compasses are the instru­

ments most cosarmly used in the construction of geometric figures," ^

which seems to indicate that any of the several other instruments dis­

cussed in the book would be Just as acceptable as the traditional ones.

But on page 177/ the instructions preceding a list of exercises read,

" A l l constructions are to be made with ruler and compasses only."

The restriction is thus definitely stated, but no Justification is of­

fered.

Wentworth and Smith make the brief statement, "In geometry, only

two instruments are necessary besides pencil and paper. These are a

13Edward

J. Milne, Plane and Solid Geometry, p. 111.

15
H. E. Slaught and N. J. Lennes, Plane Geometry, p. 20.
 -16
straight edge, or ruler, and a pair of compasses.*^ These remarks

merely atate that the traditional Inatrumenta are neceaaary, but they

do not specifically limit the atudent to their exclusive uae. Thus,

the restriction, as such. Is not established, but subsequent work in

the text la baaed on the uae of ruler and compasses aa the only Instru­

ments permitted.

The distinction between formal construction and drawing la made

very clear by Carson and Smith in their discussion of "Instruments

Allowed." They write:

It must be understood that In the theoretical construc­

tions of geometry the only Instruments allowed are a
ruler without graduations or — rfrir of any kind, and a
pair of compasses. For practical purposes the use of
other Inatrumenta, such as set-squares, protractors,
and dividers, makes the work quicker and even more
accurate, and It Is not implied that these instruments
are never to be used. The student should distinguish
between practical drawing and formal construction. 7

Thus, the restriction to straight-edge and compasses Is pointed out as

being synonymous with formal constructions, but no reason Is given for

defining formal constructions In this manner; hence the limitation

upon the Instruments Is not Justified.

Nlrlck, Newell, and Harper stressthe restriction In several places

throughout their book, but no Justification for the limitation Is of-

. 18
fered.

^ 0 . A. Wentworth and D. B. 8mlth, Plane geometry, p. 8 ,

^ 0 . St. L. Carson and D. E. Smith, Plane Geometry, p. 168.

^ G . R. Nlrlck, M. J. Newell, and G. A. Harper, £lag£. geometry,

pp. 12, 39, 156.
 ifif

The "Platonic** restriction is concisely stated by Solomon and Wright,

"To wake the drawings of geometry, only two Instruments are permitted to

be used - the ruler or straight edge, and c o m p a s s e s . N o Justification

Is made.

Sykes and Comstock write, "In the construction exercises which follow,

perpendiculars nay be drawn by paper folding or may be copied by use of a

rectangular card or a draftsman's triangle. An angle may be made equal

to a given angle by tracing it or by the use of an angle carrier. Con-

oo
structlons with ruler and compasses are given later. The authors do

not distinguish between "to draw" and "to construct" as is generally

done today. However, in a very excellent brief note on trlsectlon of an

angle, they state, 'In elementary geometry we confine ourselves to the

circle and straight line and use no Instruments except the compasses and

the straight edge. While this fact should be given greater prominence

than appearance in small type in a "note**, yet it occurs at the beginning

of the construction work and serves to announce the restriction.

Schultse, Sevenoak, and Schuyler remark concisely, *\)nly two instru­

ments are permitted to be used in plane geometry, viz., the compasses

and the straight-edge.

Morgan, Foberg, and Breckenrldge give no Justification for the tra­

ditional restriction on geometric Instruments, but they make certain that

pupils notice it. On page 11 they write, "The only instruments

^Charles 8olowon and H. H. Wright, Plane Geometry, p. if.

20Mabel Sykes and C. E. Comstock, Plane Geometry, p. 7 .

21Ibld.. p. 32.
22
Arthur Schultze, F. L. Sevenoak, and E. Schuyler, Plane Geometry, p. 10.
 *5
permitted In constructing a figure ere an unmarked ruler and compasses,"

and on page 53 they repeat, ^The only instruments vhlch ve are permitted

to use In a construction are an unmarked straight edge and a pair of com-

passes.■23
^

The 193s edition of Sykes, Comstock, and Austin contains the iden­

tical Information concerning instruments of construction that appeared In

2k
the 1918 edition of Sykes and Comstock.

The excellent, mature text by Swenson Introduces the restriction in

the instructions preceding a set of exercises on pages kl-U2 of the book.^5

On page 25 he discusses Assumed Geometric Constructions at length, but

makes no association between these assumed constructions (postulates)

and any Instruments vhlch might be used to perform then.

The text by Major differs In arrangement from all of the others ex­

amined. It Is divided Into thirty lessons; In each lesson the student

Is directed vhat to do. The only remark pertaining to Instruments is:

" Y o u vl 11 need a straight edge and a pair of compasses. This state­

ment alone does not highlight the restriction as such, but the construc­

tion work is carried out in such a vay as to make the student avare of

the limitation.

Bartoo and Osborne state, '•The principal Instruments used in geom­

etry are the straight edge, the compasses, and the protractor."2^
«

23f . M. Morgan, J. A. Foberg, and W. E. Breckenridge, Plane Geometry.

pp. 11, 53*
2k
Mabel Sykes, C. B. Comstock, and C. M. Austin, Plane Geometry.
2 pp. 17, 27, **5, 65.
J. A. Swenson, Integrated Mathematics. Book II.
26
George T. Major. Plane Geosetry. p. 13.
27 '
G. C. Bartoo and Jesse Osborn, Plane Geometry, p. 14.
 1*6

On page 63 they distinguish between construction and drawing. and so

point out, rather indirectly, the traditional restriction, but vlth no

justification for it.

Leonhardy, Joseph, and McLeary remark, tfA problem vhose solution

requires the use of a straight-edge and compasses is called a construc­

tion. Only the compasses and straight edge are used in a con­

struction in geometry. The marks of measurement on a ruler are never

used. '* The last part of this statement is merely an instruction to

the student and not an attempt to Justify the restriction on the basis

of forbidding the use of measurement*

In 8trader and Rhoads ve read, " Mote that the ruler is used only

to help in drawing straight lines, that the compasses are used to meas­

ure equal line segments and to draw circles and arcs, and that no other

instruments are used.*®9 (Hotice the misuse of the word "measure" ;

this vill be discussed briefly later in this paper.)

Mallory simply states, *Ve shall use the word construct in a tech­

nical sense, meaning to draw vlth the aid only of the straight edge and

compasses."3° Hyberg expresses the same Idea, *Vhen asked to draw or

sketch a figure, make a freehand drawing or use any tools that you wish.

But vhen asked to construct a figure, use only compasses m d a straight

edge."31

2d
A. Leonhardy, Marie Joseph, and R. D. McLeary, Maw Trend Geometry, p.21.

29|f. V. Strader and L. D. Rhoads, Modern Trend Geometry, p. 42.

3°V. S. Mallory, Hew Plans Geometry, p. 11.

3^-J. A. Nyberg, Fundamentals of Plane geometry, p. 6 .

 1*7
Kenlston and Tully also distinguish between drawing and construct­

ing and restrict the student to the use of the usual two Instruments in
32
all construction work.

Clark, Smith, and Schorllng present the restriction In the same way

as Kenlston. and Tully.33 However, none of these last four books offer

the student a reason for the restrictionto these specific Instruments.

Trump commands, **fou are allowed to use only a compass and a

straight edge.*3^ Late In the book he reviews basic constructions and

repeats, ?The two tools allowed are a straight edge...and a compass..

The last book In this classification, by Welchons and Krichen-

berger, tells the students, ^Jnless otherwise stated, all constructions

are to be made with the straight edge and compasses.

The books Just discussed definitely wake clear to the student of

geometry that a restriction upon the allowable construction tools exists.

But they do not present the student with a reason for adopting and re­

quiring the restriction. Several of the texts discussed seem to hint

at, or vaguely imply, a Justification, but unless a fact Is definitely

pointed up or highlighted, little Impression Is made upon the «d of a

high school pupil, and to him an Implied reason is generally a missing

reason.

Rachel P. Kenlston and Jean Tully, Plane Geometry, pp. 15, 26.

33j. R. Clark, R. R. Smith, and Raleigh Schorllng, Modern School Qeen­

try, pp. 6 , 15.

3S a u l L. Trump. Geometry. A First Course, p. 105*

3^ibid.. p. 273.

3^A. M. Welchons and V. 'R. Krlchenberger, Plane Geometry, p. 20.

 h&

3. The restriction is Justified on the b w l » of convention

or historical usage.

The first seven books to be discussed In this section will In­

clude those texts which make only the merest reference to tradition

or to the historical origin of the restriction. The remaining eight

are those texts which discuss the restriction rather at length, from

a historical viewpoint.

Loomis writes, "All constructions of elementary geometry are sup­

posed to be effected by means of straight lines and circumferences of

circles. These are the only lines treated of in the Elements. A

straight line is supposed to be drawn by means of a ruler and a circle

by the aid of a pair of compasses."37

Chauvenet's Justifications are very similar to those of Loomis.

He says, "All the constructions of elementary geometry are effected

solely by the straight line and the circumference, these being the

only lines treated of in the Elements; and these lines are practically

drawn or described by the aid of the ruler and compasses. "3®

Williamson, who bases his course on the heuristic method, remarks,

'Euclidean geometry recognises only the straight edge and dividers as

admissible Instruments, yet no pupil should complete a course in elemen­

tary ge asm try without learning the use of the protractor, scale of

chords, and scale of equal parts.

37
-"Elias Loomis, Elements of Geometry, p. 93*
3^Willlam Chauvenet, A Treatise on Elementary Geometry. p. 76.
39a. W. Williamson, Plane and Solid Geometry. p. 65 ■
 J*9

Failor's remarks are very brief. Be says, *Ve shall now show how

to construct geometrical figures with the straight edge and compasses,

the only Instruments allowed in Buclldean geometry.1,1+0 Perhaps It la

stretching a point to say that this statement constitutes a Justifica­

tion for the restriction on the basis of historical origin.

In their revised edition of 19ld, Slaught and Lennes Justify the

restriction thus: "In constructing geometrical figures, the instru­

ments used are the straight edge...and the compasses. This custom

of thus limiting the instruments used In geometry originated with the

Greeks and has been universally followed.

In Bresllch's text Is the statement, "It was (Plato) who laid

down the rule that In a geometrical construction no drawing Instru­

ments should be used except the casqiasses and the unmarked straight

edge. This rule still applies today."1*2 The alert student may well

ask why this rule Is still in force, but «his query Is not answered

In the text.

Slgley and Stratton are less specific and very brief In stating,

"The conventional instruments of plane geometry are an unmarked

1*3
straight edge and a compass." This Is not a very definite or con­

vincing Justification, but It strongly suggests the Influence of tra­

dition upon geometry texts and teaching.

^ Isaac Bewton Failor, Plane and Bolld Geometry. p. 110

E. Slaught and If. J. Lennes, Plane geometry, revised, p. id.

**2E. R. Bresllch, Purposeful Mathematics - Plane Geometry, p. 96.

^D. t . Slgley and V. T. Stratton, Plane Geometry, p. 20.

 50

Barnard Inform* the student, *1A11 the figures of elementary plane

geometry are formed by straight lines or circles or combinations of

these, hence two instruments are needed and only two, a straight edge

or ruler with which to draw straight lines and a compass with which

to draw circles.... This limitation is attributed to P l a t o , T o

a high school student, this Justification is clear and sensible.

Following a few general remarks on Instruments, Blrkhoff and

Beatley state, M From the time of the ancient Qreeks down to the pres­

ent, geometers have been fascinated by the question of what construc­

tions are possible with only two very simple instruments: the straight

edge... and compasses. This question is also interesting because of

its intimate relation to algebra. This last sentence would have

little meaning to a high school pupil. If such a statement is to be

made at all, It should be used in connection with a non-technical dis­

cussion of the proofs of the impossibility of certain constructions.

Students should know that it was by stating the problems and the op­

erations which are possible with straight-edge and compasses in terms

of algebraic expressions that the proofs were possible.

A footnote in Schnell and Crawford Informs the student, T o u will

need compasses and a straight edge for the work in this unit. These

are the instruments of construction."1^ There follow a number of

pages of experimentation, informal development, and discovery of meth­

ods of making the usual simple constructions. Then the following

M. Bernard, Plane geometry, p. lb.

D. Blrkhoff and Ralph Beatley, Basic Geometry, p. 166.

H. Schnell and H. Crawford, Clear Thinking, An Approach Through
Plane Geometry, p. 11.
 51
Justification of the restriction of the geometrical Instruments Is

presented:

Plato started It. Over 23OO years ago, Plato, a Greek

philosopher, told the students In his school that they
could use only an unmarked straight edge and compasses
to solve the construction problems he gave them ...
Plato Insisted that the student find a more mathematical
(method of solving the problem) in which there would be
less chance for *^nschanlcelw errors. Plato was not as
much Interested In the methods his students devised as
he was In how they "thought out*' these methods, fie be*
lleved that mathematics disciplined the mind. His main
Interest was In teaching his pupils to think logically
so that they could study philosophy and problems relat­
ing to the government and the state. Above all he
wanted them to work out sound arguments and to arrive
at logical conclusions. He knew geometry well enough
to observe that all construction problems could
be solved by using no more than compasses and straight
edge. He felt that his students had to think more
concisely when this restriction was set than when they
were permitted to use any Instruments they chose. He
also contended that methods worked out under this re­
striction were not mechanical and less subject to er­
ror than other methods which Involved actual measure­
ments. Regardless of whether or not hie influence
retarded the work of future mathematicians, the assign­
ment he gave to his students became a regulation almost
as binding as a law on future students of geometry

8mlth, Reeve, end Norse distinguish between drawing a figure and

constructing a figure. They declare. *In elementary geometry, only

straight lines and circles, or combinations of the;,, are considered.

It Is therefore agreed that in geometry problems the only Instruments

kS
permitted shall be the ruler... and the compasses."

The Justification used by Avery in his text Is so similar to that

of Bernard, above, that It need not be quoted h ere

p . 21

^ D . I. Smith, V. D. Reeve, and E. L. Mores, Text and Tests in Plane

Oeonetry, p. 16.

^^Royal A. Avery, Geometry. p. 56.

 52
Welkowltz, Sitoner, and Snader present a very Interesting Justi­

fication. They write

It is thought by some historians that this preference by

the Qreeks for these two instruments was related to their
aesthetic appreciation of what they thought were the simp­
lest and most perfect lines, the straight line and the cir­
cle. There is no reason why we should restrict ourselves
to construction with the straight edge alone or confesses
alone. Perhaps purely out of respect for the ancient Greeks
a custom arose and became firmly established to use the word
"Construct■ only when tip straight edge and compasses are
used.50

The phrase "purely out of respect for the ancient Greeks" should not

be allowed to pass without comment. This certainly is no reason for

adhering to the ancient restriction upon geometrical instruments.

Why do we not condone and practise human slavery, which was universal

throughout the Greek domain, out of respect for the ancients.

In Mathematics. £ First Course. Rosskopf, Aten, and Reeve are

writing for pupils who are slightly younger than the usual tenth

grade geometry students. The authors make a distinction between*draw*1

and "construct" and then state, "This use and meaning of the word con­

struct Is a tribute to the great amount of work done in geometry by

the early Greek philosophers... They set themselves the task of in­

vestigating figures that could be made with compasses and straight edge

alone. Their studies and those of the mathematicians who followed in

their footsteps led to much important mathematics; we use their methods

today because there remain still new discoveries to make. ( i t a l i c s

mine.) This last clause simply Is not valid; the new discoveries have

5°8amuel Welkowltz, H. Sltomer, and D. V. Snader, Geometry, p. 1^7*

51*. r. Rosskopf, H. D. Aten, and V. D. Reeve, Mathematics. A First

Course. p. 106.
 53
come about by abandoning the methods of the Greeks and by correlating

the work of the various branches of mathematics. One Is amazed to

find this statement presented to students as a Justification for the

use of ruler and compasses only.

In Mathematics. A Second Course. the same three authors have some­

what less to say about the Instruments. Concerning them they write,

" The Instruments of geometry are historically only two: the straight

edge and the compasses. There are, of course, many better drawing

Instruments in use today. But much useful mathematics has evolved from

the efforts of mathematicians to solve problems In geometry by restrict­

ing their constructions to these tools. This reason probably does

not seem convincing to a high-school student, who very likely thinks,

'If this useful mathematics has already been evolved, why must we con­

tinue to abide by the restriction; and anyway, I'p not a mathematician.M

There Is a definite tendency for older texts, which Justify the

ruler-and-compass restriction on the basis of tradition and conventional

usage, to make only very brief reference to the history of the restric­

tion. The more recent texts In this category offer more complete Informa­

tion concerning the possible origins of the restriction, Its long-estab­

lished Influence upon mathematical thinking, and occasionally, its arbi­

trary nature.

The restriction to straight-edge and compasses is Justified

on the basis of demanded by postulates.

Many of the books to be discussed in this section refer to Euclid

and his postulates, and It would seem quite proper to discuss them

52m . r. Rosskopf, H. D. Aten, and V. D. Reeve, Mathematics.

A Second Course, p. 6?.
under historical Justifications; hut there Is an Important additional

idea Included In this concept, and so these texts are discussed under

& separate heading.

The relationship between geometric postulates and Instruments of

construction was briefly discussed on pages 1 0 1 2 of this report. It

was pointed out there that postulates are statements In which we agree,

without proof, to accept something as being so. They do not Inherently

demand the vise of certain Instruments, or even of any Instruments, be­

cause they do not require us to actually perform the assumed construc­

tions. Howerer, if we desire to carry them out in practice, then wis­

dom bids us choose Instruments which will not only do what Is asked for,

but which will also be reasonably convenient to use.

In one sense, then, the postulates do demand the vise of the straight­

edge and compasses. if we wish actually to draw a circle with a given

center and radius, the compasses is the only instrument which will ac­

complish this; and if we wish to represent the line which Is determined

by two points (the line Is always there, whether we "make it visibleM

with a pencil, or not), we are at a loss to accomplish it unless a pat­

tern (straight-edge, folded paper, etc., which are in practice the same

thing) is used.

The Ideas presented In the last three paragraphs can be made clear

to the high-school geometry student If the teacher has this material

clearly understood in his own mind, and if he presents It simply and

clearly to the student. Some of the philosophical details presented

here would serve only to confuse the tenth grader.

 55
The book* in which the classical restriction is Justified on the

basis of being demanded by the postulates will be discussed In the

following paragraphs.

Some of these texts, mainly the British ones, use Euclid's postu­

lates as he originally stated them; that is, the third postulate as

discussed on page 10 of this report, forbids the use of compasses for

the transferring of distances. Other texts state the third postulate

in such a vay as to permit the carrying of distances vlth the compasses,

(see pages 10-12 of this study.) In the discussions which follow, ref­

erence will be made to the original Euclidean postulates if transfer­

ence of sects is forbidden, and to the modified Euclidean postulates

If carrying lengths with the compasses is permitted.

Wilson, one of the first textbook writers to modify the statement

of the third postulate (see pages 10-12 of this paper) writes, Tit

has been universally agreed by geometers to use only the ruler... and

a pair of compasses in the solution of p r o b l e m s . A few pages later

he writes, after stating the modified Euclidean postulates, "It will

be seen that these postulates amount to a request to use the straight

edge of a ruler, and a pair of compasses. He distinguishes the Sci­

ence of Geometry (constructions with ruler *jvi compasses) from the Art

of Geometry (drawing with any desired instruments), and explains:

In the Science of Geometry there are not only theorems to

be proved but constructions to be effected, which are called
problems. Geometers have always imposed certain limitations
on themselves with respect to the Instruments which slight be

53j. M. Wilson, Elementary Geometry, p. 4.

5lfIbid., p. 11.
 56
used In these constructions. There Is no reason why any
convenient Instrument used In the Art of Geometry, such as
the square, parallel ruler, sector, protractor, should not
be supposed to be used also In the 8cience, but the ruler
and compasses suffice for nearly all the simpler construe*
tlons, and those which cannot be effected by their means
are considered as not forming a part of Elementary Geometry.
These Instruments are therefore postulated or requested.55

Halstead, an American author, states the modified postulates of

Euclid, calling them **1110 Assumed Constructions.” He continues:

Here we are allowed the use of a straightedge, not marked

with divisions, and the use of a pair of compasses; the
edge being used for drawing and producing lines, the com­
passes for describing circles and for the transference
of sects. But It is more Important to note the implied
restriction, namely, that no construction la allowable
In elementary geometry which cannot be effected by com­
binations of these primary constructions.^

Thus, the postulates are made the basis for the Justification of the

restriction to the use of straight-edge and compasses in geometric con­

structions .

Langley and Phillips, the British authors of The Barpur Euclid,

adhere to the original Euclidean postulates. They declare, after stat­

ing the postulates, ** In practice, this amounts to demanding the use of

the ruler or straight edge and a pair of compasses.

Smith and Bryant, another pair of British authors, state the orig­

inal postulates of Euclid, and remark, ?Fheee postulates require the

use of a straight ruler and a pair of compasses.

The British authors Hall and Stevens also use the original Euclid­

ean postulates. They say:

55j. m . Wilson, Elementary Qeometry, p. 4.

56a. B. Halstead, Elements of Geometry, p. 17-
57g. M. Langley and W. 8 . Phillips, The Harpur Euclid, p. 4.
5®Charles Smith and Sophie Bryant, Euclid*s Elements of Geometry. p.7.
 57
In order to draw the diagram required In Euclid's Geom­
etry, certain Inetruaenta are necessary. These are (l) a
ruler... and (11) a pair of compasses.... In the postu­
lates, or requests, Euclid claim the use of these instru­
ments and assumes that they suffice for the purposes of
geometry. It Is Important to notice that the postulates
Include no means of direct measurement.

The American authors, Dure11 and Arnold, after stating the modi­

fied postulates of Buclld, continue:

These postulates limit the student to the use of the

straight edged ruler and the coapasses in constructing
figures In geometry. One of the objects of the study of
geometry Is to discover vhat geometric figures can be
constructed by a combination of the elementary construc­
tions allowed In the postulates; that^ls, by the use of
the two simplest drawing Instruments.

In their 1918 edition, Hall and Stevens abandon the original pos­

tulates and adopt the modified set. As in their earlier book, they

state, "In order to draw geometric figures, certain Instruments are

required. These are, for the purposes of this book, (l) a straight

ruler and (11) a pair of compasses. The following postulates (or re­

quests) claim the use of these Instruments and assume that with their

help the processes mentioned below may be duly performed." ^1 The

processes" referred to are the modified postulates of Buclld.

McCormack states, TThe postulates tell us that in construction we

are allowed to use the straight edge ruler and compasses only."

^ H . S. Hall and F. H. Stevens, A School Qeometry. p. 7 .

^^Fletcher Dure11 and E. E. Arnold, Plane Geometry, pp. 23-2k.

^ H . S. Hall and P. H. Stevens, ^ Textbook of Euclid's Elements. p. 7 .

^2J. P. McCormack, Plane Qeometry, p. 22.

 58

Smith and Marino, using the modified postulates, inform the pupil,

These postulates limit the student to the use of the straight-edged

ruler and compasses in constructing figures in geometry. By limiting

ourselves to these tvo simplest drawing instruments ve become more a-

ware of the basic truths and relationships of geometry than if we used

elaborate Instruments and measuring devices. This last sentence Is

very obscure; one can only wonder what is actually meant by the state­

ment, and one must certainly wonder what special properties the ruler

and compasses possess which all other geometrical instruments must

lack.

Skolnlk and Bartley make use of many drawing Instruments in the

earlier portions of their text, where students are asked to experiment

with a number of them In drawing and constructing figures. On page 105,

the authors discuss constructions baaed on postulates. Thqr limit the

student to the use of only tvo tools, the straight-edge and compasses,

and state:

The reason for this is that we wish to base our construc­

tions on two postulates: (1 ) a line can be drawn through
tvo given points, and (2 ) a circle can be drawn If its
center and radius are given. In the first postulate we
assumed that one and only one straight line can be drawn
through tvo given points. All that ve are now assuming
is that vs have the tool to draw such a straight line.
This tool is, of course, the straight edge. The second
postulate means that, given the center and radius of a
circle, we have an Instrument for drawing the circle.
This instrument is the compass.

The ten textbooks discussed in this section have Justified the

straight-edge and compasses as the only permissible Instruments of

P. Smith and A. I. Marino, Plane Geometry. p. 20.

6S a v i d Skolnlk and M. C. Hartley, Dynamic plane Geometry, p. 105-
 59
construction by declaring that the Sue11dean postulates demand this re­

striction. By Tlrtue of the conclusions reached in the discussion of

the relationship between postulates and construction Instruments, on

pages U and 12 of this report, It oust be stated that the Justifica­

tions discussed in this section are not actually valid arguments for

the exclusive use of ruler and coapasses.

5* The restriction Is Justified on the basis of theoretical

accuracy.

Eight of the textbooks examined for this study either state or

imply that the reason for the exclusive use of straight-edge and com­

passes in geometrical construction is their great accuracy. The Justi­

fications given in these texts will be presented, and then the validity

of the idea of accuracy as a Justification for the ruler and compass

restriction will be discussed.

Clalraut does not Justify the classical restriction except by Im­

plication. He notes that measurement Is only approximate, and that

Isome minds seek exactness." He states, *Ve shall now resume recti­

linear figures, but In our operations for discovering their true re­

lations, ve shall use only the ruler and the c o m p a s s . A s In the case

of Smith and Marino (see page 53), it must be asked, 'Vhat are the spe­

cial merits possessed by the straight edge and compasses that they will

reveal the 'true relations' in geometrical figures, where other instru­

ments will notT"

Ford and Ammerman, on the first page of their text, state, "In

studying geometry It is desirable to draw accurate figures. The student

55---------------------------------
A. C. Clalraut, (tr. J. Kalnes), Elements &£ Geometry. p. hi.
 60
will need * ruler end a pair of compasses. They also declare, t)ne

purpose of a part of our study will be to show how figures can be drawn

without any other Instruments than a ruler and compasses. A distinc­

tion Is then made among construction, drawing, sketching. There Is

no clear-cut use here of accuracy as a means of Justifying the conven­

tional restriction, but the first statement above Implies that the

straight edge and compasses are associated with accuracy of drawing.

Smith does not Justify the restriction, except by Implication. Be

says, rVhen we construct a figure we make the figure accurate by the

use of an unmarked ruler and a pair of compasses... When we draw a

figure we ... may use, if ve wish, the draftsman's triangle, the pro­

tractor, the T-square, so as to make a neat figure.

Hawkes, Luby, and Touton discuss reasons for using the traditional

Instruments In several places In their book. They write:

The straight line and the circle are the only lines used
In elementary geometry. Hence the only Instruments needed
to construct the figures which may be required are the
straight edge and the compasses.... The construction work
of geometry limits Itself to the use of the ruler and com­
passes, not only because with them alone the figures re­
quired can be drawn theoretically exact, but because the
ruler and compasses are ths simplest instruments with
which all the constructions can be m a d e . 9

In their summary of construction work, near the end of the book, these

authors repeat the substance of the paragraph Just quoted, and continue:

Ford and Charles Am nerman, Plane Qeometry, p. 1.

P- 19
68David Eugene Smith, Essentials of Plane Qeometry. p. 67.
6 9
H. E. Hawkes, W. A. Luby, and F. C. Touton, ftev plane Geometry, p. 57-
 6l
It Is true that the methods underlying construction work
are only theoretically exact, since no matter how sharp
our pencil, we cannot draw a geometric line, nor can we
draw with the best ruler a line which is perfectly straight*
The resultant figures are accurate enough, however, for
many practical purposes, and - what is nore important -
they show that certain figures needed in the demonstra­
tions are possible.™

It is readily seen from these quotations that the authors have tried to

:.ake clear to the student the existence and the role of the Platonic •

restriction. They have used several major ideas in Justifying it to

their pupils, including theoretical accuracy, ^simplicity** of the

instruments, and their use as existence theorems. They have carefully

modified the claim to accuracy in terms the students will understand.

Farnsworth declares, while discussing the bisector of a line seg­

ment:

Instead of using a scale - a method Involving several

theoretical as well as practical difficulties - it is
possible to locate this point by a method better suited
to the ideal or geometric lines.... The drawing of a
figure which is theoretically perfect, by means of com­
passes and unmarked straight-edge only, is called a
geometrical construction.... But It must be borne in mind,
however, that no matter how perfect our Instruments
how skillful our work, our actual construction is only a
crude representation of the ideal geometrical construc­
tion which we assume exists.^

Farnsworth, like Hawke a, Luby, and Touton, is careful to point out the

practical limitations upon the accuracy of the instruments.

Relchgott and Spiller tell the pupil, **It is often necessary to

draw geometric figures by accurate methods. Usually such a figure

Is drawn according to definite methods; we say that it Is constructed.

7°Ibid., pp. 215-216.

D. Farnsworth, Plane Geometry/ p. 9*

 62

In the constructlone of plane geometry the only instruments used are

the straight edge and compasses."?2

Schorling and Clark write, Tilthough it is not possible to Reas­

sure a distance exactly, there are always ways to keep the error small

and attain fairly high precision in some kinds of work.... The best

way to copy, or transfer, a line is not to measure it with a ruler, but

to use a compass or a pair of dividers. Careful workers use this method

73
to copy lengths of lines with great precision." This same thought is

applied to the construction of angles: *fcs in copying a line segment,

so also in copying an angle, the use of a compass will give more accu-
7k
rate or exact results than measuring with a scale (protractor)**'

Clark, 8mlth, and Schorling tell the student, " T w o instruments

used In geometry are the compass and the straight edge. A compass is

used for drawing circles and arcs and for making equal line segments.

A straight edge is used for drawing straight lines." ?** The authors

define drawing and constructing as they relate to geometric figures,

they rule out measurement and require the pupils to use only the ruler

and compasaes in construction work. They declare, "It is usually more

accurate to bisect an angle with straight edge and compass than with a

protractor," but this is the extent of their remarks pertaining to the

reasons for the use of ruler and coapaaaes only.?^

?2Devid Relchgott and Lee R. 8plller, Today's Qeometry. p. 20.

?3Ralelgh Schorling and John R. Clark, Matheimtlcs in Life, pp. 20-21.

7**ibid.. p. 109.

r. Clark, R. R. Smith, and Raleigh Schorling, Modern School

geometry, p. 6 .

76ibid., p. 11.
 6 3

Strangely enough, after emphasising the accuracy of the work done

with ruler and compasses, the authors of tvo of the books discussed

above tell the pupils to check their results with scale and protractor,

the very Instruments which were avoided In the first place because they

were not accurate! Measurement, and hence the instruments which utilise

measurement, can result only in approximations. The straight edge and

compasses do not utilise measurementj hence, say aoaa, they ought to be

free of error. But whenever physical instruments are used, errors must

necessarily creep In and affect the results. In any construction the

accuracy of the completed figure is affected by the sharpness of the

pencil and compass points, by the accuracy with which the ruler or the

compass-point has been placed upon a given point in the figure, by the

care with which the lines have been drawn against the edge of the ruler,

etc. Even In constructions involving only a few operations with the in­

struments, the results are, at best approximate. For example, In con­

structing a regular hexagon, the pupil rarely finds that the last step

in his trip around the circumference with the compasses returns him

exactly to his starting point. The finished figure would be Just as ac­

curate If the pupil were to draw a diameter of the circle and then use

his protractor to lay off angles of 60* and 120* on each side of the di­

ameter, cutting the circle into six equal arcs. Textbook authors occa­

sionally point out this fact, but they almost never Introduce the stu­

dents to the very useful practice of drawing figures by using one or

more of several convenient methods of approximation, some of which use

the ruler and compasses.

From this discussion it should be clear that, Ideally, perfect ac­

curacy would result from the use of ruler and compasses in geometrical
 64

constructions, but In practice, the best we can hope to achieve, with

whatever instruments we use, is an approximate result. To Justify the

use of the ruler and compasses to pupils on the basis of accuracy of

results is not warranted. It is clear, also, that most of the authors

who refer to accuracy of these instruments have done so with some cau­

tion.

6. The restriction is Justified as being one rule of a game.

Only three of the seventy texts Justify the use of the ruler and

compasses on the basis of geometry being a game and the restriction

one of its rules. One of these is an American book, but the two aoet

recent ones of the three are Canadian texts which have appeared in the

past decade.

Barber and Hendrix, the American authors, state, Constructions

are made with two drawing instruments only. Of course we might make

use of any implements we chose, but for more than 2000 years, the

rules of the game have been, 'Use compasses and straight edge only.

This remark alao brings In the idea of historical or conventional usage.

Further along on the same page the authors touch on theoretical accuracy

when they say, C o prove that the construction is correct does not mean

to prove that the drawings are Ideally perfect, but to prove that if

the directions could be perfectly carried out, ideal perfection in the

construction would be reached."

The Canadian text by Cook makes use of the 'feame" idea also. In

this book we read, Cvery game is played according to certain rules....

77
H. C. Barber and Gertrude Hendrix, Plane Geometry and its Reasoning,
P« 31*
 65
For the Oreek thinkers geometry was largely a game, and the game was

played for centuries according to two rules, vis., only tvo Instruments

were permitted: (1 ) an ungraded straight edge; (2 ) a pair of collaps­

ing compasses...."7®

The authors of the other Canadian book, Bowers, Miller, and

Rourke, are In a playful mood when they inform the pupil:

The old Creeks regarded geometry as a game. One rule of

the game was that the use of the protractor was forbidden.
Another forbade the use of a ruler with graduations on
It. It was permitted to draw straight lines with the aid
of an ungraded ruler or straight edge. There vaa nothing
unsportsmanlike In using the compasses. You have copied
an angle using your protractor. You could also have copied
It by using tissue paper. (This would have given Euclid
a fit.) Vow play under the old rules; using straight edge
and compasses only,make an angle equal to a given angle

Several pages later they remark:

Don't imagine that some instruments are sacred and that

others are beneath contempt. Ve are following old rules
of the game, rules laid down by the ancient Oreek mathe­
maticians, In discarding all but the straight edge and
computes.,,,

You may ask the fair question: *Vhy are the geometrical
measuring Instruments to be turned out into the cold in
obedience to some old rule when It Is admitted that they
can be of service In gaining of new knowledge f* The
answer Is that we have another purpose In mind besides
exploring the Continent of Geometry. Ve believe that In
this new way, you will make tvo distinct kinds of gain -
you will add to your knowledge of geometry and you will
Increase your power to think clearly about matters which
have nothing to do with geometry.®^

There is undoubtedly some merit in pointing out a correspondence

between the rule of a game and the restriction to the straight edge

A. J. Cook, Qeometry for Today, p. 48.

^ H . Bowers, H. Miller, and R.B.Rourke, Mathematics for Canadians,p.76.
6oIbld., p. 85.
and compasses In making geometrical conatructlons. In each case, the

rule* are but agreement* or postulate* which determine the operation*

to be permitted and those to be prohibited. For example, Just as In

geometry any angle can be trisected If the pupil 1* allowed to m*>j»

mark* on hi* ruler, so In football a ball-carrier could probably

always make a touchdown If he were allowed to carry a revolver

■hoot his would-be tackier*. In each case, violation of the adopted

rule* ha* occurred. But geometry la much more than a game. Students

should understand, the role of postulates in geometry, and they cer­

tainly should be acquainted with the ruler compass restriction and

some of its important results. But there Is no reason to require

tiiem to adhere entirely to an ancient restriction which Is presented

as one rule of a gams. As suggested by Nathan Latar in lectures at

The Ohio State University and elsewhere, taxpayers do not send their

children to school to play games, and to Justify the exclusive use of

straight edge and compasses on this basis Is not sufficient.

7. Miscellaneous other Justlflcatlona.

Only three books remain that have not already fallen into o*. j of

the six preceding sections. These will now be discussed.

Hill* s book 1* a charming little volume published ninety years

ago which presents an excellent, informal, yet rigorous treatment of

geometry. It is written for young people and the language used is

easy and conversational in tone. Bach new idea or concept is evolved

in a natural manner, and pupils "learn by dolncf • Hill has the pupils

construct their own instruments - straight-edge, protractor, scales,

etc. Regarding geometrical Instruments, he writes:

 67

The first requislty for geometrical construction... is

a straight ruler.... A stretched thread vill mark a
straight line and afford a guide for sawing out a toler­
ably straight ruler.

The second most Important requlslty for geometrical con­

struction Is a pair of coapasses or dividers....

The third requlsity Is a scale... marked in convenient

units.

He then discusseB postulates, quoting the modified postulates of Euclid

and remarking that they cannot be done with perfect exactness. Hill

then performs many constructions and makes use of a number of methods not

found in the usual texts on geometry. He frequently applies several meth­

ods of construction or drawing to a given problem and compares the results.

In each case he clearly designates whether or not the method is allowed

by the postulates. He makes a very interesting remark in connection with

the construction of the regular pentagon. After presenting the usual

construction for this figure "according to the letter of the postulates,

using ruler and compasses, and algebra," he continues:

But the simplest way to draw a pentagon Is to open the com­

passes to, as nearly as you can estimate it, the fifth of a
circumference, and after stepping around once, alter their
width, as nearly as you can estimate it, the fifth past of
the resulting error. This really conforms to the spirit of
the postulate, that one can open the compasses to a given
radius.

Hill* a book might well have been discussed under the heading, * The re­

striction is demanded by the postulates", but because it is so differ­

ent from all the other texts examined, it is discussed separately. Ac­

tually, H 1 U does not justify the use of the ruler and compasses; they

T h o m a s Hill, A Second Book in Geometry, pp. 56-57*

82Ibid.. p. 81.
 o 8

are but tvo of the many Instrument* he uses regularly. But he alvaye

points out that the use of ruler and compasses, based on the Buclldean

postulates, constitutes the traditional formal construction work of

geometry.

Herberg and Orleans Inform the student, "...ve have decided not to

rely on measurement as a geometrical method. Consequently, in construc­

tions, ve shall not make use of the divisions on the ruler, or of such

measuring instruments as the protractor. The only tools vhich ve shall

83
use are the straight edge and the compasses.•

Seymour and Smith Justify the restriction on page 79 of their text:

Ve, in our study of geometry, are concerned primarily

with the theory of constructions. that Is, learning hov
the construction is done and proving that the method is
correct. Ve limit ourselves, therefore, to the use of
these tvo Instruments.... If... ve are told to construct
a tight angle, the method used must be such that ve can
prove that the figure ve have made _ie a right angle. For
this reason, it vill be necessary to use both the straight
edge and the compasses In making the figures fox^ proposi­
tions and exercises vhich Involve construction.^*

One can hardly see hov the pupil vill be convinced that the need for prov­

ing that a figure is the one actually sought vill necessitate the exclu­

sive use of these particular instruments; why vill not some other instru­

ments serve as veil? These authors also mention that *Vil 1 the construc­

tions in plane geometry are based on certain p o s t u l a t e s , b u t they do

not use the postulates as a basis for Justifying the ruler and compass re­

striction.

®^Theodore Herberg and J. B. Orleans, A Mev Qeometry, p. M3.

84
F. E. Seymour and P. J. Smith, Plane Geometry, p. 79.
85
Ibid., p. 80.
 Treatment of Concepts Closely Related to the 69
Ruler-and-compass Constructions

In addition to the Justifications offered for the classical restrict

tion, there are several concepts closely related to the restriction which

must be commented upon. They shed additional Information upon the role

of constructions as conceived by the authors of textbooks.

1. Carrying distances with the compasses.

Only three of the seventy texts examined specifically state that

the compasses are not to be used for the transference of lengths and

distances In construction work. These are the British texts by Langley

and Phillips®^, Smith and Bryant^, and Hall and Stevens (1906 edition)

They require the pupil to adhere to the Euclidean Idea of the "col­

lapsing” compasses. Three other texts, all of them rather old, also

require the use of the compasses according to the ancient concept. Al­

though Simeon^, Playfair^, and H u n t e r d o not specifically state

the manner In which the compasses shall be used, they Include Euclid*s

second proposition (see page 11 of this study), which Indicates that

they have in mind the collapsing compasses of Euclid.

The remainder of the seventy texts have broken with the Euclidean

concept of the compasses. Thirty-four of them, well scattered through­

out the 118-year span covered by the texts studied, specifically state

M. Langley and W. S. Phillips, op. clt., p. 7 .

^Charles Smith and Sophie Bryant, ,Q£. clt., p. 6.

88
H. S. Hall and 7 . H. Stevens, op. clt.. p. 7.
89
Robert Simson, op. clt., p. 10.
John Playfair, op. clt., p. 12.

^^Thomas Hunter, ej>. clt.. p. 20.

 70

that the compasses may be used to transfer distances from one part of a

geometrical figure to another, while the remaining twenty-nine texts merely

merely Imply that the compasses may be so used. It Is In keeping with

the more modern ideas of pedagogy and never concepts of high-school ge­

ometry when ruler-and-compass constructions are studied, to simply pos­

tulate the use of the compasses for transference of lengths* This Is

natural and acceptable to students, although textbook authors should

take time to discuss and Illustrate this idea and not merely announce

It as a postulate and command the pupil to obey it.

2 . Trlsectlon of any angle.

Thirty-nine of the textbooks do not mention trlsectlon of an arbi­

trary angle, and comparatively few of those that do are sufficiently

thorough in their discussion to acquaint the student with the nature

of the trlsectlon problem, the idea of impossibility, or the signifi­

cance of the limitation upon the Instruments of construction.

The trlsectlon problem arises very naturally In construction work,

and it may be Introduced very simply, as Nyberg does it when he writes,

" Because it is so easy to bisect an angle, many people have thought

that it should be easy tc trisect an a n g l e . S u c h a direct appeal

to the natural curiosity of pupils can do much to help arouse dormant

Interests to a state of active Investigation and thinking. Once at

work on the trlsectlon problem, pupils can be guided into a rudimsntary

understanding of ** mathematical impossibility" and the consequence of a

restriction placed upon Instruments of construction.

92
Joseph A. Nyberg, op. clt., p. 90.
 71
It is Important that textbooks should not leave with the pupil in­

correct ideas concerning facts of geometry. Two textbooks, however, in­

clude statements vhich are Incorrect and vill give students a false idea

of impossibility. Pallor says, "There is no known method in geometry

for trisecting any plane angle, and mathematicians believe that the prob­

lem is impossible."93 The facts are, there are many known geometrical

methods for trisecting any plane angle, but none of them Involves only

ruler and compasses; mathematicians have proved this. Blackhurst writes,

" I t is not possible to trisect any angle by means of a compass and

straight edge alone. At least no one has succeeded in doing so.1^

This last sentence gives the false impression that mathematicians have

failed in their attempts to solve this problem, whereas they have defi­

nitely proved the problem to be impossible of solution under the tradi­

tional restriction.

3* Construction of the regular polygons.

Most of the twenty-six texts which were published prior to 1918

discuss the constructions of the regular polygons known to Buclld -

the square, pentagon, hexagon, decagon, and qulndecagcn. Only seven

of these twenty-six books indicate that not all regular polygons can

be constructed by ruler and compasses alone. Playfair incorrectly states

that the heptagon cannot be constructed with the classical instruments

"by any method hitherto discovered. Hill is the only author who dis­

cusses the Euclidean constructions and then goes on to present to the

students a practical method for approximating any regular polygon by use

93isaac Newton Pallor, op. clt., p. 113.

H. Blackhurst, 0£. clt., p. 127.
^ J o h n Playfair, o£. cit'.. p. 105•
 72
96 „
of the compasses* This same method of "stepping off" estimated

lengths with the compasses can also be used to approximate the n-section

of any given angle*

Since 1918, there has been a tendency for authors of textbooks to

relegate the construction of the pentagon and the decagon to the appen­

dix or the supplement, and to omit the quindecagon entirely. It should

be noted here that the constructions for these three regular polygons

offer excellent vehicles for the application of algebra to the problems

of geometry, and that they would serve well as extra-credit work for

the brighter students. It should not be difficult to motivate Interest

In the construction of the pentagon, for most young people are interested

in "five-pointed stars", which appear in our flag and elsewhere, and

which are derived from the regular pentagon.

As In the case of the trlsectlon problem, regular polygons offer a

basis for discussion of the limitation upon the Instruments of construc­

tion. Students should realize that many Euclidean constructions, although

theoretically possible, are very complex and involve many operations with

the Instruments, so that the completed figure may be quite inaccurate.

They should be shown one or more practical methods of approximating a

97
regular polygon of any number of sides, such as those offered by Hill
oft
and Westaway.

^Thomas Hill, op. clt.. pp. 6l, 8l.

^ L o c . clt.
98
F. W. Vestaway, Craftsmanship In the Teaching of Elementary
Mathematics. p. 226.
 73

. The approximation of it.

The problem of "squaring the circle" is equivalent to the construc­

tion of a line of length * by means of straight-edge and compasses.^

It has been known since the days before Euclid that the ratio c/d is

a constant for all circles, where £ and ci are the circumference and

diameter, respectively, of any given circle. Eight of the older texts

examined say nothing about the numerical value of this ratio, or 'V" ,

as it Is generally known. The remaining 62 texts concern themselves

to a greater or lesser degree with acquainting the student with the

numerical value of x .

Half of the examined texts utilize the method of exhaustion, known

to the Greek mathematicians Archytas and Bryson a century before Euclid's

time, to present the work of approximating the value of x. The method

is based upon the fact that, in a given circle, as the nunher of sides

of an inscribed regular polygon is Increased, the perimeter and area of

the polygon approach the circumference and area of the circle as limits.

A similar fact is true of circumscribed regular polygons. If both in­

scribed and circumscribed regular polygons are considered, the circum­

ference of the circle remains "trapped" between the larger perimeter of

the circumscribed polygon and the smaller perimeter of the inscribed

polygon, and its value may be approximated as closely as desired by in­

creasing indefinitely the number of sides of the polygons.

This entire process is, however, a hypothetical construction in the

senne that the polygons need not actually be drawn. Instead, algebraic

equations are developed which express the length of the side of a

•^T. L. Heath, The Elements of Euclid. Vol. I, P. 12^.

 74

regular inscribed or circumscribed 2n-gon in terms of the diameter or

t,he basic circle and the side of a regular Inscribed or circumscribed

n-gon. Tables are then constructed which express the perimeter of an

inscribed or circumscribed regular polygon in terms of the diameter of

the basic circle, and the pupil notes carefully the behavior of the co­

efficient of the diameter as the number of sides of the polygon is in­

creased. The following example will illustrate this point.

Number of sides Perimeter of In- Perimeter of Cir-

of Polygon scribed Polygon cumscribed Polygon

6 3.000000 d 3.1*64101 d
12 3.105828 d 3.215390 d
24 3.132628 d 3.159659 d
^ 3.139350 d 3.1^6086 d
96 3.141031 d 3.142714 d
192 3.141452 d 3.141873 d
384 3.141557 d 3 .1M 662 d
768 3.141583 d 3.141610 d
1536 3.141590 d 3.141597 d
3072 3.141592 d 3.141594 d
6144 3.1M592 d 3-141593 d

The table clearly shows the degree of approximation of the value of x

attained at each step, and it shows that, as n increases, the approxi­

mation becomes more exact. Of the 62 texts which discuss the numerical

value of x, 20 present tables which Include both inscribed and circum­

scribed polygons; 17 present tables for inscribed polygons only; 10

merely mention the method of exhaustion without shoving a table of values

7 simply state the numerical value of x, and Include a remark or two a-

bout its history; 5 texts, all published since 1936, approach the calcu­

lation of the value of x through trigonometry; 2 approach it through

1 OO
Mabel Sykes and C. E. Comstock, oj>. cit., p. 272.
 75

Informal experiments Involving measurement; and one recent text utilizes

the elements of Integration.

t>. Discussion of iniposalble constructions.

Most textbook authors who have presented a careful discussion of

tne trlsectlon of an angle or of the construction of regular polygons

have also presented, In those discussions, a fairly clear idea of the

fact that not all constructions asked for are possible under the tra­

ditions! restriction to straight-edge and compasses. Forty of the

examined texts mention - some very briefly - the Important notion of

Impossibility. There Is a noticeable tendency for older texts to con­

sider only the constructions which are possible under the classics! re­

striction, however complex they become, and Ignore the Impossible con­

structions; newer texts tend to omit the more complex constructions

and discuss the Impossibility of solving certain other problems which,

on the surface, appear as if they should be easily accomplished with the

aid of etrs!ght-edge and compasses only.

None of the authors Invokes non-ge©metrical materials to aid in

clarifying the concept of "Impossibility" to the student. It might

well be pointed out to the pupils that a kit of tools consisting of saw,

hammer, and nails would be sufficient for constructing a dog-house or

a picnic table, but that it would not permit the construction of a radio

set or the installation of plumbing f i x t u r e s . I n practical daily

life we expand our tool kits so as to be able to perform, easily, a large

number of operations. Just as It is Interesting to consider what

^01Arnold Dresden, An Invitation to Mathematics, p. I35.

 76

primitive man could accomplish with the few tools he coi^anded, so we

.ight look with Interest upon the geometrical construction tools of the

ancient Greeks, yet not limiting ourselves to the restriction In our

study of geometry In the nodern high school*

6. Improper use of the word 11 measure **.

To measure a quantity is to express Its magnitude in terms of an

accepted scale or standard. But since measurement must ever yield only

approximate results, Euclid and the Greeks ruled It out of plane geom­

etry and adopted the use of the straight-edge and compasses, which do

not utilise measurement in any way. Five texts, however, contain va­

riations of the statement, "the compasses are used for drawing circles

and for measuring line segments." There are Hill102, Hunter10^,

Leonhardy10^, Strader and Rhoads10^, and Welchons and Krlckenberger10^,

the last three having been published since 19^0 .

Several texts, Including Olney, Ford and Aminerman, Schnell and

Crawford, and others, ask the students to check the results of their

construction work by measuring the lines and angles of the completed fig­

ures with scale and protractor. There is nothing wrong in this practice
If pupils realize that it serves merely as a check on whether or not

they may have made a serious misstep at some stage in the process of

construction. In practical life, the result obtained by one method

102Thotnae Hill, op. clt., p. 57-

103rhomas Hunter, op. clt.. p. 16.

10Sl. Leonhardy, Marie Joseph, and R. D. MeLeary, op. clt., p. lfl.

105w. W . Strader and L. D. Rhoads, o£. clt., p. b2,

A. M. Welchons and W. R. Krlckenberger, op. clt., p. 20.

 77
of operation Is often rough-checked by application of a different method

to the same problem.

On the whole, It must be said, the textbook material concerning

ruler-and-compass constructions la seldom incorrect, but authors are

frequently guilty of not making as much use as they should of the op­

portunity to point out and clarify the nature and the role of the clas­

sical restriction.

Summary of Discussions of Justifications

Proposed for the Use of the Ruler
and Compass Restriction.

The foregoing discussions of the Justifications given to pupils

by textbook writers for use of the straight-edge and compasses as the

instruments of geometrical construction reveal a great variety of pro­

posed reasons for this restriction.

It will be noted that none of the seven headings under which these

Justifications have been discussed applies to any definite portion of

the lld-year span covered by the books examined. However, the tendency

to fall to mention the restriction at all has long since died out. But

the tendency to mention the restriction and yet not to Justify It has

continued to exist right up to the present time. Justification on the

basis of convention or historical usage occurs all throughout the period

covered by these texts, although there is a recent tendency for a some­

what fuller explanation and discussion of the restriction. Adherence to

the classical instruments on the ground that postulates demand it Is

found in some of the latest texts published, as well as in some of the

oldest. This is true also of Justification on the basis of theoretical

 78

accuracy and the geometric ideal. There are too few books which consider

the restriction to be *Vme of the rules of a game” to indicate a tendency

or trend, but all three of them are quite recent, and two of them are

Canadian texts which have appeared within the last eight years.

The discussions in this chapter have indicated that, first of all,

students should be familiar with the use of many geometrical instruments.

Furthermore, all students should be familiar with tne restriction to

ruj.er and compasses, its probable origin, and Its widespread Influence

upon mathematical thought. But it appears that there is only one Jus-

tlficatlon for the use of ruler and compasses that is valid and should

be presented to students as a reason for making geometrical construc­

tions with straight-edge and compasses. This is the historical reason,

discussed on pp. M3-53 of this chapter. There is no other argument in

favor of the exclusive use of ruler and compasses as the instruments of

geometrical construction which cannot equally well be replaced by an ar­

gument which would allow the use of other instruments, or which would

allow the *Vbusett of the ruler and compasses, such as permitting the

pupil to put marks on the ruler and to slide it into desired positions.

Other ideas appearing in this chapter as reasons for the restriction can

oe useful as illustrative or supplementary material, but not as Justi­

fications for the classical restriction.

 79

CHAPTER V'

GEOMETRICAL CONS TRUC 1'IOWS AiJD JUSTIFICATIONS Of THE

RULER AWD COMPASS RESTRICTION APPEARING In
WORKS OTHER THAN PLANS GEOMETRY TGXTG

It was stated earlier in thin paper that the textuojk uued n a

ourse in hi ,h school jeametr; almost completel., determines vhat the

course shall be. There are a number of other mathematical ouo.s, peri­

odicals and pamphlets which influence, though rather indiree~ly, the

teaching of high school jeometry. Perhaps the most nfluential of these

publications are the teaching manuals or *\nethods boohs" which the pro­

spective geometry teachers meet in their college course of studies.

In second place would appear probably the articles published in such

periodicals as The Mathematics Teacher and School Science and Mathe­

matics, which are rather more easily available to high school teachers

than are some of the more formal works.

One of the larger proolems of those who train geometry teachers

Is to get the prospective teachers to become acquainted with the liter­

ature of mathematics education and to instill in them the desire to

keep abreast of new developments in the teaching of geometry as well

as to develop the habit of doing regular professional reading in the

fields of mathematics and mathematics education. Teachers who are fa­

miliar with the literature of their fields are far less likely to oe

narrow and dogmatic in the classroom and are more likely to bring a

rich variety of interesting materials and methods to their classes.

If it could be assumed that high school teachers of geometry wore

doing a reasonable amount of professional reading, then it could also

oe assumed that the many works, other than textbooks, which pertain to
 60

to the content and methods of teaching high school geometry, had an

influence in the work done in the tenth-grade geometry classes. It

will be the purpose of this chapter to seehow the authors of the

various kinds of works referred to justifythe restriction to ruler

and cosqpasses and how they propose to utilize construction work in

the teaching of geometry. These works will be discussed under four

different headings: teaching manuals, committee reports, miscellane­

ous standard and popular works, and magazine articles.

Teaching Manuals

A list of the teaching manuals discussed In this section will

be found in the Bibliography. They will be discussed here in alpha­

betical order of author's names.

Branford writes concerning constructions,

Just as the nature of evidence for geometrical

truth may be broadly classified Into experimental,
intuitional, and scientific, so may the actual
modes of procedure for the construction of figures,
with given specifications or data, be classified
under these divisions.^

He elaborates on the statement, explaining that the experimental phase

consists of proceeding by trial and error, or guesswork. The intu­

itional, on the other hand, is syBtemmatlc and has a definite though

perhaps lengthy and somewhat Inefficient approach.

In the scientific constructions, we are confined

to the use of ... straight edge and compasses.
The aim is, with these, to solve the problem
with the minimum number of operations possible
... to effect the maximum production with the
simplest tools or Instruments with the least

3enchard Branford, A Study of Mathematics riducation, p. ljb

 81
amount of work. This is one of the ultimate and all-
sufficient justifications of the eternal human striv­
ing toward the scientific ideal.^

he recOjnises, however, that "the Euclidean construct!one are not,

in jeneral, practicall; realisable." They are complex, take up mu :h

r^om, and are inexact when completed. J>

Breslich does not .justify the restrict on to strai^ght-edge and

compasses, but remarks,

Traditionally the jeometrij constructions form an essential

part of high school geometry. The present tendency Is
to introduce them early in the course, rather than to
defer them until they may be proved by logical demonstra­
tion .... They give the pupil excellent practice with the
geometrical instruments.4

In another of his books, Breslich says, "One of the major aims of

construction work in geometry is to teach the pupil to make a con­

struction as accurate as he is able to make it. ” 5 other than this

statement, Breslich makes little reference to construction work and

does not justify the restriction to straight ed ;e and compasses.

In still another of his cooks on the teaching of mathematics,

Breslich again does not justify the classical restriction upon the

instruments of .^eometry. he docs state, however

The fundamental constructions are valuable in demonstra­

tive geometry, in other school subjects, and in vocation­
al work. 'They should therefore be throughly understood
.... In all cases the work should be done sufficiently
well to satisfy the requirements of an exacting drawing
department. Formal proofs are not needed (at the intu­
itive stage) but each construction should be checked

glbid., p. lbO
3lbid., p. ldl
fi. Breslich, The;Administration of Mathematics in Secondary
Schools, p . 3'-9 • —

5s. R. Breslich, The feachin^ of i-jathematics in Secondary Schools,

p. 12k. -------------------------------------------------------
 with ruler and protractor.0 Q2

Later in this same book, Breslich states,

As it is used here, the term geometric constructions

refers to drawings made by means of straight edge and
coiqpasses ... Among the first demonstrations should
be the proofs of some of the fundamental constructions.1

He cites as some of the values of construction work that it acquaints

pupils with the vocabulary of geometry and the definitions and meanings

of various concepts, helps in oral expression and in exact, careful ex-

planation, and facilitates transfer from intuitive to demonstrative

geometry.®

Butler and Vfren do not specifically mention the restriction to

ruler and compasses. They merely state, Emphasis should be given to

the necessity of drawing accurate diagrams with ruler and coiqpasses

in situations that demand them, such as construction problems, pre­

scribed written work, or any situation which places a good deal of em­

phasis on accuracy of figures.1^ These authors also lqply that the use

of straight edge and compasses Is a traditional part of plane geometry

when they write,'Original exercises may be divided into three major di­

visions, vis., (l) propositions to be proved through deductive argument,

(2 ) geometrical problems to be solved through applications of algebraic

or arithmetical techniques, and (3 ) problems calling for the construc­

tion of certain geometric configurations from given elements, using the

straight edge and coiqpasses . m1C)

£• R. Breslich, Problems in Teaching Secondary School Mathematics, p. 262.

''ibid., p. 283.
8 Ibld., p. 283.
9
C. H. Butler and F. L. Vfren, The Teaching of Secondary Mathematics, p. 386.
10 ,
Ibid., p. U02.
 Christofferson does not Justify the restriction to straight edge and

■onipasses, but seems to accept the ruler-and-compass constructions as an

integral part of the work of high school geometry. H« proposes a somewhat

different approach to the system of geometry than is usually found in

textbooks Christofferson would postulate the congruence of two tri­

angles whose corresponding sides are equal, and would thereby avoid pos­

tulating the existence of the angle-blsector, which he feels is a hypothe­

tical construction very troublesome to pupils* Why, he asks, should we

not postulate the angle-trisector also? He proposes to derive the con­

struction of the angle-blsector from the postulated congruence, which is

very easy to do* To start, he would ask the pupils to copy a given tri­

angle with the straight edge and compasses; since most of them would do

this by using the lengths of the sides, it would furnish an Introduction

to the proposed postulate.

In his recent work on the teaching of mathematics, Davis refers only

briefly to the straight-edge and compasses, and does not Justify the re­

striction. He proposes an outline of the 'Synthetic .Structure of Plane

Geometry" which includes the usual constructions of the high school course,

following this he remarks, Students studying geometry should have and be

able to use efficiently ruler, compasses, protractor, notebook, and other

equipment necessary for neat, accurate, and systemmatlc and orderly

work.'fl-3

C. Christofferson, Geometry Professionalixed for Teachers, p. ^0-^2.

12
D. d. Davis, The Teaching of Mathematics, pp. 21^-222.
13
Ibid., p. 22U.
 Fort., years ago, iivans wrote,

The execution of problems of construction in Geometry

has no logical connection with the development of
theorems, except where the constructions show the
existence of the figures referred to in the theorems...
On the other hand, they do furnish excellent practice
in the application of theorems, and should be freely
used for this purpose. V/hen, however, the methods of
construction... confine themselves to the two Euclidean
Instruments, - the compasses and unmarked straight edge, -
the historical and logical reasons for that limitation
should be pointed o u t . ^

3ut Mr. Evans does not point out what these reasons are. In fact,

none of the teaching manuals examined specifically does this, or even

hints at where they may be found, as will be noted In the summary of

this section.

In his very recent book, Fehr Justifies the restriction to ruler

and compasses on the basis of historical origins by stating,

In high school geometry, construction problems are

limited in their solution to the use of a pair of com­
passes and an unmarked straight edge. This restriction
was probably initiated by Plato, who referred to these
tools as the 'instruments of God.' Euclid, in his
books, maintained this limitation and moreover in­
cluded in his propositions no hypotheses or data that
could not be. constructed by the use of these Instru­
ments alone.

This book contains an excellent chapter on ^eometric constructions

with compaaaes and straight edge.

Godfrey and Siddons discuss hypothetical constructions rather

at length, and in their remarks on the subject, they include the

statement, "Euclid's restriction Is artificial and inconvenient; for

W. Evans, The Teaching of High School Mathematics, pp. 5^-59*

^ • F . Fehr, Secondary Mathematics, p . 3^2.
 85
example, he is debarred from proving any properties involving the tri-

section of an angle.'^ Few remarks are made about the restriction

and the reasons for it, although the authors do distinguish between

••to draw” and **to construct". They write, ”It is well to make a class

x’ealize that, with reasonably good instruments, most of these construc­

tions (by ruler and compasses) are more accurate than constructions in

which measurements by means of a graduated scale or protractor are

used." I (

Hassler and Smith do not discuss the ruler and coiqpasses • They

write, •'(Plato) considered mathematics from the viewpoint of philosophy.

He scorned the idea of its use for practical purposes and extolled its

virtues as a mind-tralner.** 18 But no connection is made or Implied

between this viewpoint of Plato and the restriction upon the instruments

of construction.

Kinney and Purdy include a number of excellent historical notes

in their new teaching manual, but they make only slight reference to

constructions and do not discuss the straight-edge and coiqpasses or

19
attempt to justify the classical restriction upon their use.

Mlnnick advocates the method of approaching demonstrative geometry

through constructions, claiming several advantages in such an approach.

He states,

It develops the definitions and concepts necessary for

•^C. Godfrey and A. W. Siddons, The Teaching of Elementary Mathematics,

p. 253*
^Ibid., p . 269.
0. Hassler and R. R. Smith, The Teaching of Secondary Mathematics,
p. 156. “
19
L. B. Kinney and C. U. Purdy, Teaching Mathematics in the Secondary
School, pp. 113-*+•
 86
logical proofa. Hie pupil who has constructed parallel
lines, perpendicular lines, and other general figures has
a better working knowledge of then than has the one who
has nerely studied definitions. Die pupil, also, learns
to use drawing instruments.... Most pupils enjoy geometri­
cal relations and like to work with compasses, ruler, and
pencil• ®

However, nothing else is said about the ruler and coiqpasses, and

there is no Justification offered for their exclusive use in geome­

tric constructions.

Schultze is straightforward in his statement about the instru­

ments of construction. He informs his readers,

All constructions in plane geometry have to be carried

out by means of two instruments, viz., the coiqpassea and
the straight edge. Of these only thfe coiqpasses deserves
the name of an instrument, as the straight edge is simply
a model of a straight line.... It should be borne in
mind that the restriction to ruler and coiqpasses is purely
conventional, due to the great simplicity of these instru­
ments, and not to any intrinsic qualities of geometrical
figures."

Thus it appears that Schultze would Justify the conventional use of

straight edge and coiqpasses on the basis of their Simplicity".

Whether or not 'Simplicity" is the most desirable word here, these

instruments are convenient, easy to use, and do what is required in

the demands of construction work in plane geometry.

Schultze refers briefly to the use of coiqpasses alone and to the

use of a fixed circle and straight edge. He then returns to the straight

edge and coiqpasses and says,

*^J. H* Minnlck, Teaching Mathematics in the Secondary School, p . 1L0.

2^Arthur Schultze, The Teaching of Mathematics, pp. 150-y.

 87
It is very desirable that the sioqple constructions...
should occur as early as possible in the course... One
feature that deserves special attention is the insis­
tence upon the accuracy of language and drawing. While
the diagram of a theorem has nothing to do with the
validity of the proposition, the diagram of a problem
is the essential part of the work. Moreover, continued
free-hand drawing will sometimes lead to loose thinking.
In the beginning, at least, all constructions should be
effected with ruler and conpasses. 2

Thus, he not only refers to the simplicity of the straight-edge and

coiqpasses, but he seems to justify them, indirectly at least, on the

basis of being useful in achieving neatness and accuracy.

No specific justification for the exclusive use of straight edge

and conq>asses is found in Smith's Teaching of Geometry, but he frequently

refers to constructions and to the instruments of geometry. He

states, flA pupil should learn how to use the instruments of geometry,

and he does this most easily by drawing a few patterns. *^3 Later , he

remarks that the course should be started with ruler and coiqpass draw­

ingsof designs and the most common geometrical figures, but warns,

'There is danger in the slavish use of instruments," for this may

2k
interfere with natural and healthy Intuitions. The last seven chap­

ters of Smith’s book consider the leading propositions of the various

Books of Euclid's Elements, and these chapters include pictures and

descriptions of many geometrical Instruments, old and new, which

utilize the principles of propositions considered. He remarks, how­

ever, that elementary geometry TLimits itself... to those figures which

22Ibid., p. 158.
^^David Eugene Smith, The Teaching of Geometry, p. 76 .

2l|I b i d . , p. 96.
 86

can be constructed by the use of the compasses and the unmarked

straight-edge.*^5

Westaway does not Justify the restriction, but he does offer

a great many suggestions for improving "craftsmanship" in the teach­

ing of geometry. He declares, "Jome training in the careful use of

instruments is certainly desirable, but time should not be vasted on

elaborate drawings when freehand sketches can be made to serve ade­

quately ... * All pupils should be taught the wisdom of drawing good

figures for problem-solving purposes. He briefly discusses geome­

trical Instruments other than straight edge and compasses, but does

not remark further on the traditional restriction. He advocates the

use of algebra in solving geometrical problems, and he offers a very

good method of approximating the regular heptagon, using the ruler

and compasses only. 1

Young avoids all mention of the restriction upon instruments,

and has only a few remarks to make concerning constructions. He

notes that constructions serve as an excellent vehicle for explain­

ing and illustrating the analytic method of solving a problem.

Furthermore, by requiring the pupil to do something with his hands

and to think about what he is doing, constructions help to prevent

the pupil from becoming a passive learner, and they aid in smoothing

the path from concrete geometry to demonstrative g e o m e t r y . 2 ^

Ibid., p. 235.
2^F. W. Weataway, Craftsmanship in the Teaching of Elementary
Mathematics, p. 229.
2 *Ibid., p. 2(6.
2^J. W. A. Young, The Teaching of Mathematics, pp. 200-2o3.
 89
To summarize the findings of the examination of the teaching

manuals, the following statements will be sufficient: (a) The

teaching manuals pay relatively little attention to constructions,

except to refer to them in a rather general way; (b) they assume

that ruler and coiqpasseB will be used in the classroom as a matter

of course, and do not give the Instruments more than the merest

mention, if any; (c) only three of the 17 manuals examined specifi­

cally Justify the restriction to straight edge and coiqpasses, and

only one manual suggests that reasons for the restriction should be

presented to the pupils, but it falls to point out what these reasons

are; (d) most of the manuals state or imply that constructions will

aid in developing habits of neatness, accuracy, and precision in work

and in speech, that they will serve well to bridge informal and for­

mal geometry, and that they will aid the student in understanding

concepts and relationships of elementary geometry.

Coimni ttee Reports

There have been, in the past half-century, a number of important

commissions and committees which were appointed to study the teach­

ing of mathematics, and in particular, geometry, at the secondary

level. The reports of 15 of these groups will be discussed here with

the object of discovering how much attention is paid to construc­

tions, what the role of constructions is said to be, and whether the

restriction to straight-edge and compasses is discussed and Justified.

These reports, both British and American, will be considered in

chronological order.
 In 1^02, the British Mathematical Association produced a re­

port on the teaching of mathematics, under the editorship of John

Perry, one of the leaders in the reorjanizatlon movement. Jhis

report indicated that the use of compasses should begin as early

as pupils can be trusted with them. dhlc informal U6e uf instru­

ments in constructions and design-drawing will help to excite

curiosity and prepare students for a course in jeomatrical reason-

29
ing. Familiarity with the use of ruler and compasses, study of

physical models, ana the performance of simple constructions are

felt by those who prepared this report to be an essential preliminary

step to the study of demonstrative geometry. The minds of boys and

;irls are not ripe for dealing with abstractions; they must first be

thoroughly grounded In concrete geometry.^ This report does not

discuss any reasons for the restriction to straight edge and com­

passes. flie classical constructions are assumed to be a matter of

course, but they are thought to play an iiqportant role in introduc­

ing the study of formal geometry.

The national Committee of Fifteen on the GeoBetry Jyllabus

wrote a provisional report, in three sections, which appeared in I9II.

Little is said in this report concerning the restriction to straight­

edge and compasses. fhe Committee felt that the use of algebra in

the construction of simple problems should occur early in the geometry

^British Mathematical Association, The Teaching of Mathematics, p. 3't •

3°ibid., p. hk.
 91
course .

The final report of this same committee appeared late in 1912,

but it did not discuss the ruler and compass restriction. As in

its preliminary report, the committee su^ested early use of algebra

in the solution of simple geometrical constructions, and a careful

cjmparison between elementary geometric constructions and the cor-

■52
responding algebraic formulas.

The well-known '1923 Report” of the national Committee on

Mathematics Requirements does not specifically discuss the ruler-

and-conqjass restriction nor attenpt to Justify it. A general list

of topics to be covered in high school geometry courses is pre­

sented on page 3*+ of the report, and the remark is made that con­

structions, loci, originals, and other exercises are to be included

under each topic.^ At the end of the report the findings of several

questionnaires, administered to teachers and high school pupils, are

reported. The results of one questionnaire administered to 7,000

plane geometry students in seven states showed that constructions

was by far the most popular topic of the course with the students.

This result suggests the usefulness of constructions as motivation

material in the classroom.

■^national Committee of Fifteen on Geometry Syllabus, '^Provisional

Report". School Science and Mathematics, 11: 329-355»
509-531J April, May, June, l9ll.‘
^National Committee of Fifteen, Final Report. Reprint from The
Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 5, December, 1912.
"^National Committee on Mathematical Requirements, The Reorganlza-
tion of Mathematics in Secondary Education, pp. 3^-35•
0 Ibid., p. 521.
 92
Also In 1923 r the British Mathematical Association produced a

report on the teaching of geometry in schools. Aside from brief

remarks on the value of having the students learn the use of the

ruler and compasses in performing simple constructions in experi­

mental geometry, nothing is said regarding the classical restric-

35
tion or the reasons for adhering to it.

The First Committee on Geometry of the Mathematical Associa­

tion of America and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

reported in 1931• The purpose of the committee vas to study the

feasibility of a proposal that college entrance examinations be modi­

fied so as to help bring about a combination course in plane and

■3/
solid geometry in the high schools. Nothing is said about the role

of the straight-edge and coiqpasses.

Later, in 1931 1 the Second Committee on Geometry reported, and

proposed several possible geometry courses, in outline form. The

usual constructions appear in the outlines, but no specific reference

is made to the traditional instruments or the reason for their ex­

clusive u s e . ^

The Ihird Committee on Geometry reported its findings in 1939*

It studied all phases of geometry and the members agreed that the

facts of geometry can be got through inductive methods in the junior

high school, Including observation, measurement, siiqple construction

35
■'British Mathematical Association, The Teaching of Ueometry in
Schools, pp. 17-18.
^°Coimaittee on Geometry, Report". The Mathematics Teacher, 2k: 290 -

302, May, 1931-

3 7
Second Committee on Geometry, Report**. The Mathematics Teacher,
370-39^ October, 1931.
work, and cutting and pasting. This committee reviewed a threat

number of magazine articles appearing in The Mathematics Teacher

and in Yearbooks of the national Council of Teachers of Mathematics,

as well as methods books and reports of a number of committees on

the teaching of high school mathematics. Uo discussion of geometri­

cal. constructions appears, and the ruler and conpasses are not

mentioned.

The Second deport of the British Mathematical Association

appeared in 1938. This excellent report deals at length with im­

portant problems and issues in all phases of geometry, and construc­

tions are given more attention in this report than in any of the

others discussed in this chapter. Jome idea of the importance

attached to construction work in geometry will be gained from the

following passage:

Geometrical constructions form on exceedingly important

part of the course in geometry, and... the share of time
allotted togthem should be not far short of one-third of
the whole.

The report then continues,

(Constructions) have a special value for those with less

aptitude for the subject.... To some of the standard
constructions a certain artificiality belongs, in that
they are carried out by the use of ruler and compasses
only.... Euclid restricted himself to the ruler and
coiqpasses, not because they were the only instruments
known in his day, but because he wished to build up his

Third Committee on Geometry, ^inal R e p o r t T h e Mathematics

Teacher, 28; 329-379, ^01-1+50; Oct. and liov., 1935; P- 3 ^ .
i
British Mathematical Association, A 3econd Report on the Teach­
ing of Geometry in Schools, p. 73
 9k
geometry on a minimum basis of assungitlon. They were
in fact the embodiment of his postulates, that there
is a line Joining any two points, that any line has a
continuation in either direction, and that there is a
circle with any center and any radius. The easiest way
to remember these postulates is to say that we have the
use of an ungraded ruler and a pair of compasses, and
that we must not use, in our theoretical geometry, any
line or points which cannot be constructed by means of
them.

After noting that today we do not atteiqpt, at the secondary level, to

reduce our basis of assumption to a minimum, the report continues,

A very large number of teachers would be well-advised to

tackle a greater variety of constructions than they are
now accustomed to, and lay more stress on them... Geometri­
cal constructions assist pupils to see the true nature of
the relationships between the different parts of a figure,
and others provide an introduction to logical arguments
based on these figures... One of the best ways of study­
ing a figure is to think how it might be constructed.

The report urges the use of algebra and trigonometry, where they are

appropriate, in construction work, and urges the use of approximations

hp
and of other instruments in drawing and construction work.

The Fifteenth Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics is the report of the Joint Commission of the Mathematical

Association of America and the National Council of Education. The

report has little to say concerning the straight-edge and compasses, and

merely remarks, 'Sufficient time must be allowed before the introdu -

tion of formal demonstration to permit the pupil to become acquainted

----------------------------------
Ibid., p. 7^.
41.^ ,
Ibid., pp. 75-76 .
42
Ibid., p. 75-
 9$
with the basic concepts and to become skilled In the use of the geometri­

cal instruments.

The well-known report entitled Mathematics in general Education

discusses constructions in several places. The origin and justifica­

tion of the traditional restriction upon Instruments are not ?iven, but

the fact that some sort of understanding of the restriction itself* is

needed is implied in the following quotation:

The construction problems of geometry... make use of pro­

cesses - the drawing of circles and straight lines - which
may be considered as operations. Many students fail to
comprehend why constructions are made as they are in
theoretical geometry because they do not understand the
assumptions and conventions that dictate the methods and
limit the scope of constructions restricted to the use of
straight edge and coiqpasses... They must understand the
classical tools and the conventions governing their use.
Otherwise the steps of the construction are meaningless to
them.

On page 200 of the report, the Commission discusses the role of

restrictions upon the permissible instruments of construction in the

teaching of logical principles. They write,

Another idea of the way in which the teaching of geometry

may be modified In order to place more emphasis than usual
on logical principals is offered by study of the restrictions
involved in the precise use of specified principles of
geometrical construction. Hie nature of these restrictions
may be readily illustrated by discarding the compasses and
using a straight edge on which it is permissible to place
marks for the transferring of segments. 'The resulting
changes in the elementary construction exercises are
instructive and exemplify the 'lf-then” principle at work....
The fact that'fen arbitrary angle cannot be trisected by

‘^National nnnnrrll of Teachers of Mathematics, Fifteenth Yearbook,

p. 92.
^Progressive Education Association, Commission on Secondary Jchool
Curriculum, Mathematics in general Education, p. 180.
 96
straight edge and compasses *' depends upon the definition
of these tools and certain conventions or assumptions
concerning their use. If these assumptions or conventions
are appropriately changed, it becomes possible to trisect
an angle and to solve other construction problems that are
itqpossible under the traditional assumptions. ^

rhe Committee on Essential Mathematics for Minimum Army Heeds made

two reports. rhe first report stated that a study was made of all

Army technical and field manuals to jet o rough idea of the raatheraati-
I4.j
cal needs of soldiers. A program of studies was suggested. In the

second report of this committee in October, 1~,A3> a detailed list of

minimum mathematical needs of soldiers, required to complete 'basic

training*', is given. It was found that soldiers need to juiow how to

use a great number of geometrical and drawing instruments used in the

trades and in practical occupations such as carpentry, mechanical draw­

ing, elementary surveying, etc. The only geometrical construction re­

quired was that of constructing one line perpendicular to another through

a given point, geometric constructions made with the aid of ruler and

cotq^aasaa were found to constitute an extension of the minimum necessary

mathematics, which had but rare application in the Army. Phis report

requires students to perform all drawing work carefully and accurately,

and suggests, H a in all other mathematical learning, the most accurate

results are secured if each completed step is tested out by curamon-

sense checks. 1

fhe first report of the Commission on Post-V/ar Plans of the

^ ibld., p. 200.
^'“‘Committee on Essential Mathematics for
The* Mathematics 'Teacher, 3^1 llU-124,
. "
'Committee on Essential Mathematics for
The Mathematics Teacher.., yd: 2U3-2C2,
Minimum Army Heeds, **{eport".
March, 1,A3*
Minimum Army Heeds, 'Report".
October, 19J,3; P- 2
 97
Jational Council of Teachers of Mathematics declared., *TThe school

should Insure mathematical literacy to all who can possibly achieve

it.... The function of mathematics is largely identical with that

Vo
of readin,, and writing. Phis first report does not mention ruler-

and-cooq>ass constructions. The Final Seport, in the form of the

Guidance Panghlct in Mathematics for High School Students, includes

some of the more elementary and fundamental ruler-and-compacs construc­

tions in the 'taathematical kit of tools” which every citizen should

have in order to be able to think intelligently about most things in

49
daily life.

In suianary, it may be stated that most of the reports of com­

missions and committees do not pay particular attention to the tradi­

tional restriction qpon Instruments of construction, and only general

remarks are made concerning constructions. The second report of the

British Mathematical Association, 1936, contains the most complete in­

formation relating to constructions, and It contains the only Justifi­

cation of the classical limitation on instruments. In consequence of

this fact, and of the fact that the teaching manuals examined in the

previous section of this chapter had little to say with respect to the

” platonic” restriction, it is hard to know where to expect teachers to

find the information they need in regard to Justifying the restrictions

Commission on Post-War Plans, •first Keport”. The Mathematics

Teacher, 37*. 226-232, May, 19M+; p. 227*
Coanlsslon on Post-War Plans, Guidance Pamphlet in Mathematics For
High School Students, p. 26.
 96
to their pupils.

Miscellaneous standard and Popular Works.

The books in this category include vorks on the history of

mathematics and geometry, popular vorks on mathematics, books con­

cerned vith special phases of geometry, and other vorks vhich concern

geometrical constructions.

Allman quotes Plutarch concerning Plato's philosophy, and this

bit of insight into Plato's thinking may help to explain his atti­

tude toward geometric constructions. He writes:

We learn from Plutarch that 'Plato blamed Uudoxus ...

for endeavoring to reduce the duplication of the cube
to instrumental and mechanical contrivances; for in this
way (he said) the vhole good of geometry is destroyed and
perverted, since it backslides into the things of sense
and does not soar and try to grasp eternal and Incorporeal
images: through the contenqplation of vhich, God is ever
God."#>

Bakst's book considers the three classical problems and other

construction work, but it does not specifically point out or .Justify

the restriction to straight-edge and compasses

Birkhoff and Beatley write, ttt is interesting to see vhat con­

structions were possible for iSuclid vith only an unmarked straight­

edge and conqtasses; but it is comforting also to have scale and pro­

tractor always at hand and to know that it is good form to use them."52

Tjis passage does not attempt to Justify the ruler-and-coiqpass restric­

tion, but it suggests a break with the tradition vhich placed great

50
G. J. Allman, Greek Geometry from Thales to Fuclid, pp. 150-9 .
51
Aaron Bakst, Mathematics, Its Magic and Mastery, p. u5<j-too.
52
G. D. Birkhof 1’ and Ralph Beatley, "A Kev Approach to Klementary
Geometry'*, Fifth Yearbook of the national Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, p. 9 h .
 99

stress and iiqportance upon constructions with the classical tools and

regarded measurement as an inferior geometrical method.

Blackhurat emphasizes the logical structure of Euclidean geometry

and the processes of reasoning which are associated with it. Nothing

is said in his hook on Euclidean geometry concerning constructions and

the classical limitation placed upon instruments except that pupils

are told to keep their tools in good shape and their pencils sharp, and
53
to strive for neatness in their work.

Courant and dobbins write, "The traditional restriction to ruler

and cotqpasses ^oes back to antiquity, although the Greeks themselves

did not hesitate to use other instruments. These authors do not

attenqpt to further justify the restriction.

Dresden discusses the instruments of geometry as follows:

It should be clear that a problem ... in which ve are asked

to construct or do something, lacks definiteness until it
is specified what tools are to be at our disposal ... It
is surprising that it took so many years to clarify this
point and to bring out the fact that the interesting and
significant formulation of the problem is to (effect the
' ' means of a straight-edge and a pair of

In his study, The Nature of Proof, Fawcett writes, "Among the

assumptions made by the pupils were some which stated that it was

possible to make certain constructions, and the teacher directed the

attention of the pupils to the solution of these problems.

53
J. H. Blackhurst, jiuclidean Geometry, Its Nature and Use, p. 1U5 .
5b
Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins, What is Mathematics?, p. 135
55
Arnold Dresden, An Introduction to Mathematics, p. 135*
^°Harold P. Fawcett, The Nature of Proof, p. 93*
 100

fhe teacher, by raising numerous questions, guided the pupils in the

solution of five of the fundamental ruler-and-compass constructions,

and some of the pupils vent on to discover and work out solutions to

several others of the fundamental constructions. It is not stated

whether the restriction was Justified to the pupils, and whether the

effects and results of this limitation were discussed and investigated

further by the pupils.

Hogben does not concern himself vith the role or the Justification

of the ruler-and-coqpasB restriction in his book, Mathematics for the

Million.

Kasner and Newman declare that Euclidean geometry is a game, as is

any other g e o m e t r y , ^ but they do not specifically state that the

restriction to straight-edge and cotqpaases is one of the rules of this

game. Many references to Euclidean constructions are made in the

several excellent chapters on transcendental and imaginary numbers and

geometry. Hie role of the classical restriction is not discussed, but

readers of Kasner and Newman will gain much valuable information con­

cerning this limitation.

Klein, in his little volume on the famous problems of elementary

geometry, does not attempt to Justify the ruler and conqiasses as the

only permissible Instruments of plane geometry. He analyzes construc­

tion problems with the intention of determining whether or not they can

be solved under various different sets of restrictions.5^

Edvard Kasner and James Newman, Mathematics and the Imagination,

p. 115.
5fc>
?. Klein (tr. demar and dmith), Famous Problems of Elementary Geometry.
 101
Kokomoor discusses the duplication of the cube and then remarks,

'For two thousand years this (search for a solution) went on, before

it was finally learned that here was a problem which was inconjpatible

with the accepted rules and tools, and therefore could never be solved

in that way. *^9 He then asks the rhetorical question, tVfho selected

the tools?” and furnishes the answer:

JVo facts must have helped the early philosophers in settling

upon these particular tools. One was their practice of using
ruler-and-compass constructions to show the existence of the
geometrical figures discussed in their theorems. A probable
second factor in influencing the choice of ruler and compasses
is the fact that so much can be done with them that there was
always the tendency - and stilT is - among many people to keep
thinking that almost any geometrical construction should be
possible with these two tools and that therefore the intro­
duction of^other equipment would be a substitution for more
brainwork.

he then continues, under the heading dules for the Tools, by quoting

Euclid's postulates of construction and breaking them down into six

fundamental operations, deferring to them, he says, "The rules of the

game cannot be ignored,* and notes that one violation of these rules

will permit the construction of the Delian problem (duplication of the

cube) and the trisection of an arbitrary angle.

Kramer writes of the ruler and cooq>asaes, “fhese are the instru­

ments to which Greek geometers had been limited by the philosopher

Plato, who thought mathematics should be a mental discipline and ob­

jected to mechanical aids. ghe cocqpares geometry vith a ;ane in

f. W. Kokomoor, i'^athematics in Human Affairs, p. 5U2 .

Ibid., pp. 5U 3-5I1.U.
ul
Ibia., p . ipi, .
gdnn il. Kramer, fhe gainstrearn of ^lathe matics, p. -b .
 102
the following passage;

You will Just have to accept some premises in order to

,_;et started.... Theoretically, we have the right to
choose uur axioms rather arbitrarily.... Axioms are
like the rules of a 0ame. Wc agree to abide by them
and play accordingly, No one would think of asking
whether a game of oridge was ••true”. A proper inquiry
would seek to find out whether it had been played according
to the rules.^

This statement mentions only axioms, but if the word postulates

were read, wherever the word axioms appears, this thought would apply

equally well to the postulates of construction enunciated by Euclid.

One of the 15-minute radio talks sponsored by the Association of

Teachers of Mathematics of Hew York City was devoted to the "Three

Famous Problems" of elementary geometry, and was presented by a teacher

in the Hew Yorksystem, H. Midonik. Those solutions to geometrical

problems which are effected with ruler and compasses alone are called

•geometrical solutions" while those performed by means other than

straight-edge and compasses are referred tu as •Mechanical solutions."

Concerning the restriction, Midonik makes the following remarks:

Restriction to the straight line and the circle accomplished

two things for the Greeks. First, it kept the figures
comparatively simple and easy to visualize. Materials for
writing were anything but plentiful and much of the mathe­
matics must have been done mentally. Secondly, the mathe­
maticians of that day were also philosophers. Their interest
was at least as much in the process of reasoning as in the
result.

Following several pages of discussion of the restriction upon instru­

ments and the fact that it gave rise to unsolvable problems, the talk

S3 ibid., p . 2U9 •
/1
"Henrietta Midonik, "Three Famous Problems,* in Association of
Teachers of Mathematics of New York City, vadio Talks on Mathematics,
19hl, p. 30.
 103
continues:

The question which the ancients failed to solve was whether

the solutions which they demanded were possible at all.
They failed to raise the larger question of what construc­
tions were generally possible usln<j only the straight line
and the circle. A peculiar feature of these questions Is
that elementary geometry cannot answer them. For a satis^r
factory explanation we trust report to algebraic analysis, J

Petersen said, in 1866, that problems of construction have by

many been looked upon as a kind of riddles, which only a few, gifted

with special talent, could attempt to solve. He offers this attitude

as one which had kept the study of constructions from being cultivated

in the schools over the centuries. With reference to the classical

restriction, he writes:

In solving problems of construction certain tools are used,

viz., a straight edge ... and a pair of compasses .* *
Being thus restricted, it follows that many problems apparent­
ly single cannot be solved. '

He does not, however, seek to indicate the origin of the restriction.

Reeve writes:

The THEOREMS of geometry are concerned with proving geometri­

cal statements; the PR0BLEM3 are concerned with the construc­
tion of geometrical figures in a plane, the only instruments
allowed being an unmarked straight edge and a pair of compasses..
At present we generally asume that all figures in plane geometry
can be constructed ... but we prove this later In a number of
important cases .... It would be possible and logical to assume
all constructions in plane geometry .... Euclid arranged his
propositions in an order that seemed to him to begin with the
easiest proposition. He then built the superstructure so as to

£5
Ibid., p. 32.
66---
Julius Petersen, Methods and 'Theories for the 3olutlon of Geometrical
Constructions, p. 1.
6TIbid., p. 3*
 101+
construct his figures before using them* We attempt to
classify our propositions, but we do not attenjpt to con­
struct our figures before using them. From the stand­
point of strict logic, Euclid's plan is better; for
teaching purposes ours is superior.^

Sanford writes of Plato, 'tte objected to the use of mechanical

devices in geometry and according to tradition, he restricted the

subject to the study of those figures vhich could be drawn by means

of coiqpasaes and an unmarked straight edge. *^9 This is the only

statement in Sanford's text which applies directly to the origin of the

restriction.

Shibll feels that an early introduction to geometrical construc-

tloru. will help the pupil to achieve skill in the use of the straight­

edge and compasses, to acquire a vocabulary of geometrical terms, to

learn many geometrical concepts and relationships, and to guard against

slovenly work by making neat, accurate drawings. He states, ^Besides

the strictly geometrical work, the pupil learns how to use the protrac­

tor, the triangles, and the draftsman's T-square.*f0 It thus appears

as if Shibll places the ruler-and-compass constructions in the special

role of being 'geometric* processes, while the work done with other

instruments is regarded as not being Istrictly geometrical*. He thus

makes a distinction between constructions in the classical sense and

drawing with the aid of other instruments, but no further discussion

of the role of the restriction is made.

>u ■ 1■
° W. D. Reeve, The Teaching of Geometry, Fifth Yearbook of the national
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 22-25.
69
^Vera Sanford, A Short History of Mathematics, p. 9 .
70
J. Shibli, Recent Developments in the Teaching of Geometry, p. tiO.

V
 105

Smith, In his little volume entitled Mathematics, says:

Elementary geometry passed through three rather distinct

periods in Greece: (l) the period of discovery, in vhich
the follovers of Pythagorus ... found many interesting
facts in geometry ...; (2) the period of demonstration, In
vhich Plato and his school laid down those bases of proof
vhich developed into the axioms and postulates of later
times, and also placed upon elementary geometry the re­
striction that only the ruler and confesses should be used
in constructions; and (3) the period of exposition ... that
finally resulted in Euclid's Elements.^

A few pages later, Smith continues,

When ve speak of higher geometry among the Greeks we refer

to that branch of mathematics vhich requires, in the con­
struction of geometric figures, other instruments than the
coiqpasses and the unmarked ruler. Such figures attracted
the attention of the Greeks before Plato set his limitation
upon elementary g e o m e t r y . 72

Thus, 3mith seems quite certain that Plato originated the restriction

upon the allowable instruments of geometry, although he does not indi­

cate to us his reasons for believing this.

Stamper does not specifically credit Plato vith the classical

restriction, but vrltes, "The restriction ... dates from the Grecian

period. Such a restriction barred out all so-called mechanical con­

structions, and as a result it was impossible to get a solution of

(certain problems).^3 i*ter, he writes, ’The restriction to ruler and

confesses divided the subject-matter of geometry; conic sections did

not find a place in common vith the geometry of the straight line and

the circle. ‘ Hence in Euclid's Elements ve find only a treatment of the

latter geometry."

^^David Eugene 3mith, Mathematics, p. 55.

T2Ibid., p. 60.
*^A1 va Walker Staiqper, History of the Teaching of Elementary Geometry,
7 19 * V
‘ Ibid., p. 25.
 106

In her source-book of problems for geometry students, 3ykes does

not mention the straight-edge or the cooq>asaes, nor the fact that the

many designs and constructions in her volume are based upon certain

fundamental constructions.^ Careful study of these problems re­

vealed that there are none vhich cannot be performed vith ruler and

coiqpasses alone, but It seems that a real opportunity has been missed

in this book for the inclusion of a rather complete discussion of the

allovable instruments of construction, and a possible Justification of

the Platonic" restriction. Many of the problems contained in this

book are ingenious and highly Instructive, and teachers and pupils alike

should profit from a study of some of these construction problems.

Yates refers to geometry as “a Classical Same.* He says:

The plane geometry of the ancient Greeks was a game to be

played vith sliqple equipment and governed by a rigid set
of rules. The equipment consisted only of the cotqpasses and
an unmarked straight-edge, indefinite in length. Itoese
rules, established and Insisted upon by Plato (as rumor has
it), vere the postulates vhich allowed certain privileges in
the use of the tools. [Riese permitted (l) the drawing of a
straight line of Indefinite length through two given distinct
points and (2 ) the construction of a circle vith a center at
a given point and passing through a second given point. In­
deed, it seems that a game built around such scanty outlay
would be a disappointing affair. Nothing, however, could be
further from the truth. Probably the most fascinating game
ever invented, it is awe-inspiring in its extent to the novice
and a thoroughly absorbing occupation to the expert. Any
geometry that was indulged in which did not adhere closely to
the Platonic rules was condemned as unsportsmanlike.76

To summarize, the twenty books discussed in this section of the

chapter concern themselves primarily with the consequences of the

75-------------------------------
^Mabel Sykes, A Source Book of Problems for Geometry.
76
iiobert C. Yates, The frlsectlon Problem, p. 6.
 107

classical restriction, rather than with reasons for its existence and

use in modern geometry. One-third of the books discussed in this sec­

tion do not specifically mention the restriction. Ilalf of them, or ten,

discuss the historical origin of the limitation upon instruments of

construction and mention the great influence of this limitation upon the

mathematical thought of the ancient and medieval philosophers, four

of the Authors compare geometry, and in particular, the Guclidean con­

structions, to a game whose arbitrary rules must be obeyed.

On the whole these books do a better job of discussing the classi­

cal restriction and demonstrating the meaning and importance of the Im­

possibility of solving certain problems, than do the textbooks. Of course,

these books are intended for consutqption by persons who are further ad­

vanced, educationally, than are high school students of geometry.

Articles Appearing in Periodicals

More than 250 articles on geometry and the teaching of Oeoioetry were

studied in the attempt to discover the amount and kind of attention paid

to geometrical constructions and, in particular, to the classical restric­

tion on the instruments of construction, These articles, appearing in

The Mathematics Teacher, School Science and Mathematics, The Mathematics

Gazette, The American Mathematical Monthly, School and Society, and other

periodicals, were chosen for study because their titles seemed to indi­

cate that they were concerned, to a greater or lesser degree, with the

topic of this dissertation. However, fewer than one-third of the articles

studied actually contained materials relating to constructions, and most

of theKpresented historical information or descriptions of classroom ex­

periments or procedures.
 108

Only sixteen of the many magazine articles encountered in this

study will be discussed here. These are several which have the most

direct reference to the role of the classical restriction, and vhich

have not already been referred to in other parts of this paper.

The importance of ruler and compass constructions in the labora­

tory method of teaching geometry is described by Austin. He writes:

r,A key to success in teaching plane geometry is construc­

tion .... Constructions that are single, well organized,
and purposeful develop skill in performance and satisfaction
in achievement ... There is as much science and method in
the construction of a geometrical figure to satisfy given
conditions .. as there is in the construction of a building
or a bridge. 77

He apparently accepts the ruler and coiqpass restriction without ques­

tion, and does not specifically mention the instruments to be used,

or the reasons for this choice.

Barnett does not discuss the classical restriction, but he points

out the relationship between algebra and geometry through the medium

of constructions. He says, M3ome ruler and coiqpass constructions are

very difficult unless the algebraic background and origin is known.

He then demonstrates the constructions for addition, subtraction, mul­

tiplication, division of line segments, as veil as the construction for

taking square root. Utilizing these, he generates some very interesting

constructions based on several algebraic identities.

Beman, after noting that the secondary schools pay practically no

77
C. A. Austin, **The Laboratory Method of Teaching Geometry." The
Mathematics Teacher, 20 : 286-291** May* 1927; p* 288-9*
'jft ■

I. A. Barnett, *treometrical Constructions Arising from dimple Al­

gebraic Identities." School Science and Mathematics, 30 s 521-7*
June, 1930; p. 521*
 109
attention to the possibility of constructions made with Instruments

other than straight-edge and compasses, presents the solutions of

several problems using conjpasses alone. He says, "There seems to be

little doubt that problems to be solved by these more modern methods

may rouse Interest on the part of wideawake students of elementary

geometry. "<9

Blank suggests that pupils should begin constructions as early as

possible to develop habits of neat, accurate construction work. "In a

short time a mare glance at a correctly-constructed figure should tell

him almost as much as the hypothesis. Hie use of ruler and couqpasses

seems to be accepted as a matter of course, and the restriction is not

specifically mentioned.

Carnahan vrites:

'Hie very elementary problems of construction which pre­

sented themselves to the first Creek geometers were easily
solved by use of the circle and the straight line, the
simplest of all loci. The definition of either of these
figures is sufficient to suggest a tool for making it even
though one has been limited to such primitive experiences
as tethering an animal to a stake and seeing it draw a rope
to a straight line and walk about the stake to make a circle...
Besides practical limitations on construction of instru­
ments, was the desire to keep geometry a "mental pursuit"
as free as possible from manual and mechanical associations.

Carnahan seems to refer to the practical problem of limitations upon

the physical construction of the Instruments which are to be used as

geometrical tools. He discusses constructions which are possible under

79
W* if. Beman, geometrical Constructions." School Science and Mathe­
matics, 10: 528-9* June, 1910; p. 528.
8 q -------
Laura Blank, "Techniques and Devices Conducive to Better Teaching of
Geometry," Hie Mathematics Teacher, 21: 171-182, March, 1928; p. 173.
8lv. H. Carnahan, geometric Constructions Without the Confesses. "
School Science and Mathematics, 36* 182-139, February, 1936; p« 182.
 110

various sets of restrictions In vhich the use of coqpasses is forbidden.

Carslew warns that excessive freedom in the teaching of geometry

can lead to confusion of order and method, and to neglect of theoretical

and deductive work. He declares that teachers are ill-trained and

need courses in the history of mathematics and a sound background in

elementary geometry. Of teachers and textbooks he writes, "The language

used with regard to the construction of regular polygons, or the di­

vision of angles, might lead one to infer that such constructions were

always possible.132

An article by Cowley contrasts the 'Vholesome, refreshing, rest­

less, mischievous, inquiring, speedloving high school pupil of today*1

with the mature, leisurely, logical Greek philosophers for whom Huelid

wrote. He warns that useless items and "ngrsterleB** must be removed

from geometry, and pedagogy modernized to fit the needs of these modern

students. He proposes that a vital introduction to the geometry course

should include "live facts'* about geometry, slqple ruler-and-cooq>ass

constructions, etc* He states that the slavish use of the restriction

to straight-edge and coaq>asses is one of geometry's needless tributes

to tradition**.

Dickter declares that the best way to Introduce geometry to the high

school pupil is by means of c o n s t r u c t i o n s . ^ While the article does not

mention the instruments of construction, it is most probable that all

8257 H. Carnahan, •Geometric Constructions without the Compasses**,

School Science and Mathematics, 36* 182-169, February, 19 3^J P- 162.
Dl ' ' '' “ “““
E. B. Cowley, ^Geometry's Tribute to Tradition,*1 3chool Science and
Mathematics, 3hx 266-27U, March, 193^J P* 269.
02+-----------
M. R. Dickter, "Rie Introduction to Plane Geometry,*1 School Science
and Mathematics, 3^: £85-591* jhne, 193b; p. 566.
 Ill

construction work referred to Is to be performed vith ruler and

coqpasses.

In 19341 Duncan completed a study of 23 geometry texts to deter­

mine the treatment of the constructions of regular polygons. He

objects to the use of the protractor as ^nlsslng the spirit of

classical geometry by invoking an instrument other than a straight­

edge and a pair of coiqpasses. He summarizes the findings of his

investigation in a series of statements vhich conclude vith the

remark, 'Of the texts listed above, attesting to shed additional

light on the subject of constructions, NONE is completely satisfac­

tory. ^

lunger's article, Euclid's Elements", is an excellent his­

torical description of early mathematics and geometry, but the

Qiy
role of the ruler-and-coiqpass restriction is not discussed.

Pratt, attesting to popularize plane geometry, says, 'take

a game of construction problems. Most students like to use their

coqpasses and figure out constructions, provided they are not

troubled too much vith their proofs.1^ This statement does not

constitute a Justification of the classical restriction on the

basis of geometry being a game; here, the intent is to use the

uj ■-■■■ ■■ ■ ■
D. C. Duncan, Tfc Criticism of the Treatment of the Regular Polygon
Constructions in Certain Well-known Texts," School Science and
Mathematics, 34: 50-57> January, 1934; p. 53*
86Ibid., p. 54.
E. Langer, tfuclid's Elements, " School Science and Mathematics,
34: 412-423, April, 1 9 3 ^
38
G. V. Pratt, 'S^opularizing Plane Geometry." The Mathematics
Teacher, 21: 412-421, November, 1928; p. 4l< .
 112

^ame idea as a method jf appealing to the pupils' interest.

Hyan, like Dickter, suggests the uae of ruler-and-compass con­

structions as an excellent way to start the course in geometry.

*Vith the fundamental constructions as a background, other construc­

tions can be made at home; nev ideas which arise can be discussed,

refined, and recorded in class. *^9 He suggests that the pupils do

enough construction work to get a clear idea of the language and tools

of mathematics. Constructions are a part of the daily work from the

beginning of the course, although no question is raised as to whether

any instruments other than straight-edge and compasses will be allowed.

Stamper advocates a strong background in the history of mathematics

for all high-school teachers of mathematics.^^ With this historical

perspective, teachers will understand such concepts as liqposslbillty,

and they will have a clearer concept of the role of ruler-and-compass

constructions throughout the ages.

Taylor remarks, "The most significant cause of early discourage­

ment and later failures (in the study of geometry) is a lack of ade­

quate Introduction to geometrical notions through concrete experiences

and intuition before beginning formal proofs. He mentions the impor­

tance of scale-drawing, mensuration, and ruler-and-compass constructions

in providing the concrete experiences. Here, the classical restriction

James D. Ryan, "Two Methods of Teaching Geometry,* The Mathematics

Teacher, 21: 31-36, January, 1938; p. 32.
90
A. W. 3tamper, Significance of the History of Mathematics to the
Teacher of Elementary Mathematics,»*School dcience and Mathematics,
11: k30-l*32, May, 1911.
91*. H. Taylor, "Introduction to Demonstrative Geometry," The Mathe­
matics Teacher, 23: 227-235# April, 1930; p. 227.
 113
upon instruments la merely noted, not Justified. Taylor's statement,

that teachers should strive In the geometry course to "give practice In

measuring vith ruler and cotqpasses " must be challenged; the most sig­

nificant feature of the straight-edge and coqpaases is that they are

totally divorced from measurement.

Welkovitz charges:

There is an inordinate amount of attention given to con­

structions vhich have no other value than to provide prac­
tice in the use of the classical instruments. Very feeble
attempts, if any, are made to show hov some of these con­
structions are used in shop constructions, lay-outs, navi­
gation, and design. No explanation is given for this strange
restriction to the tvo instruments, when one may see so many
other instruments being used in the dravlng-room, carpen­
try, and the machine shop. No effort is made to show the
relationship between the useless exercises in transformation
of figures to the famous circle-squaring problem. The de­
ductive explanation of the correctness of most of the con­
structions Is neglected or i g n o r e d . 9 *

This article, one of the very few to concern itself directly vith the

restriction to straight-edge and cocqpaases, is vigorous and challenging.

Welkovitz sees the ruler and compass restriction as a handicap to the

pupils. It deprives them of a first-hand acquaintance vith the practi­

cal instruments of geometry and vith the 'Veal-life practices used by

navigators, map-makers, shops, and others, 'Ve should liberate our­

selves from the classical restriction to straight-edge and compasses

and thereby obviate the need for apologizing to our pupils for vhat

they may not do. *^3 Despite this declaration, however, Welkovitz was

unable to free himself entirely from the restriction vhen he published

his textbook four years later. Perhaps because of popular demand, he

------------------------------------
Samuel Welkovitz, "Tenth Year Geometry for All American Youth, "
The Mathematics feachqr, 39: 99-112, March, 19^6; p. 101.
^ 3Ibid., p. 112.
 114

included a fourteen-page chapter on ruler-and-coiqpass constructions,

although he 3tates that there is no reason why we should adhere to

the restriction. (jee page 55 °** this paper.)

3 urinary

The discussions presented in this chapter, of the treatment of

the classical restriction by teaching manuals, committee reports,

miscellaneous works on mathematics, and magazine articles, substantiate

the claims made in the Introduction to this study (Chapter i) that

writers on mathematics education seldom question or give critical

attention to the role of the restriction in the teaching of geometry

In most of these publications, the use of the straight-edge and com­

passes as the only permissible instruments of construction is passive­

ly accepted; no attempt is made to advance reasons for the acceptance

of this limitation. The teaching manuals paid little attention to the

construction work of ^eometry, and offered only general remarks con­

cerning it. Conaaittee reports react to constructions in much the same

manner as the teaching manuals, paying tham little heed. The books

discussed as %iscellaneous works *pay somewhat more attention to the

restriction, especially to Its effects as manifested in impossible

constructions, and tend to justify the restriction on the basi3 of

traditional useage or historical origin. Only a very small percentage

of the magazine articles studied make direct reference to the restric­

tion or its role in ..,eometry teaching. Only occasionally does an

author intimate that the restriction is not the important aspect of

jfcometry that tradition would have us believe it Is. ‘These few dis­

senters from the general unquestioning, passive attitude toward

Euclidean constructions furnished the inspiration which led to the for­

mulation of the problem under consideration in this dissertation.

 116

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AMD RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Earlier Chapter*

It vat stated in the Introduction that the purpose of this study

vould be to investigate the role of Euclidean constructions In the ge­

ometry teaching of the past; to inquire into the importance and pos­

sible contributions of constructions to a modern course in demonstra­

tive geometry; and to present material vhich should help teachers and

prospective teachers to understand the concept of geometric construc­

tions, and in particular, the restriction to straight-edge and com­

passes.

Chapter II presented a discussion of geometrical instruments and

suggested a means of classifying them. It vas shown that the straight­

edge is actually a pattern vhich permits the tracing of a straight line

and that a pair of compasses is the simplest drawing Instrument. The

Euclidean postulates, together with the relatively recent modification

of the third postulate, were also discussed. It was pointed out that

Euclid treated his compasses as though they collapsed when lifted from

the paper. Vhlle his proposition (Euc. 1.2) that " f r o m a given point

a straight line can be drawn equal to a given straight line** is never

taught today to high-school pupils, yet the teacher should be fsimilar

with the reason why it vas necessary in Euclid* s system. The relatively

unfamiliar and confusing topic of hypothetical constructions vas also

briefly discussed. Euclid's rejection of hypothetical constructlonsvas

contrasted with the modern use of them in the work of demonstrative ge­

ometry.
 117
Chapter III presented a historical picture of the role of construc­

tions in geometry from the time of the ancient Egyptians to the present.

It is generally thought that the restriction to straight-edge and com­

passes as the instruments of construction originated vith Plato. He

apparently regarded the straight line and the circle as the most perfect

lines, and the instruments by which these lines were drawn as the "instru-

ments of God."

Euclid, In his Elements. restricted constructions to only those

vhich could be effected with straight-edge and compasses, and for 23OO

years the great Influence of this famous work governed the study of ge­

ometry. Actually, this restriction sets the limits on the scope of plane

elementary geometry, which vas defined to be the study of those plane

figures which can be drawn with ruler and compasses only.

Several seemingly simple problems could not be solved under this re­

striction, and the continuing and repeated attempts to solve them some­

times led to other interesting and Important developments in mathematics.

In the 19th century, the application of the methods of several more re­

cently developed branches of mathematics, including modern algebraic

theory, to the classical construction problems proved them to be impos­

sible of solution under the 'Platonic1* restriction. It is essential

that high-school teachers of mathematics be thoroughly familiar with the

mathematical ideas involved in these proofs, and they should be certain

that their pupils realise that the aid of other branches of mathematics

was needed to affect these proofs.

Several other sets of restrictions, which might equally well be

placed upon the geometrical instruments of construction, were referred

 118

to. Teachers and pupils oust realize that any restriction necessarily

gives rise to some problems which are impossible to solve within the

limits of that restriction.

Chapter IV reports the results of a careful examination of seventy

texts on plane geometry covering a span of 118 years. The discussions

reveal that, while all of these texts adhered to the traditional restric­

tion on constructions, only half of the authors attempted to Justify to

the pupils the acceptance of these limitations. Six different reasons

were advanced for adhering to the Euclidean constructions, and It was

carefully pointed out, as each of these Justifications was discussed

in Chapter IV, that all of them, except the Justification on the basis

of historical Importance, must not be taken too seriously.

Finally, in Chapter IV, examination of topics closely related to

the ruler-and-compass restriction revealed that although the Idea of

^collapsing** compasses was abandoned nearly fifty years ago, authors

still do not sufficiently explain the famous classical problems, nor

do they make use of them to reveal the nature and role of the traditional

limitation upon the construction instruments. Several mistakes occur-

lng in textbooks were pointed out, and it was noted that, on the whole,

the authors are guilty of Incomplete, not Incorrect, information con­

cerning ruler-and-compass constructions.

Chapter V examines the treatment of the ruler-and-compass construc­

tions in teaching manuals, reports of important committees, miscellan­

eous works in the field of mathematics and mathematics education, and

appropriate magazine articles. As stated in the summary of Chapter V,

the results of this inquiry bear out the truth of the statements made
 119
In the Introduction that little critical attention hae been paid to

Kuclldean constructions, and that passive acceptance of the classical re­

striction continues, almost unchallenged, in contemporary geometry teach­

ing.

Bnnraary of the Role of the Classical Restriction

The active role of the ruler-and-compass restriction In mathematical

history has already been played; the role, as a vital Influence on mathe­

matical thinking is finished. Originally this limitation served to de­

limit the scope and content of the branch of mathematics called elemen­

tary plane geometry. During the nearly 2300 years since Euclid's time,

mathematicians sought to solve the "impossible" constructions vhich a-

rose because of the restrictions, and these searches led, especially in

the past few centuries, to the discovery of nev facts and problems, and

to the invention of nev branches of mathematical thought. Nov that the

famous problems of construction have been completely described by mathe­

maticians, the role of the ancient restriction is no longer a live one.

The only question arising from the ruler-and-compass restriction vhich

remains to be settled is vhether or not the number 65536, the value of

li2*1-*-! for n - h Is the last prime in Gauss* sequence. If it is, the

subject of ruler-and-compass constructions is complete; if not, the re­

maining primes must be found. Lasting fame avalts the mathematician vho

solves this still-open question.

While there Is overvhelining evidence that critical attention to the

straight-edge and compasses and their use is still very much lacking,

yet there is evidence that gradual changes have occurred In the attitude

of text-book writers toward required theorems and constructions. The

 120
insistence upon memorizing a large number of theorems and problems has

waned. Not only have the actual numbers of theorems and problems to be

learned declined, but the proportion of required constructions with re­

spect to the total number of propositions has decreased also. The follow­

ing brief table of data taken from representative texts will serve to il­

lustrate this fact.

No. of No. of No. of ^ Probs

Author Date Thms. Probs. Propns. of Propns.
Simson I83U 136 48 184* 26.1**
Olney 1872 118 48 166 28.9
Wentworth 1900 125 42 177 23*7
Sykes and Comstock 1918 lUl 35 186 18.8
Hawkes, Luby, Touton 1930 99 24 123 19*5
Leonhardy, Joseph, MeLeary 19^0 C9 19 108 17*6
Skolnlk and Hartley 1950 03 16 99 16.2

*The number of required theorems plus the number of required problems

(constructions) equals the number of propositions in the text.
** Figures in this column express the per cent the required constructions
(problems) are of the total propositions in the respective texts.

This very definite trend was caused primsurily by changes in the psy­

chology of teaching which occurred about the turn of the century* Fur­

thermore, the attention of educators began to be focussed upon the study

and determination of alms and objectives of education. Psychological

and sociological studies and investigations of the needs of youth have all

been used in the attempt to set up valid and meaningful aims of education.

The aims of mathematical instruction are customarily considered in three

classes: the practical, or utilitarian; the formal, or disciplinary, and

the cultural. Concerning the alms of geometry teaching, Shibll writes:

There has been a marked trend in the aims of geometry teaching

away from formal discipline through the memorization of model
proofs, and toward independent thinking and the power of dis­
covery; away from pure and formal geometry to be studied for
 121

its awn sake, and towards a humanized geometry studied for the
sake of boys and girls; away from mathematicians and
towards making intelligent citizens. The training of the mind
is still the supreme aim; but the method of attaining it has
completely changed. Modern teachers no longer seek to train
the mind through the knowledge of geometric facts and formal
proofs; but through the mastery of processes and methods, and
the cultivation of habits and Ideals and powers that are effect­
ive in the life of the individual.^

Although ruler-and-compass constructions played a large role In the

geometry of the ancients, and although the Influence of the restriction

has extended over more than twenty centuries, this does not constitute a

reason for requiring modern boys and girls to confine themselves entirely

to the use of these Instruments. To spend a great amount of time learn­

ing these constructions would be in conflict with the aims Just cited.

During some part of the high-school course in geometry, however, students

should be asked to confine themselves to the work with straight-edge and

compasses, but it should be with the purpose of simply making them ac­

quainted with the famous restriction in the same sense that we might be

Interested in any other important historical event which no longer occupies

a foremost position in contemporary thinking. Pupils should learn to per­

form some of the fundamental constructions, and provisions should be made

for interested students to pursue this study further.

To be consistent with modern aims of geometry teaching, children

should learn the use of practical instruments of geometry, as well as

the " disciplinary" material Involving reasoning, thinking, and the na­

ture of proof. Welkovitz states it rather eloquently:

Instruments such as T-square, center-square, parallel-ruler,

protractor, proportional dividers, pantograph, angle-mirror,

\j. Shibll, Recent Trends in the Teaching of Geometry, pp. 216-217.

 122
sextant, plane table, and othere, should be studied, analysed
and treated as an Integral part of the course In geometry....
The traditional Interpretation of " construction" In geometry
tends to handicap the pupil in many vays.... Why should sus­
picion be cast on the value of many of the practical Instru­
ments used by draftsman, carpenter, engineer, machinist, etc.T
In many instances these instruments help perform constructions
In a simpler and Just as accurate a way as is obtained by the
exclusive use of straight-edge and compasses.... The construc­
tions performed vith non-Platonic (T) instruments afford In
addition, practice In deduction by trying to explain why they
*Srork". The great variety of problems that can be offered as
a consequence of this extension... are more concrete, prac­
tical, and appealing to the average pupil.

It is not the Intention of this paper to create an Impression that

ruler-and-compass constructions are useless, for this Is not true.

Throughout the text of this paper, applications and uses for Euclidean

constructions have been pointed out as they have arisen. The follow­

ing paragraph Indicates some further practical uses to vhich some of the

ruler-and-compass constructions may be put.

Almost all texts on shop mathematics, machinist's work, drafting,

aviation, and navigation present a number of the fundamental construc­

tions to be learned. One of the methods used to check the accuracy of a

carpenter's square Is by means of the ruler-and-compass construction of

a right angle. In marine navigation, plotting a course to avoid an ob­

stacle depends upon the Clanger angle" the "danger circle", vhich

Involves the construction of a circle in vhich a given angle shall be In­

scribed. Bisection of a line segment or an angle is very quick and ac­

curate vith ruler and compasses and this method is frequently used In

drafting and in shop " lay-out" work. Bisection of a line segment Is

also employed In finding the center of gravity of a triangular piece of

2Samuel Velkovits, "Tenth Year Qeometry for All American Youth", The
Mathematics leacher 39: 99-112# March, 19^6; pp. 107-111.
 123
metal. Two of the aides of the triangle are bisected, and medians to

these sides are drawn; the point of Intersection of the medians is the

center of gravity of the triangle. The construction for the hexagon is

used In the drawing of '* hex*1 nuts in machine drawing. Machine shops

also use the construction for finding the center and diameter of a cir­

cular flywheel or gear if only a portion of it is available. Ruler and

compasses are sometimes employed in the drawing of parallelograms of

forces. A rather important construction used in cartography is the n-

section of a segment, which is used in making scales for maps or in con­

verting one scale to another in map-making and in photo-mapping. The

construction of similar triangles is also occasionally used in map-

making.

Recomnendatlona

All prospective teachers of high-school mathematics, besides study­

ing the sequence of college algebra, trigonometry, analytic geometry,

and differential and integral calculus, should have a thorough course in

plane geometry which includes all of the material of the high-school

course in geometry and extends far beyond it into non-Euclldean geometry,

constructions with other sets of instruments, solutions of the "impossi­

ble* problems, Inversion, hypothetical constructions, Euclid's sequence

and modern opinions concerning it, other methods of solution used by the

Greeks, etc.

Teachers should be familiar with the uses of many of the practical

instruments of geometry, and students should learn to use them also.

Methods of approximation, both with and without the use of measurement,

 121*
should be taught and generally used in the drawing of figures. The

course In demonstrative geometry should begin with the use of instru­

ments - many kinds of instruments - and from this concrete experience

develop definitions, principles, and problems, lead into the study

of hypothesis and proof.

A clear-cut distinction should be made among sketching, drawing,

and construction of geometric figures. The term "construction* should

be reserved for work done with straight-edge and compasses, and It

should be studied to the extent that pupils learn that the restriction

is an arbitrary one, that It had a great influence on mathematical

thought, and that some of the fundamental constructions are still useful

to a limited extent in certain trades and occupations. Demonstrations

of some of the simpler constructions can be used very effectively to in­

troduce the concept of proof.

The evidence uncovered by this study seems to indicate that we can­

not Justify the exclusive use of ruler and compasses in a high-school

course in geometry. Teachers should be familiar with the various attempts

made to Justify the restriction, and they should know why these reasons are

not entirely valid. To require pupils to adhere to this time honored re­

striction is, in the words of Lazar, to perpetrate a hoax. To devote a

small amount of time to Euclidean constructions and related concepts Is

essential, for the classical restriction has played too large a role in

man's philosophical &nd mathematical thinking to be ignored. But the a-

mount of time devoted to them should be only a fraction of the amount of

time devoted to such an important and vital topic as, say, the nature of

proof.
 BIBLIOGkAPIiY

Part I : A List of the Seventy liijh School Geometry Textbooks Examined

In Jills Study

Avery, .to^l A., Plane Geometry. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, ly< ,.
a
Barber, H. C., and Hendrix, G., Plane Geometry and It3 Bcasoninw .
Bew York, Harcourt-Brace and Co., 1937.

Bartoo, G. C., and Osborn, Jesse, Plane Geomctry . St. Louis, Webster
Publishing Co., 1939*

Bernard, D. 11., Plane Geometry, Richmond, Johnson, lj2,'.

Birkhoff, G. D., and Beatley, Balph, Basic Geotaetry. Chicago, Jcott-

Forsman Co., 19^1*

Blackhurst, J. II., Humanized Geometry, oes Koines, University Press,

1935-

Bowers, H., Killer, II., and Hourke, I. hi•, Mathematics for Canadians.
Dent, Macmillan Co., 195°*

Brealich, K. d., Purposeful Mathematics - Plane Geometry. Chicajo,

Lftidlavr Bros., 193&.

Carson, G. St. L., and Smith, D. S., Plane Geometry. Boston, Ginn and
Co., 191^•

Chauvenet, William, A Treatise on Elementary Geometry. Philadelphia,

Lippincott and Co., IHSii.---------------------

Clairaut, A. C. (tr. J. Kaines), Elements of Geometry. London, C. K.

Paul, 1681.

Clark, J. B., Smith, ii. S., and 3chorlin0, S., Modern School Geometry,
Yonkers-on-Hudaon, World Book Co., lykQ.

Cook, A. J., Geometry For Today. Toronto, Jhe Macmillan Co., lA2.

Davies, Charles, Elements of Geometry from the Works of A. K. Lejendrc.

Hew York, Barnes and Co., liidS.

Durell, Fletcher and Arnold, E. E., Plane Geometry. Jew York, Merrill,
1913.

Failor, I. IJ., Plane and Solid Geometry. Hew York, The Century Co., lyOu

Farnsworth, B. D., Plane Geometry. Hew York, McGraw-Hill Co., Iy33«

Ford, W. 3., and Ammerman, Charles, Plane Geometry. .Jew York, Hie
Macmillan Co., 1913*

Hall, K. J., and Jtevenc, F. II., A School Geometry. London, The

Macmillan Co., 1910.

Hall, II. ^., and Jtcven3, F. II., A Textbook of Euclid *s Elements.

London, The Macmillan Co., 190(1^

Halstead, G. B., Elements of Geometry. New York, Wiley and Jons, 160

Ilawkes, H . E ., Luby, W . A ., and Touton, F . C ., Hew Plane Geometry.

Boston, Ginn and Co., 1930*

Herberg, T., and Orleans, J. B., A Hew Geometry. Boston, Heath, 19^0.

Ilill, Thomas, A Second Book in Geometry. Boston, Brewer and Tileston,

1-362.

Hunter, Thomas, dements of Plane Geometry, iiew York, Harper and Bros
1372 .

Keniston, B. P., and fully, Jean, Plane Geometry. Boston, Ginn and Co
19^6.

Langley, E. M., and Phillips, W. S., The Harpur Euclid. London,

Hivington’s, 1869.

Leonhardy, A., Joseph, M., and McLeary, h. D., Hew Trend Geometry.
New York, C. E. Merrill Co., 19^0.

Loomis, Elias, Elements of Geometry. New York, Harper and Bros., I003

McCormack, J. P., Plane Geometry. New York, D. Appleton Century Co.,

19 31*.

Major, George T., Plane Geometry. New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1933.

Mallory, V. S., New Plane Geometry. Chicago, B. H. Sanborn, 19lf3-

Milne, tf. J., Plane and Solid Geometry. New York, American Book Co.,
1899.

Mirick, G. rl., Newell, M. J., and Harper, G. A., Plane Geometry.

Evanston, Row-Peterson and Co., 1929*

Morgan, F. K., Foberg, J. A., and Breckenridge, W. E., Plane Geometry.

BoBton, Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1931*

Nyberg, Joseph A., Fundamentals of Plane Geometry. New York, American

Book Co., 19**1*.
 127

Olney, Edwmrd, A Treat!ee on 8peclal or Elementary Geometry. Rev York,

Sheldon and Company, 1B72.

Playfair, John, Elements of Geometry. Rev York, V. E. Dean Co., 1840.

Relchgott, David and Spiller, Lee R., Today*e Geometry. Rev York,
Prentice-Hall, 1944.

Roblneon, H. R., Elements of Qeometry. New York, Blakeman, Taylor,

and Co., 1872.

Roeekopf, M. F., Aten, H. D., and Reeve, V. D., Mathematics. A First

Course. Rev York, McGrav-Hlll, 1951*

Rosskopf, M. F., Aten, H. D., and Reeve, V. D., Mathematics. A Second

Course. Rev York, McGraw-Hill, 1952.

Sanders, Alan, Elements of Plane and Solid geometry. Rev York, American
Book Co., 1903.

Schnell, L. H., and Crawford, M., Clear Thinking. An Approach Through

Plane Geometry. Rev York, Harper and Bros., T 9U3.

Schorllng, Raleigh, and Clark, J. R., Mathematics In Life. Yonkers-

on-Hudson, Vorld Book Co., 1946.

Schultse, A., Sevenoak, F. L., and Schuyler, I., Plane Geometry. New
York, The Macmillan Co., 1930.

Seymour, F. S., and Ssilth, P. J., Plane Geometry. Mev York, The
Macmllien Co., 1941.

Slgley, D. T., and Stratton, V. T., Plane Geometry. Rev York, The
Dryden Press, 1946.

81mson, Robert, The Elements of Euclid* Philadelphia, Desilver and

Thomas, 1834.

Skolnlk, D., and Hartley, M. C., Dynamic Plane Qeometry. Rev York,
Van Rostrand, 1950.

Slaught, H. E., and Lennee, R. J., Plane Geometry. Boston, Allyn and
Bacon, 1910.

Slaught, H. S., and Lennes, R. J., Plane Qeometry (revised). Boston,

Allyn and Bacon, 1916

Smith, Charles, and Bryant, Sophie, Euclid*s Elements of Geometry.

London, The Macmillan Co., 1904.

Smith, David Eugene, Essentials of Plane Qeometry. Boston, Ginn and

Co., 1923*
 128
Smit:.* David Eugene* Reeve* V. E.* and Morsa* E. L.* Text and Teata in
Plane Geometry. Boaton* Ginn and Co*m 19^3*

Smith* D. P.* and Marino* A. I.* Plane Geometry. Columbua* Ohio*

C. E. Merrill* 19k8.

Solomon* Charles* and Wright* H. H.* Plane Geometry. Nev York*

Chas. Scribner*a Sons* 1929-

Strader* W. W.* and Rhoads* L. D.* Modern Trend Geometry. Chicago*

The Winston Co.* 19^0.

Sykes* Mabel* and Comstock, C* E.* Plane Geometry. Chicago* Rand

McNally* 1918.

Sykes* M.* Comstock* C* E.* and Austin* C. M.* Plane Geometry. Nev York.
Rand McNally and Co.* 1932*

Swenson* J. A .* Integrated Mathematics, Book II. Ann Arbor* Edvards

Bros •* 193^*

Trump* Paul L.* Geometry. 4 First Course. Nev York* H* Holt and Co.*
19^9.
Welchons* A. M.* and Krickenberger, W. R.* Plane Geometry. Boston*
Ginn and Co.* 19^9.

Welkovltz* Samuel* Sitomer* H.* and Snader* D. W.* Qeometry. Philadelphia*

Winston Co.* 1950.

Wells* Webster, and Hart* W. W.* Progressive Plane Geometry. Boston,

Heath and Co.* 19^3*

Wentworth* G. A.* Plane Geometry. Bostoz> Ginn and Co.* 1900.

Wentworth* G. A.* and Smith* D. E.* Plane Geometry. Boston* Ginn and
Co., 1913.

Williams* J. H.* and Williams* K. P.* Plane Qeometry. Chicago* Lyons

and Carnahan* 1915*

Williamson* A. W.* Plane and Solid Geometry. Rock Island* Lutheran

Augustana Press* 1901.

Wilson* J. M.* Elementary Qeometry. London* The Macmillan Co.* 1878.

 129
Part II: Bibliography Relating to the Classical Construction Problems
and to Constructions with other Sete of Restrictions

A. Books.

Allman, G. J., Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid. Dublin, the

University Press, 1869*

Ball, W . W. Rouse, History of Mathematics. London, The Macmillaji

Company, 1901.

Ball, V* V. Rouse, and Coxeter, H. S. M., Mathematical Recreations

and Essays. New York, The Macmillan CO., 19^7* (Chapter XII,
pp. 32^-3^9)

Cajori, F., A History of Mathematics. Nev York, The Macmillan

Coagtany, 192k.

Coolldge, J. L., A History of Geometrical Methods. Oxford, the

Clarendon Press, 19k0.

Courant, R., and Robbins, H., What la Mathematicsf Nev York,

Oxford University Press, 19kl.— Tp p * 117-165)*

Dickson, L. E., Nev First Course In the Theory of Equations. Nev

York, Wiley and Sons, 1939. fpp- 30-Ul; 170-175)*

Gov, James, A Short History of Greek Mathematics. Nev York

G. E. Stechert and Co., 1923. (pp. 160-173).

Heath, T. L., History of Greek Mathematics. Vol I, Oxford, The

Clarendon Press, 1921. (pp. 218-270).

Hilbert, D., Foundations of Geometry (tr. E. J. Townsend). La Salle,

111., The Open Court Publishing Co., 1938- (PP- 110-125)

Hobson, E. W., Squaring the Circle. Cambridge, The University Press,

1913.

Hudson, H. P., Ruler and Compasses. Nev York, Longman's Green and
Co., 1916.

Klein, F., Famous Problems of Elementary Geometry, (tr. W. W. Beman

and D. B. Smith). Boston, Ginn and Co., 1097•

Rupert, W. W ^ Famous Geometrical Theorems and Problems. Boston,

D. C. Heath and Co., 1901.

Sanford, Vera, A Short History of Mathematics. Boston, Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1930. (pp. 25^2^8).
 130

Smith, David Eugene, A History of Mathematics. Vol. I, Boston,

Olnn and Co., I923.

Sundara - Rao, T., Geometric i^»yri«*s In Paper-folding, (tr.

V. W. Beman and D. B. Smith). La Salle, 111., The Open
Court Publishing Co., 19^1.

Yates, Robert C., Geometrical Tools. St. Louis, Educational

Publishers, Inc., 19^9*

Yates, Robert C., The Trlsection Problem. Ann Arbor, Edvards

Brothers, 19^2.

Young, J. V. A. (editor), Monographs on Topics of Modern Mathematics.

Nev York. Longman's Green and Co., 1911. 7chapter 8, pp.
353-386.)

B. Articles Appearing In Periodicals.

Beman, V. V., Geometric Constructions,M School Science and Mathe-

matlcs 10: 528-9, June, 1910.

Bussey, V. H., Geoamtric Constructions Vlthout the Classical

Restrictions to Ruler and Compasses, " American Mathematical
Monthly 42: 265-280, May, 1936.

Carnahan, V. H., Gompass Geometry,*1 School Science and Mathematics

32: 38^-390, April, 1932.

Carnahan, V. H., Geometrical Constructions Without Compasses,"

School Science and Mathematics 36: 182-189, February, 1936.

Carslav, H. 8 ., G n the Constructions Which Are Possible by Euclid’s

Methods," Mathematics Gazette 5: 170-178, January, 1910.

Chepmell, C. H., duplication, Tri-section, and the Elliptic Com­

passes." Mathematics Qamette 12: 212-215, October, 1924; and
1): 284-285, February, 1927.

Hobson, E. W., G n Geometric Constructions by Means of a Compass,"

Mathematics Gazette 7: 49-54, March, 1913.
 131
Part III: Book* Other Than Geometry Textbook*. Con*ulted in Thi* Study

Aiyangar, N. Kuppusvami, The Teaching of Matheaatic* In the Nev Education.

Nev York, 0. E. Stechert end Co., 1935*

Allman, George J., Greek Qeometry from Thale* to Euclid. Dublin, The
University Press, 1869.

Association of Teachers of Mathematics of Nev York City, Radio T*i<»

on Mathematics. Nev York, 1941 •

Bakst, Aaron, Geometrical Construction. Nev York School of Education,

Nev York University.

Ball, V. V. Rouse, History of Mathematics. London, The Macmillan Co.,

1901 .
*
Ball, V. V. Rouse, and Coxeter, H. S. M., Mathematical Recreation and
Essays. Nev York, The Macmillan Co., 1947.

Barber, H. C., Teaching Junior High School Mathematics. Boston,

Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1924.

Blackhurst, J. H., Euclidean Geometry. Its Nature and Use. Des Moines,
Garner, 1947*

Boyer, L. E., Mathematics. A Historical Develouamnt. Nev York, H. Holt

and Co., 1945» '

Branford, Benchara, A Study of Mathematical Education. Oxford, The

Clarendon Press7 19&L.

Bresllch, E. R., The Administration of Mathematics in Secondary Schools.

Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1933-

Bresllch, E. R., Problems in Teaching Secondary School Mathematics.

Chic Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1931*

Bresllch, E. R., The Teaching of Secondary Mathematics, (Volume I,

Technique). Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1930.

British Mathematical Association, A Second Report on the Teaching of

Geometry. London, G. Bell and Sons, 1938•

British Mathematical Association, The Teaching of Geometry in Schools.

London, G. Bell and Sons, 1929*

British Mathematical Association, The Teach<ng of Mathematics. London,

The Macmillan Co., 1902.

Boston, Public Schools, Outline of Geometry. Boston, School Document

No. 8, 1934.
 132
Brown, E. E., The Making of Our Middle Schools. New York, Longman'■
Greek and C0 . / I 9I0 .

Butler, C. H«, and Wren, F. L«, The Teaching of Secondary Mathematics.

Nev York, McGraw-Hill, 19^1.

Cajori, F., A Hiatory of Mathematics. Nev York, The Macmillan Co.,

192 ^.
Cajori, F., The Teaching and Hiatory of Mathematics in The United 81ate a .
Washington, D. C., Bureau of Education, Circular of Information
Ho. 3, 1890.

Chriatofferaon, H. C., Geometry Profe a*i f0r Teachers. Oxford,

Ohio, 1933.

leman, Robert, The Development of Informal Geometry. New York,

Teachers College, Columbia University, Contribution to Education
No. 863, 19^2.

CoHiaslon on Poat-War Plans, Katlonal Council of Teachers of Mathematics,

Guidance Pamphlet in Mathematics for High School Students. Nev York
The Mathematics Teacher, 19^7 .

Coolidge, Julian L., A History of Geometrical Methods. Oxford, The

Clarendon Press, 19k0.

Cosmey, B., A Tentative Course in Tenth Grade Geometry for Students Not
Interested in Co1l*»ge. Progressive Education Association, Rocky
Mountain Workshop Ho. 27*

Courant, Richard and Robbins, Herbert, What is Mat hematics t Nev York,
The Oxford University Press, 19^1*

Davis, D. R., The Teaching of Mathematics. Cambridge, Mass., Addison-

Wesley Press, 1931* ’

Dickson, L. E., Nev First Course in the Theory of Equations. Nev York,
Wiley and Sons, 1939*

Educational Policies Coaad.eslon, Education for All American Youth.

Washington, D. C., The National Education Association, 1 9 ^ •

Evans, G. W., The Teaching of High School Mathematics. Boston, Houghton-

Mifflin Co., 1911*

Favcett, H. P., The Nature of Proof. (Thirteenth Yearbook of the National

Council of Teachers of Mathesmtlcs). Nev York, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1938.
 133
Fehr, H. F., Secondary Hatha— tics. Boston, Heath and Co., 1951.

Fite, Warner, The Platonic Legend. Nev York, Scribners, 193^

Oodfrey C., and 8iddons, A. V., The Teaching of Ele— ntary Matha— tlce.
Cambridge, The University Prese, 1931*

Gov, James, A Short Hia-tcwy of Greek Mathematics. Nev York, G. E.

Stechert and Co., 1923*

Grote, George, Plato. London., J. Murray, 1685.

Haaaler, J. 0., and Smith, R. R., The Teaching of Secondary Maths— tics.
Nev York, The Macmillan Co., 1937*

Heath, T. L., Euclid. The Elements. Annapolis, St. Johns College

Press, 13*71

Heath, T. L., History of Greek Mat.ha— tics. Oxford, The Clarendon

Press, 1921.

Herman, D. T., A n Analysis of Geometry Testa. Unpublished Master*s

Thesis, The Ohio State University, 19^9*

Hilbert, David, Foundations of Geometry (tr. E. J. Townsend)• La Salle,

111.. The Open Court Publishing Co., 1936.

Hobson, E. W . , Squaring The Circle. Cambridge, The University Press,

1913.

Hogben, Lancelot. Mathe— tics For The Million. Nev York, V. V. Norton
and C o ., 19*^6.

Hudson, H. P., Ruler and Compasses. Nev York, Longman's, Green and Co.,
1916 .
Kaplan. Harrv G . . Reasons Advanced For and Against the Teaching of
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation

Kasner, Edvard, and Nevman, James, Maths— tics and the Lms^lnatlon.
Nev York, Simon and Schuster, 19ho/

Kinney, L. B., and Purdy, C. R., Teaching Mathe— tics In the Secondary
School. Nev York, Rinehart and Co., 1932.

Klein, F., Elementary Mathematics from An Advanced Standpoint, (tr.

E. R. Hedrick and C. A. Noble)• Nev York, The Macmillan Co.,
1932

Klein, F . , Famous Pro olems of Elementary Geometry, (tr. U. W. Beman

and D. E. Smith). Boston, &lnn and C o ., lb97.
 I31*
Kramer, Edna I., Tba £f Mathematics. Ifev York, The Oxford
University Press, 1951*

Licks, H. E., Recreations In HTWTflfiM''*- Hev York, D. Van Eostrsnd

and Co., 1917*

Mallory, Arthur E., The ?Vsn'1if 1rmnrm of plane Qeoamtry as a College

Entrance Requirement. Nashville, George Peabody College For
Teachers, Contribution to Education No. 110, 1932-

Miami Workshop Coanlttee, A Program For Public School Education in

Ohio. Columbus, Ohio, 19**5*

Mills, Glendora, A Brief History of the Development and Teaching of

Elementary Qeometry. Unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State
University, I9I3.

Minnlck, J. H., Teaching Mathematics in the Secondary School. Nev

York, Prentice-Hall, 1939-

Natlonal Cossnlttee on Mathematics Requirements, The Reorganisation

of Mathematics in Secondary Education. The Mathematical
Association of America, 1923-

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Fifteenth Yearbook. Nev

York, Teachers College, Columbia University^ 19*^-

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Fifth Yearbook. Nev York,

Teachers College, Columbia University, 1930.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Second Yearbook. Nev York,

Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927» pp. 231-251# 256-290.

Petersen, Julius, Methods and Theories For the Solution of Geometrical

Constructions• Nev York, G. E. Stechert and Co., 1927-

Progressive Education Association, Commission on Secondary School

School Curriculum, Mathematics in Qeneral Education. Nev York,
D. Appleton-Century Co., 19^0.

Rupert, V. W., Famous Geometrical Theorems and Problems. Boston,

D. C. Heath and Co., 1901.

Sanford, Vera, A Short History of Mathematics. Boston, Houghton-

Mifflin Co., 1930.

Schorllng, Raleigh, The Teaching of Mathematics. Ann Arbor, The Ann

Arbor Press, 1936.

Schultze, A., The Teaching of Mathematics. Nev York, The Macmillan Co.,
1931-
 135
Shlbll, J., Recent Developments in the Teaching of Qeometry. State
College, Penna., J. Shlbll, Publisher, 1932*

Schultze, Arthur, The Teaching of Mathematics In Secondary Schools.

Nev York, The Macmillan Co., 1915.

Shorey, Paul, What Plato Said. Chicago, The University of Chicago

Press, 1933*

Simona, Lao 0., Introduction of Algebra Into American Schools in the

18th Century. Washington, D. C., Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Education, Bulletin 192^, Ho. 18. U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1924.

Smith, David Eugene, History of Mathematics. Vols. I and II. Boston,

Oinn and Co., 1923-25.

Smith, David Eugene, Mathematics. Boston, Marshall Jones and Co., 1923*

Smith, David Eugene, The Teaching of Elementary Mathematics. Nev York,

The Macmillan Co., 1901.

Smith, David Eugene, The Teaching of Geometry. Boston, Ginn and Co.,
19U.
Stamper, Alva Walker, History of the Teaching of pigmentary Geometry.
Nev York, Teachers College, Columbia University, Contribution to
Education No. 23, 1906.

Stone, John C., Method In Geometry. Boston, Heath and Co., 1904.

Sundara-Rao, T., Geometric Exercises In Paper-foldipgt (tr. W. W. Beman

and D. E. Stallth). La Salle, 111., The Open Court Publishing CO.,
19^1.

Sykes, Mabel, A Source Book of Problems For Qeometry. Boston, Allyn

and Bacon, 1912.

Taylor, A. E., Plato, The Man and His Work. Nev York, The Dial Press,
1927.
Westavay, F. W», Craftsmanship in the Teaching of Elementary Mathematics.
London, Blackle and Son, 1937*

Wilson, Jack D., Trends in Elementary and Secondary School Mathematics

1918-19^* Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University,
19^9.

Yates, Robert C. Geometrical Tools. St. Louis, Educational Publishers,

Inc., 19^9.
 136
Yates, Robert C., The Trlsectlon Problem. Ann Arbor, Edvards Bros.,
19^2 .

Young, J. W. A. (editor), Monographs on Tonics In Modern Mathematics.

Nev York, I^ngman's, Oree d and Co., 1911, (pp. 353-3357:

Yound, J. W. A., The Teaching of Mathematics In the Elementary and the

Secondary School. Nev York, Longman's Green,and Co., 1927*
 137
Part IV; Magazine Articles Consulted in This Study

Austin, C. A., "The Laboratory Method in the Teachin^ oi‘ Geometry."

The Mathematics Teacher, 20: 2-3c-294, May, 192’f.

Barnett, I. A., 'Geometrical Constructions Arisin^ From dimple Al­

gebraic Identities." Jchool Science and Mathematics, 3o : 521-
527, October, 1930.

3eatley, Ralph. (tr.). "Teaching of* Mathematics in Germany Since

World War I." The Mathematics Teacher, 20; 355-309, October,
1927 •

Beman, W. W., *Geometric Constructions." School Jclence and Mathe­

matics , 10: 528-9, June, 1910.

Betz, William, *Grigins of Mathematics." The Mathematics Teacher,

15, 233-293, May, 1922.

Betz, William, *!Preli[iiinary deport of the National Committee on

the Geometry .Syllabus." School Science and Mathematics, 10;
664-694, November, 1910.

Betz, William, "The Teaching of Geometry in its Relationship to the

Present Educational Trend." School Science and Mathematics,
6 ; 625-3*+, November, 1908.

Blackhurst, J. H., "The Educational Value of Logical Geometry."

The Mathematics Teacher, 32: I03-I06, April, 1939*

Blank, Laura, "The Functions of Intuitive and Demonstrative Geometry."

The Mathematics Teacher, 22: 31-37, January, 1929*

Blank, Laura, ^Techniques and Devices Conducive to Better Teaching of

Geometry," The Mathematics Teacher, 21: 171-182, March, 1923.

Bresllch, E. R., Tfcrithmetic A Hundred Years Ago." Elementary School

Journal, 25: 664-674, May, 1925.

Bussey, W. H., 'Geometrical Constructions Without The Classical Re­

striction to Ruler and Coiqpasses." American Mathematical Month­
ly, 42: 265-280, May, 1936.

Cajori, Florian, The Teaching and History of Mathematics in the United

States. Washington, D. C., Bureau of Education, Circular Of
Information, No. 3, 1390* U* 3. Government Printing Office.

Carnahan, W. H., toiqpass Geometry." Jchool Science and Mathematics,

32: 38^-390, April, 1932.
 130
Carnahan, W. II., tleometric .Solutions of Quadratic Equations."
■School Science and Mathematics, V, : 6 8 /-692.

Carnahan, W. H., 'geometrical Constructions Without CoBjpasses."

School Science and Mathematics, 3<--s 182-189, February, 1936.

Carslav, II. S., 't)n the Constructions Which Are Possible by Suclid's
Methods." The Mathematics Gazette V: 1/0-1 /6 , January, 1910.

Chepmell, C. II., triplication, Tri-section, and the Elliptic Confesses.*

Mathematics Gazette, 12: 212-219, October, 1926; and 13: 286-2g 5,
February, 192'/»

Christofferson, II. C., fBasic Considerations in the Teaching Mathe­

matics in the High .Schools of the United States." Mathematics
Gazette, 33: 189-19'-', Oct., 1969*

Christofferson, H. C., "A Different 3eginning For Plane Geometry."

The Mathematics Teacher, 21: 6/9-62, December, 1920.

Cowley, C. 3., '^Geometry's tribute to Tradition.• School Science and

Mathematics, 36: 266-2/4, March, 1936.

Cowley, C. 3., "Some Suggestions on Technique of Teachin0 Plant Geome­

try. M The Mathematics Teacher, 20: 370-376, Jovember, 192(.

Dickter, M* R., 'fThe Introduction to Plane Geometry." School Science

and Mathematics, 36: 585-591* June, 1936.

Duncan, D. C., "A Criticism of the Treatment of the Regular Polygon

Constructions in Certain Well-known Geometry Texts." School
Science and Mathematics, 36: 50-57* January, 1936.

Durell, C. V., **The nature of Main School Geometry." Mathematics

Gazette, 33: 266-9, December, 1969.

Evans, George W., heresy and Orthodoxy in Geometry'." The Mathematics

Teacher, 19: 195-201, April, 1926.

Haerter, L. D., tJse of tie Inventory Test in Plane Geometry.” The

Mathematics Teacher, 19: I6 /-I56, March, I920.

Hassler, J. 0., "Teaching Geometry Into Its Rightful Place." The

Mathematics Teacher, 22: 333-361, May, 1929*

Hassler, J. 0., "The Use of Mathematics History in Teaching." The

Mathematics Teacher, 22: 166-1,1, March, 1929.
 139
Hedrick, E. d., "The TrettMnt of Geometry cor Secondary Instruction.”
national Education Association Journal of Proceedings and
Addresses, 1909, pp. 515-519.

Hildebrandt, M., ^Adapting Plane Geometry to Pupils of Limited Ability.”

The Mathematics Teacher, 18: 102-110, February, 1925.

Hobson, E . W., *Dn Geometric Constructions 3y Means of a Compass."

Mathematics Gazette, Y; 1+9.511, March, 1913.

Jackson, Dunham, 'College Entrance Requirements in Geometry." The

Mathematics Teacher, 22: 757-88, December, 1929.

Jones, Phillip 3., "Early American Geometry." The Mathematics Teacher,

37: 3-11, January, 1977.

Karpinski, L* C., "The Parallel Development of Mathematical Ideas,

Numerically and Geometrically," School dcience and Mathematics,
20: 521-8, December, 1920.

Karpinski, L. C., and Fiedler, A. M., "The Terminology of Elementary

Geometry." School Science and Mathematics, 27: 162-7, February,
1924.

Kimmel, Herbert, "The Status of Mathematics and Mathematical Inst5uction

During the Colonial period." School and Society, 9s 195-202,
February 15, 1919*

Kokomoor, F. W., "The Teaching of Elementary Geometry In the 1/th Cen­

tury, " Isis, 10: 21-32, and Isis, 11: 85-IIO, 1926.

Kokomoor, F. 'J., "The Distinctive Features of 17th Century Geometry,"

Isis, 10: 367-715, 1928.

Danger, R. E., Euclid's Elements.” School Science and Mathematics,

3J+: 712-723, April, 1937.

Longley, W. R., 'Geometry As Preparation For College." The Mathematics

Teacher, 23 : 257-267, *pril, 1930.

Reserve, Harrison G., '^■latheiaetics One Hundred Years Ago." The Mat he -
matics Teacher, 21: 336-3^3, October, 1923.

Miller, G. A., *Hodern Developments in Elementary and Secondary Mathe­

matics." School Science and Mathenatics, 17: 32-72, January, 1917*

National Committee of Fifteen on Geometry Syllabus, Provisional Report."

School Science and Mathematics, 11: 329-355* April, 1911; 11:
737-760, May, 1911; and ll: 509-531, June, 1911*
 lifO

Ilonn, r. P., Sequence of Theorems in School Geometry." The Mathe­

matics Teacher, lb: 321-332, October, 1925*

Perry, John, "The Teaching of Mathematics.* Education Review, 23:

158-181, February, 1902.

Pratt, Gertrude V., Popularizing Plane and Solid Geometry." The

Mathematics Teacher, 21: 412-21, November, ly28.

Reeve, W. D., Objectives in leaching Demonstrative Geometry.”

The Mathematics Teacher, 20: 435-50, December, 1927.

Robson, Alan, P o v They Learnt I6OO-I85O. " Mathematics Gazette,

33: 81-93, May, 1949-

Simons, L. G., ’Short Stories in Colonial Geometry.” Osiris, 1:

584-605, 1938.

Smith, David Eugene, ^ Glimpse At Early Colonial Algebra." School

and Society, { 1 8-11, January 5, 1916.

Smith, David Eugene, 'The Teaching of Mathematics in the Secondary

Schools of the United States." School Science and Mathematics,
9: 203-219, March, I9O9 .

Smith, E. R., 'teie Syllabus Method of Teaching Plane Geometry." School

Science and Mathematics, 9: 633-637, October, 1909-

Stamper, A. W., ’Significance of History of Mathematics to the Teacher

of Elementary Mathematics." School Science and Mathematics, 11:
430-432, May, 1911.

Stron^, Theodore, "Teaching Plane Geometry Without A Text.” The Mathe­

matics Teacher, 19: 115-lly, February, 1926.

Sykes, Mabel, "Some Pedagogical Aspects of Geometry Teaching." The

Mathematics Teacher, 20: JtRS6-4y2, December, 192',7.

Taylor, E. H., "Introduction to Demonstrative Geometry.” The Mathe­

matics Teacher, 23: 227-235, April, 1930.

Webb, H. E., "Hie Future of Secondary Instruction in Geometry.” The

Mathematics Teacher, 14; 337-341, October, 1921.

Welkovitz, Samuel, ’•Tenth-year Geometry For All American Youth." The

Mathematics Teacher, 39: 99-112, March, 1936.

Whitcraft, L. H., "Influence of College Entrance Examinations on the

Teaching of Secondary Mathematics." The Mathematics Teacher, 2.,:
257-270, May, 1533-
 11*1

Wiltshire, . ., h i s t o r y oi' Mb themetlc6 in the Clossrjom. • iThe t-jthe­

me tics T e a c h e r , 23: ^ O h - ^ O Jecember, Jy3Q.

Wue3t, Alina I.., '!ftnalysis Versus J^nthesis. ** i'he Ma thcmatica i’.acher,

20: U , January, ly27-
 AU J03IOCMAPHY

I, tfalLer Auju 3t Albrecht, Jr., was born in Jt. Paul, Minnesota,

oovember 25* lyl, • I received my elementary and secondary school

education in the public schools of the city of Jt. Paul. My under-

raauatc training vac obtained at Kaaline U a l v c r n j ty, Jt. Paul, f r o m

vhieh 1 received the decree, bachelor of Jciunce, summa cum laude,

in iy<Vl. I then entered the graduate school of the University of

Minnesota, but my studies chere were interrupted by military service.

I was sent by the Air forces of the Army of the United Jtates to study

at the University of Uhica.yo, where I received the Certificate in

Meteorolojy in 1>';j . After three years of service as a leather O fi c e r -

Forecaster, I returned to study at the University of Minnesota and

received the dejree, Master of Arts, in 19V {. Y/hile in residence at

the University of Minnesota in 19^1-2 and I9d._;-Y, I served as feachinj

Assistant in the Department of Mathematics. For the next two years I

was Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Wittenberg College in Jpriny-

field, Ohio. In the autumn of 19^9 I entered the graduate school of

The Ohio otate University to study toward the Ph.D., majoring in Mathe­

matics Education. During my period of preparation for the doctorate

I have served as Assistant Instructor, part-time, in the Department of

Mathematics and as a Graduate Assistant to several professors in the

Department of Education.