DOCSLIB.ORG

IMPOSSIBILITY RESULTS: from GEOMETRY to ANALYSIS Davide Crippa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IMPOSSIBILITY RESULTS: FROM GEOMETRY TO ANALYSIS Davide Crippa To cite this version: Davide Crippa. IMPOSSIBILITY RESULTS: FROM GEOMETRY TO ANALYSIS : A study in early modern conceptions of impossibility. History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences. Univeristé Paris Diderot Paris 7, 2014. English. tel-01098493 HAL Id: tel-01098493 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01098493 Submitted on 25 Dec 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. UNIVERSITE PARIS DIDEROT (PARIS 7) SORBONNE PARIS CITE ECOLE DOCTORALE: Savoirs Scientifiques, Epistémologie, Histoire des Sciences et Didactique des disciplines DOCTORAT: Epistémologie et Histoire des Sciences DAVIDE CRIPPA IMPOSSIBILITY RESULTS: FROM GEOMETRY TO ANALYSIS A study in early modern conceptions of impossibility RESULTATS D’IMPOSSIBILITE: DE LA GEOMETRIE A L’ANALYSE Une étude de résultats classiques d’impossibilité Thèse dirigée par: Marco PANZA Soutenue le: 14 Octobre 2014 Jury: Andrew Arana Abel Lassalle Casanave Jesper Lützen (rapporteur) David Rabouin Vincenzo de Risi (rapporteur) Jean-Jacques Szczeciniarz Alla memoria di mio padre. A mia madre. Contents Preface 9 1 General introduction 14 1.1 The theme of my study . 14 1.2 A difficult context . 16 1.3 Types of impossibility arguments . 20 1.3.1 An ancient example . 20 1.3.2 Impossibility in the theory versus impossibility in the meta-theory 21 1.4 Impossibility statements as meta-statements . 26 1.4.1 The unsettled nature of the circle-squaring problem . 30 1.5 Impossibility results in early modern geometry . 39 2 Problem solving techniques in Ancient geometry 44 2.1 Introduction . 44 2.2 Pappus’ division of problems into three kinds . 52 2.2.1 A conjecture about the origin of Pappus’ classification of problems 57 2.2.2 Normative aspects in Pappus’ classification . 60 2.3 Curves and problems of the third kind . 66 2.3.1 The conchoid . 66 2.3.2 The Quadratrix . 68 2.3.3 The Archimedean spiral . 73 2.3.4 The Apollonian helix . 75 2.4 Problems from the third kind of geometry . 78 2.4.1 General Angle Division (Collection, IV, proposition 35) . 78 2.4.2 Problems related to the general angle division . 82 2.5 The rectification problem . 82 5 CONTENTS 6 2.5.1 The rectification of the circumference via quadratrix (Pappus, Col- lection, IV, proposition 27) . 83 2.5.2 The converse problem: to construct a circumference equal to a given segment . 88 2.5.3 Rectification through the spiral (Archimedes, On Spiral lines, prop. XVIII) . 89 2.6 On the quadrature of the circle . 95 3 The geometry of René Descartes 100 3.0.1 Descartes’ geometry and its methodological presuppositions . 100 3.0.2 Descartes’ early methodology of problem solving . 103 3.1 Analysis and Synthesis in Descartes’ geometry . 113 3.1.1 Cartesian analysis as transconfigurational analysis . 113 3.1.2 The constitution of the algebra of segments . 126 3.1.3 The construction of the ‘four figures’ . 131 3.2 Descartes’ construal of geometricity in 1637 . 133 3.2.1 Euclidean restrictions reconsidered . 133 3.2.2 Early instances of geometrical linkages . 146 3.2.3 The determinative character of cartesian algebra . 148 4 Simplicity in Descartes’ geometry 155 4.1 Introduction . 155 4.2 Simplicity in early modern geometry . 157 4.3 Classifications of curves and problems . 160 4.3.1 Ancient and modern classifications . 160 4.3.2 A classification of curves . 161 4.3.3 A Classification of problems . 167 4.4 Construction of third and fourth degree equations . 173 4.4.1 Construction of a cubic equation . 175 4.4.2 The insertion of two mean proportionals . 179 4.5 Easiness versus simplicity . 183 4.5.1 Two solutions compared . 183 4.5.2 Easiness, simplicity and the algebraic ordering of curves . 186 4.6 Impossibility and the interpretation of Pappus’ norm . 203 4.6.1 Impossibility arguments in La Géométrie . 203 4.6.2 A case for unrigorous reasoning . 209 CONTENTS 7 4.6.3 Impossibility results as metastatements . 214 4.6.4 The legacy of the cartesian programme: simplicity at stake . 215 5 Mechanical curves in Descartes’ geometry 221 5.1 Mechanical curves in Descartes’ geometry . 221 5.2 On Geometrical and Mechanical constructions . 227 5.2.1 Constructions by means of twisted lines or strings . 229 5.2.2 Construction of the spiral (Schwenter, Huygens) . 231 5.2.3 Pointwise construction of mechanical curves . 234 5.3 Descartes’ appraisal of string-based mechanisms and pointwise constructions247 5.4 Specification by genesis and specification by property: the case of mechan- ical curves . 255 6 Impossible problems in cartesian geometry 266 6.1 On the cartesian distinction between possible and impossible problems . 266 6.2 Impossibility claims as a meta-statements . 272 6.3 On the significance of early rectifications for Descartes’ meta-statement . 276 6.4 Problems of quadratures and the problem of area . 288 7 James Gregory’s Vera Circuli Quadratura 296 7.1 Introduction: the quadrature of the circle . 296 7.2 The controversy between James Gregory and Christiaan Huygens . 303 7.3 Analyzing the quadrature of the circle . 307 7.3.1 The aims of analysis . 307 7.3.2 Introducing convergent sequences . 314 7.3.3 The convergence of the double sequence . 321 7.3.4 Computing the terminatio . 329 7.4 An argument of impossibility . 334 7.5 Reception and criticism of Gregory’s impossibility argument . 342 7.6 Conclusions . 354 7.6.1 Bibliographical note . 365 8 The arithmetical quadrature of the circle 367 8.1 Introduction . 367 8.1.1 The manuscript of the De quadratura arithmetica . 368 8.1.2 Leibniz’s acquaintance and study of Gregory’s works . 370 8.2 The arithmetical quadrature of the circle, its main results . 373 CONTENTS 8 8.2.1 Looking backward onto Leibniz’s quadrature of the central conic sections . 373 8.2.2 Towards the arithmetical quadrature of the circle: the transmuta- tion theorem . 376 8.2.3 Towards the arithmetical quadrature of the circle: the generation of the ‘anonymous’ curve . 381 8.3 A digression: Mercator-Wallis technique for the quadrature of the hyperbola385 8.4 Leibniz’s arithmetical quadrature of 1674-’75 . 396 8.4.1 Extending Wallis-Mercator technique . 396 8.4.2 The rectification of a circular arc . 401 8.4.3 Leibniz’s fictionalist stance . 403 8.5 The quadrature of the circle in numbers . 406 π 8.5.1 Leibniz’s alternate series for 4 . 406 8.5.2 Oldenburg’s objections and the classification of quadratures . 414 8.6 The impossibility of giving a universal quadrature of the circle . 422 8.6.1 Leibniz’s criticism of Gregory’s arguments . 422 8.7 An impossibility argument . 428 8.7.1 Universal and particular quadratures . 428 8.7.2 The impossibility of the universal quadrature . 430 8.7.3 The impossibility of finding a general quadrature of the hyperbola 438 8.8 Underdeveloped parts in Leibniz’s impossibility argument . 440 8.9 The transcendental nature of curves . 445 8.10 Conclusions . 450 8.10.1 On the limits of cartesian geometry . 450 8.10.2 The constitution of transcendental mathematics and Leibniz’s new calculus . 459 8.10.3 Appendix: primary sources . 464 9 Epilogue 466 9.1 A survey of early-modern impossibility results . 466 9.2 The structure of early modern impossibility results . 470 9.2.1 The role of algebra in XVIIth century . 470 9.2.2 Algebraic proofs of impossibility theorems . 474 9.2.3 Early modern constructions and constructibility . 476 9.2.4 From the constructive paradigm to the conceptual paradigm . 479 9.3 Impossibility arguments as answers to metatheoretical questions . 483 Preface: capturing the unicorn . the fence inside which we hope to have enclosed what may appear as a possible, living creature. O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, p. 177. Otto Neugebauer once recalled, in his masterpiece The exact Sciences in Antiquity, that his endeavour in restoring the mathematics of the past had a simile in the tale of the unicorn, which ended with the miraculous animal captured in a fence and gracefully resigned to his fate. In this dissertation, I have also erected, out of pieces of evidence, conjectures and indirect testimonies, an enclosure in order to capture an elusive but (I think) living subject of research. This subject is provided by the theme of impossibility results in classical and early modern mathematics. I started the inquiry which led to this dissertation out of the following, perhaps naive observation: all the famous impossibility results in geometry (namely, the impossibility of duplicating the cube, trisecting an angle or squaring the circle by ruler and compass) are proved by appealing to a rather sophisticated algebraic machinery. Why mathematicians had turned to algebra in order to prove geometric impossibility results, and what makes algebra such a powerful resource that it could prove the impossibility of solving certain problems in geometry, apparently unprovable by geometric means only? 9 CONTENTS 10 My original questioning was as much interesting to me as it was broad, and perhaps unfit for a discussion within a single dissertation. I then decided to develop my inquiry mainly from a historical viewpoint, and turned to what I considered one of the first examples of algebraic thinking in geometry, namely, Descartes’ epoch-making La Géométrie.
Recommended publications
  • Angle Bisection with Straightedge and Compass

    Angle Bisection with Straightedge and Compass

    ANGLE BISECTION WITH STRAIGHTEDGE AND COMPASS The discussion below is largely based upon material and drawings from the following site : http://strader.cehd.tamu.edu/geometry/bisectangle1.0/bisectangle.html Angle Bisection Problem: To construct the angle bisector of an angle using an unmarked straightedge and collapsible compass . Given an angle to bisect ; for example , take ∠∠∠ ABC. To construct a point X in the interior of the angle such that the ray [BX bisects the angle . In other words , |∠∠∠ ABX| = |∠∠∠ XBC|. Step 1. Draw a circle that is centered at the vertex B of the angle . This circle can have a radius of any length, and it must intersect both sides of the angle . We shall call these intersection points P and Q. This provides a point on each line that is an equal distance from the vertex of the angle . Step 2. Draw two more circles . The first will be centered at P and will pass through Q, while the other will be centered at Q and pass through P. A basic continuity result in geometry implies that the two circles meet in a pair of points , one on each side of the line PQ (see the footnote at the end of this document). Take X to be the intersection point which is not on the same side of PQ as B. Equivalently , choose X so that X and B lie on opposite sides of PQ. Step 3. Draw a line through the vertex B and the constructed point X. We claim that the ray [BX will be the angle bisector .
  • Field Theory Pete L. Clark

    Field Theory Pete L. Clark

    Field Theory Pete L. Clark Thanks to Asvin Gothandaraman and David Krumm for pointing out errors in these notes. Contents About These Notes 7 Some Conventions 9 Chapter 1. Introduction to Fields 11 Chapter 2. Some Examples of Fields 13 1. Examples From Undergraduate Mathematics 13 2. Fields of Fractions 14 3. Fields of Functions 17 4. Completion 18 Chapter 3. Field Extensions 23 1. Introduction 23 2. Some Impossible Constructions 26 3. Subfields of Algebraic Numbers 27 4. Distinguished Classes 29 Chapter 4. Normal Extensions 31 1. Algebraically closed fields 31 2. Existence of algebraic closures 32 3. The Magic Mapping Theorem 35 4. Conjugates 36 5. Splitting Fields 37 6. Normal Extensions 37 7. The Extension Theorem 40 8. Isaacs' Theorem 40 Chapter 5. Separable Algebraic Extensions 41 1. Separable Polynomials 41 2. Separable Algebraic Field Extensions 44 3. Purely Inseparable Extensions 46 4. Structural Results on Algebraic Extensions 47 Chapter 6. Norms, Traces and Discriminants 51 1. Dedekind's Lemma on Linear Independence of Characters 51 2. The Characteristic Polynomial, the Trace and the Norm 51 3. The Trace Form and the Discriminant 54 Chapter 7. The Primitive Element Theorem 57 1. The Alon-Tarsi Lemma 57 2. The Primitive Element Theorem and its Corollary 57 3 4 CONTENTS Chapter 8. Galois Extensions 61 1. Introduction 61 2. Finite Galois Extensions 63 3. An Abstract Galois Correspondence 65 4. The Finite Galois Correspondence 68 5. The Normal Basis Theorem 70 6. Hilbert's Theorem 90 72 7. Infinite Algebraic Galois Theory 74 8. A Characterization of Normal Extensions 75 Chapter 9.
  • Extending Euclidean Constructions with Dynamic Geometry Software

    Extending Euclidean Constructions with Dynamic Geometry Software

    Proceedings of the 20th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (Leshan, China, 2015) Extending Euclidean constructions with dynamic geometry software Alasdair McAndrew [email protected] College of Engineering and Science Victoria University PO Box 18821, Melbourne 8001 Australia Abstract In order to solve cubic equations by Euclidean means, the standard ruler and compass construction tools are insufficient, as was demonstrated by Pierre Wantzel in the 19th century. However, the ancient Greek mathematicians also used another construction method, the neusis, which was a straightedge with two marked points. We show in this article how a neusis construction can be implemented using dynamic geometry software, and give some examples of its use. 1 Introduction Standard Euclidean geometry, as codified by Euclid, permits of two constructions: drawing a straight line between two given points, and constructing a circle with center at one given point, and passing through another. It can be shown that the set of points constructible by these methods form the quadratic closure of the rationals: that is, the set of all points obtainable by any finite sequence of arithmetic operations and the taking of square roots. With the rise of Galois theory, and of field theory generally in the 19th century, it is now known that irreducible cubic equations cannot be solved by these Euclidean methods: so that the \doubling of the cube", and the \trisection of the angle" problems would need further constructions. Doubling the cube requires us to be able to solve the equation x3 − 2 = 0 and trisecting the angle, if it were possible, would enable us to trisect 60◦ (which is con- structible), to obtain 20◦.
  • A Dynamic Epistemic Logic Analysis of Equality Negation and Other Epistemic Covering Tasks$,$$

    A Dynamic Epistemic Logic Analysis of Equality Negation and Other Epistemic Covering Tasks$,$$

    A Dynamic Epistemic Logic Analysis of Equality Negation and other Epistemic Covering TasksI,II Hans van Ditmarscha, Eric´ Goubaultb, Marijana Lazi´cc, J´er´emy Ledentd, Sergio Rajsbaume aUniversit´ede Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, F-54000 Nancy, France bLIX, CNRS, Ecole´ Polytechnique, Institute Polytechnique de Paris, France cTechnical University of Munich, Germany dDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, UK eInstituto de Matem´aticas, UNAM, Mexico Abstract In this paper we study the solvability of the equality negation task in a simple wait- free model where two processes communicate by reading and writing shared variables or exchanging messages. In this task, the two processes start with a private input value in the set f0; 1; 2g, and after communicating, each one must decide a binary output value, so that the outputs of the processes are the same if and only if the input values of the processes are different. This task is already known to be unsolvable; our goal here is to prove this result using the dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) approach introduced by Goubault, Ledent and Rajsbaum in GandALF 2018. We show that in fact, there is no epistemic logic formula that explains why the task is unsolvable. Furthermore, we observe that this task is a particular case of an epistemic covering task. We thus establish a connection between the existing DEL framework and the theory of covering spaces in topology, and prove that the same result holds for any epistemic covering task: no epistemic formula explains the unsolvability. Keywords: Dynamic Epistemic Logic, distributed computing, equality negation, combinatorial topology, covering spaces.
  • Squaring the Circle a Case Study in the History of Mathematics the Problem

    Squaring the Circle a Case Study in the History of Mathematics the Problem

    Squaring the Circle A Case Study in the History of Mathematics The Problem Using only a compass and straightedge, construct for any given circle, a square with the same area as the circle. The general problem of constructing a square with the same area as a given figure is known as the Quadrature of that figure. So, we seek a quadrature of the circle. The Answer It has been known since 1822 that the quadrature of a circle with straightedge and compass is impossible. Notes: First of all we are not saying that a square of equal area does not exist. If the circle has area A, then a square with side √A clearly has the same area. Secondly, we are not saying that a quadrature of a circle is impossible, since it is possible, but not under the restriction of using only a straightedge and compass. Precursors It has been written, in many places, that the quadrature problem appears in one of the earliest extant mathematical sources, the Rhind Papyrus (~ 1650 B.C.). This is not really an accurate statement. If one means by the “quadrature of the circle” simply a quadrature by any means, then one is just asking for the determination of the area of a circle. This problem does appear in the Rhind Papyrus, but I consider it as just a precursor to the construction problem we are examining. The Rhind Papyrus The papyrus was found in Thebes (Luxor) in the ruins of a small building near the Ramesseum.1 It was purchased in 1858 in Egypt by the Scottish Egyptologist A.
  • This Page Intentionally Left Blank [50] Develop Computer Programs for Simplifying Sums That Involve Binomial Coe�Cients

    This Page Intentionally Left Blank [50] Develop Computer Programs for Simplifying Sums That Involve Binomial CoeCients

    This page intentionally left blank [50] Develop computer programs for simplifying sums that involve binomial coecients. Exercise 1.2.6.63 in The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms by Donald E. Knuth, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968. A=B Marko Petkovsek Herbert S. Wilf University of Ljubljana University of Pennsylvania Ljubljana, Slovenia Philadelphia, PA, USA Doron Zeilberger Temple University Philadelphia, PA, USA April 27, 1997 ii Contents Foreword vii A Quick Start ... ix IBackground 1 1 Proof Machines 3 1.1Evolutionoftheprovinceofhumanthought.............. 3 1.2Canonicalandnormalforms....................... 7 1.3Polynomialidentities........................... 8 1.4Proofsbyexample?............................ 9 1.5Trigonometricidentities......................... 11 1.6Fibonacciidentities............................ 12 1.7Symmetricfunctionidentities...................... 12 1.8Ellipticfunctionidentities........................ 13 2 Tightening the Target 17 2.1Introduction................................ 17 2.2Identities.................................. 21 2.3Humanandcomputerproofs;anexample................ 23 2.4AMathematicasession.......................... 27 2.5AMaplesession.............................. 29 2.6Whereweareandwhathappensnext.................. 30 2.7Exercises.................................. 31 3 The Hypergeometric Database 33 3.1Introduction................................ 33 3.2Hypergeometricseries........................... 34 3.3Howtoidentifyaseriesashypergeometric..............
  • Mathematicians

    Mathematicians

    MATHEMATICIANS [MATHEMATICIANS] Authors: Oliver Knill: 2000 Literature: Started from a list of names with birthdates grabbed from mactutor in 2000. Abbe [Abbe] Abbe Ernst (1840-1909) Abel [Abel] Abel Niels Henrik (1802-1829) Norwegian mathematician. Significant contributions to algebra and anal- ysis, in particular the study of groups and series. Famous for proving the insolubility of the quintic equation at the age of 19. AbrahamMax [AbrahamMax] Abraham Max (1875-1922) Ackermann [Ackermann] Ackermann Wilhelm (1896-1962) AdamsFrank [AdamsFrank] Adams J Frank (1930-1989) Adams [Adams] Adams John Couch (1819-1892) Adelard [Adelard] Adelard of Bath (1075-1160) Adler [Adler] Adler August (1863-1923) Adrain [Adrain] Adrain Robert (1775-1843) Aepinus [Aepinus] Aepinus Franz (1724-1802) Agnesi [Agnesi] Agnesi Maria (1718-1799) Ahlfors [Ahlfors] Ahlfors Lars (1907-1996) Finnish mathematician working in complex analysis, was also professor at Harvard from 1946, retiring in 1977. Ahlfors won both the Fields medal in 1936 and the Wolf prize in 1981. Ahmes [Ahmes] Ahmes (1680BC-1620BC) Aida [Aida] Aida Yasuaki (1747-1817) Aiken [Aiken] Aiken Howard (1900-1973) Airy [Airy] Airy George (1801-1892) Aitken [Aitken] Aitken Alec (1895-1967) Ajima [Ajima] Ajima Naonobu (1732-1798) Akhiezer [Akhiezer] Akhiezer Naum Ilich (1901-1980) Albanese [Albanese] Albanese Giacomo (1890-1948) Albert [Albert] Albert of Saxony (1316-1390) AlbertAbraham [AlbertAbraham] Albert A Adrian (1905-1972) Alberti [Alberti] Alberti Leone (1404-1472) Albertus [Albertus] Albertus Magnus
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"

    Plato As "Architectof Science"

    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
  • Squaring the Circle in Elliptic Geometry

    Squaring the Circle in Elliptic Geometry

    Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal Volume 18 Issue 2 Article 1 Squaring the Circle in Elliptic Geometry Noah Davis Aquinas College Kyle Jansens Aquinas College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj Recommended Citation Davis, Noah and Jansens, Kyle (2017) "Squaring the Circle in Elliptic Geometry," Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal: Vol. 18 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj/vol18/iss2/1 Rose- Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal squaring the circle in elliptic geometry Noah Davis a Kyle Jansensb Volume 18, No. 2, Fall 2017 Sponsored by Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Department of Mathematics Terre Haute, IN 47803 a [email protected] Aquinas College b scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj Aquinas College Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal Volume 18, No. 2, Fall 2017 squaring the circle in elliptic geometry Noah Davis Kyle Jansens Abstract. Constructing a regular quadrilateral (square) and circle of equal area was proved impossible in Euclidean geometry in 1882. Hyperbolic geometry, however, allows this construction. In this article, we complete the story, providing and proving a construction for squaring the circle in elliptic geometry. We also find the same additional requirements as the hyperbolic case: only certain angle sizes work for the squares and only certain radius sizes work for the circles; and the square and circle constructions do not rely on each other. Acknowledgements: We thank the Mohler-Thompson Program for supporting our work in summer 2014. Page 2 RHIT Undergrad. Math. J., Vol. 18, No. 2 1 Introduction In the Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Math Journal, 15 1 2014, Noah Davis demonstrated the construction of a hyperbolic circle and hyperbolic square in the Poincar´edisk [1].
  • Växjö University

    Växjö University

    School of Mathematics and System Engineering Reports from MSI - Rapporter från MSI Växjö University Geometrical Constructions Tanveer Sabir Aamir Muneer June MSI Report 09021 2009 Växjö University ISSN 1650-2647 SE-351 95 VÄXJÖ ISRN VXU/MSI/MA/E/--09021/--SE Tanveer Sabir Aamir Muneer Trisecting the Angle, Doubling the Cube, Squaring the Circle and Construction of n-gons Master thesis Mathematics 2009 Växjö University Abstract In this thesis, we are dealing with following four problems (i) Trisecting the angle; (ii) Doubling the cube; (iii) Squaring the circle; (iv) Construction of all regular polygons; With the help of field extensions, a part of the theory of abstract algebra, these problems seems to be impossible by using unmarked ruler and compass. First two problems, trisecting the angle and doubling the cube are solved by using marked ruler and compass, because when we use marked ruler more points are possible to con- struct and with the help of these points more figures are possible to construct. The problems, squaring the circle and Construction of all regular polygons are still im- possible to solve. iii Key-words: iv Acknowledgments We are obliged to our supervisor Per-Anders Svensson for accepting and giving us chance to do our thesis under his kind supervision. We are also thankful to our Programme Man- ager Marcus Nilsson for his work that set up a road map for us. We wish to thank Astrid Hilbert for being in Växjö and teaching us, She is really a cool, calm and knowledgeable, as an educator should. We also want to thank of our head of department and teachers who time to time supported in different subjects.
  • On the Standard Lengths of Angle Bisectors and the Angle Bisector Theorem

    On the Standard Lengths of Angle Bisectors and the Angle Bisector Theorem

    Global Journal of Advanced Research on Classical and Modern Geometries ISSN: 2284-5569, pp.15-27 ON THE STANDARD LENGTHS OF ANGLE BISECTORS AND THE ANGLE BISECTOR THEOREM G.W INDIKA SHAMEERA AMARASINGHE ABSTRACT. In this paper the author unveils several alternative proofs for the standard lengths of Angle Bisectors and Angle Bisector Theorem in any triangle, along with some new useful derivatives of them. 2010 Mathematical Subject Classification: 97G40 Keywords and phrases: Angle Bisector theorem, Parallel lines, Pythagoras Theorem, Similar triangles. 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper the author introduces alternative proofs for the standard length of An- gle Bisectors and the Angle Bisector Theorem in classical Euclidean Plane Geometry, on a concise elementary format while promoting the significance of them by acquainting some prominent generalized side length ratios within any two distinct triangles existed with some certain correlations of their corresponding angles, as new lemmas. Within this paper 8 new alternative proofs are exposed by the author on the angle bisection, 3 new proofs each for the lengths of the Angle Bisectors by various perspectives with also 5 new proofs for the Angle Bisector Theorem. 1.1. The Standard Length of the Angle Bisector Date: 1 February 2012 . 15 G.W Indika Shameera Amarasinghe The length of the angle bisector of a standard triangle such as AD in figure 1.1 is AD2 = AB · AC − BD · DC, or AD2 = bc 1 − (a2/(b + c)2) according to the standard notation of a triangle as it was initially proved by an extension of the angle bisector up to the circumcircle of the triangle.
  • He One and the Dyad: the Foundations of Ancient Mathematics1 What Exists Instead of Ininite Space in Euclid’S Elements?

    He One and the Dyad: the Foundations of Ancient Mathematics1 What Exists Instead of Ininite Space in Euclid’S Elements?

    ARCHIWUM HISTORII FILOZOFII I MYŚLI SPOŁECZNEJ • ARCHIVE OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL THOUGHT VOL. 59/2014 • ISSN 0066–6874 Zbigniew Król he One and the Dyad: the Foundations of Ancient Mathematics1 What Exists Instead of Ininite Space in Euclid’s Elements? ABSTRACT: his paper contains a new interpretation of Euclidean geometry. It is argued that ancient Euclidean geometry was created in a quite diferent intuitive model (or frame), without ininite space, ininite lines and surfaces. his ancient intuitive model of Euclidean geometry is reconstructed in connection with Plato’s unwritten doctrine. he model cre- ates a kind of “hermeneutical horizon” determining the explicit content and mathematical methods used. In the irst section of the paper, it is argued that there are no actually ininite concepts in Euclid’s Elements. In the second section, it is argued that ancient mathematics is based on Plato’s highest principles: the One and the Dyad and the role of agrapha dogmata is unveiled. KEYWORDS: Euclidean geometry • Euclid’s Elements • ancient mathematics • Plato’s unwrit- ten doctrine • philosophical hermeneutics • history of science and mathematics • philosophy of mathematics • philosophy of science he possibility to imagine all of the theorems from Euclid’s Elements in a Tquite diferent intuitive framework is interesting from the philosophical point of view. I can give one example showing how it was possible to lose the genuine image of Euclidean geometry. In many translations into Latin (Heiberg) and English (Heath) of the theorems from Book X, the term “area” (spatium) is used. For instance, the translations of X. 26 are as follows: ,,Spatium medium non excedit medium spatio rationali” and “A medial area does not exceed a medial area by a rational area”2.