lertioe, etc..

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

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

36

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

7
o

poris of

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

Let DG contoin os mony ports of F os AB contoins porfs o C. Now you must no stop dlviding F until you reoch the. first port of it thot is less thon EG. Let thot port be . This is less thon EG. Let us toke o similor pori o c, soy K. Then we subtroct rom DE

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

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

14
'15

19
2A

22 23 24

.t

to DE, then the three condilions o being equol, exceeding ond olling short ,.r"afy ound, ond therefore the proportion () is'sound, ond thot is whot we wished
equol

to demonstrote

(14).

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

p I o

c lhird to the fourth, some Ports with the property thot the ports of the {ound only ot" the LrJn ond of he second fourth too ore second ore iound to exceed the {irst mognitude if ihe ports ol l[" c is greoter AB to of rotio the instonce or lf found to exceed the first mognitucle. F hove the ond C thon the rorio of DE 1; f, I ioy thot oll equol ports token rom exceed DE' will too F ports of the ic,*s of C ""te"d' AB, ;;;;til tnoi *f,"" the so, viz' if be could thot if For, soid. we thon be otherwise t proot is thot it con not found to exceed "' C were ports of the thot property the hod F c ond ports of ,o*u ,or" C exceeding AB S ond the ports o{ F were not {ound to exceed DE, iet the ports of AG ore some ond DH Now DH' DE, exceed be AG ond such ports of F thq do not ports of c, ond contoins AB F thon ports of more conioins DE port, or F o,nd C, ond AB o C rotio of the so the rotio o DE to F is greoter thon the rotio of AB to C; bui C ore ports of no Jherefore impossible. is *r' *" g*oter. This is o controdiciion, it wonted we whot this is ond DE; F exceed ports of some founcl exeeding AB, unless the HE to demonslrote. A BG D -t-+f -r'# After mentioning oll this, I soy hot when c oi iow mognitJdes the rotio o the irst to I hr----l l he of the rotio thon greoier ihe second is ourth with the third to the {ourih, some ports con be found o the second ond the ond the ports mognitude first the of short r"riy rhor rhe port, oi the second foll rotio of A the instonce, or lf, mognitude. third rhe o of the fourth do not foll short find some io possible to B is greoter thon the roio of C to D, then I soy 'thot -it isA ond the of short foll o_B ports .ru pJrt, of B ond -*ii nf.' property thot the token ports some o ound is ihis thot proo is c. the p"rt, ii D do no, olirho* of unless the found, not A ore o short {olling of ports {o,othur*ir" r"* S ond D, the rotio o{ oorts of D oll short o C. And olso, becous we hove supposed thot ports we equol whotever thot ii is certoin to D, -i. A gr";ter thon the rotio o C exceed too of D ports he A i p, g to exceed ound 'r B only ore ports of the ind of ;na D ore C, os we hove demonstroted in the preceding proposition. Therefore A, B, C, ports the if hot property lhe hove D -our mognltudes ond oll ports token irom B ond A the of foll short B ports o the when C, ond D exceed of B exed A the ports of D' We C to of rotio the B is to os A o the rotio Thereore C. of shori oll "Ur "t D

L MG N F--{-{-.-|_{ *--t-t

40

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

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

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

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

of the

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

9 10
11

12 13

42

43

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

of the

2
J

4 5 7
B

to lhree given ond known

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

10
11

12

13

't4
'l 5

1 17 1B 19 20
21

22 23

24
25

44

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

I
9

10
11

AbO (Abd Allh Muhqmmod ibn Mu(dh ol-Dioiin, God hove mercy upon him.

to the reosoning of the okh

12

46

47

ru.
'I

OHER COMMENTARIES

ON

RATIO.

definition of proportionol mognitudes. For o better understonding of whot could be soid oboui the outherrticity of ihe Greek text one must toke into occount the port thot Theon of Alexondrio octed in is trodition. About ihis Diiksterhuis (2) writes the ollowing, "The woy in which the text of the Elemenls hos reoched us hos been greotly inluenced by the version o it written by Theon of Alexondrio (end of the 4th century A.D.). Theon's obiect seems to hove been no so much to render the text os pure os possible os to moke the confenls os cleor os posslble; he rectified ,n-ors, or whcrt he thought to be errors, modernised the mode of expression, inserled propositions, corrollories ond coses thot Euclid opporently hod thought superfluous, ond elucidoted the course of proos where he thought it lioble for possible dificulties. The consequence of this opening up the work wos thot loter Greek outhors used Theon's iext olmost exclusively, ond perhops one never wculd hove ound out how much he oltered in ihe other wordings, if Peyro.rd hod not discovered in I 8l 0 o monuscript the ext of which wos older thon Theon's. This so-ccrlled monuscript P wos used by Heiberg in composing ihe fomous text-edition thot by this time generolly underlies the study of Euclid." 3. The firsi seven definitions in Book 5 occording to Heiberg ore, oc'. Mpoq oci pye0oe g.ey0ouq c l. A mogniiude is o port o o mogniorooov roU pe(ovoq, 6rav xxrutude. the less of the greoter, when perp r pe(ov. it meosures the greoter. p'. IIo),ocn).otov 8 c pre(ov coU 2. The greoter is o multiple of the less &rcovoq, (nav x*ragerpicar, r when it is meosured by the less.

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

'. yov 7.er,.r rpq ,ii).l1).oc

yerocr,,

peyOr1

& 8vorrar no),),ocrcocor,a(5.

pr,eva ritr1cov rcepXer,v.

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

e'.

'Ev rQ arlcQ ).yqo g.e101 ),ye'cat ev*r, rp6rov npg ecepov xai tprov Yrpq crapcov, 6tav td, coU nptou xocl cptou iod.xr.6 no),),otr\ctovtx rv roU eurpou v"d.i 'cerdpcou ioxr,q no),ocnao<,.tv xotO' nor,ovoUv zroarc).ocor,ao6r,v x,i' epov xo(pou i &pa nep11 i &p"ao,x fi t &p" eq tr190vca
xarct),1*.

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

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

q'. T e rv aritv Xovcoc tryov

pe"1fu d,vo"1ov xaeo0o.

Let mognitudes which hove he sotne rotio be colled proportionol.

7.

('.

"Otav 8 tv ioxr,q no).azcocouv c pv toU nptou zco).ctn),&otov rep1p coii 'roU Seucpou rco),azctraoiou, c 8 toU tp'rou ro).orco$ co6 tec&.p' nd.ouov g,l '5zepX1 ou rcolo(?rlaoiou, rte t rcptov
zrpq
ecepov pr.e(ova yov Xerv yecar, iinep t cptov rcpg

of the equinumerol multiples the multiple o the first exceeds the multiple of the second, the multiple
When
of rhe third however does not exceed the multiple of the ourth, then the irst is sojd lo hqve o greoier rotio

to the second ihon the third hos

the fourih.

to

c tcaptov.
These must b,e completed by the following oddltions'

o.

in y':

np6 &trr1)'a (rcor, oXorq),

(some siole)

to be tronsloied os,

with regord io eoch olher; ond

y'.

roU ),rtovoq. yoq oti o pr.eye0v pr.oyevdv \ xa-r n"r1)l.N6r7r now otr,or,q.

b. oter

c'X,6r4i

3.

Rotio is some stote of two mognitudes

d,vaoyoc 8

i cv y<,rv rev\e

in conneciion with

size.

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

48

49

c. or ofter 6': d,vaoyor 8 otrv { rv y<ov p,orr46 to be tronsloted os: Proportion is the conormity o rotios.

by hem, the numbers of times (quoiients) in lhese meosurements ore the some; ond
thus crd ininitum." So or ol-M6hdn.

4.

On these definitions Thbir ibn Qurro (3) hod giverr his opinion, with reerence to which ol-Mhni (4) wrote o treotise (5). ln this -he remorks ihoi the former or o beter understonding o rotio hod referred to numerol rotios (iumkinu li,l_)insni on (olo'rhi min qiboli 'l-mo(rifori bi'l-nisboti (ol ,l-sobli ,l-lodo<Jioti). ioqio under th.e heoding "ratio" (i 'l-nisboti) he writes, ,,The rotio of two homogeneous mognitudes ond olso thot of two numbers is the stote (ol_hlu) of either of them when meosured by the other ((indo toqdrihi li-shibihi) or. .onuur."ly. Three coses must

5.

be distinguished:

l'

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

is left;

2. the less does not ioke up the greoer

let
less thon the less; when

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

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

entirely but of the greoter (something) is he less is meosured by rhis (reoinder), then it kes it up entirely r (something) is left less hon the firs remoinder; when now the irst (remoinder) is meosured by this (second remoinder) then it tokes it up entirely, r o remoinder is let; when now the second (remoinder) is meosured by'this (thiiJ

The well-known commenory () o ol-Noirizi (Z) is olso importont in view of the trodition o the text, os it is odded lo the tronslotion of the Elements by ol-Hodidldi (8). The definiions begin os ollows, "The less mognitude is o port (diuz'un) of the greoter when it meosures the greoier (kno iuqoddiru)." To this is odded in the morgin, "Parl, such is o mogniude of n mognitude, the less of the greoter, when jt meqsures the greoter". "Also the greoler is o multiple o the less when it is meosured by the less" ond further' "Rotio is o cerioin relotion (idotun) os to meosure (qodrun) between wo mognitudes of the some species", to which is odded in the morgin: "Rotio is the identiicotion (oiiiio,un) (9) of the meosurement of two homogeneous mognitudes, eoch of ihem with regcrrd io the other, whotever the meosure might be." Then ollows thot "rotio is the slote of one quoniiiy (qodrun) with regord to onother quontity of the some species." This stoie is "o reloiion of one of two mognitudes with the other, I meon thot the first is meosured by the oher". O this stoe two vorieties crre found, viz. the stote of commensurobility (ol-isitirku) ond the stote of incommensurobility (ol-tobdiunu). As to the stote of commensurobility, it implies for the two mognitudes ihe existence o onother mogniiude thot meosures both entirely (iotudduhum diom(on), or thot one o them meosures the other. l one of them meosures the other the stote o the less with regord to lhe greoter is the stote of ihe port (ol-djuz'u) ond the stote of ihe greoter with regord to the less is the stote of the multiple (ol-od(fu). lf however o the greoter o remoinder is left less thon the less mognitude, ihen this remoinder is bound to meosure the less mognitude orrd to toke it up entirely (iostoghriquhu) in meosuring (bi'l-(oddi), r o the less o remoinder is let less thon the first remoinder. When this meosures the less mognitude ond tokes it up entirely in meosuring, hen this remoinder is the third mognitude tho meosures lhe fwo commensuroble mognitudes. lf however o remoinder is left less ihon ihe {irst remoinder, lhen this second remoinder is ogoin bound to meosure the irst remoinder ond to toke it up entirely in meosuring,
unless

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

50

5l

is lhe stoe of pors (hlu'l-'odiz)i), whirst ihot remoinder is one of the ports o the greoter, or the ofoir dces noi orrive ot o remoinder thot meosures the foregoing enirely, but the process continues od ininitum. This losi stote of one mognitude wilh regord fo the other is the stote of incommensurobility.,,

(with regord to eoch other)." The outhor then eloborotes this point giving due ottention the numbers of imes (quotients) thot eoch remoinder meosure-s thJ foregoing, o Iess remoinder olwoys being left ot the end. Thereupon he soys,,,When thi. qrnce (ol-todwulu) in meosuring the remoinders never ceoses to lurn out equolly od infinitum. then it is soid thot the mogniiudes, their stote being os mentioned, ore proporlionol, ond this stote is he stote of similority o roios.,, After this he outhor first gives on exomple ond extends his reosoning to the stote of being greoter in rotio, whereupon he soys thot Euclid gives ihe deinition,,,Four mogniludes ore soid to'be in one roiio (f nisboiin whidoiin), the first to ihe second ond the third 1o the fourth, when equinumerol (ol-mutoswiiotu 'l-morrri) multiples of the first ond third, eiiher olike exceed, or olike ore equol to, or olike foll short of equinumerol multiples of the second ond fourih, when compored consecutively (idh qisot col'l-wil)i) one with the other. The outhor expresses his opinion,,thot tLis is o mcrler lhot does not need o proo, becouse it belongs to the principles for him who hos odvonced so {or. For every book (10) hos its principles occording to its ploce in the ronge of books (inno hdh sioi)un loiso luhtdiu (oloihi il burnin li-onnohu mino (indo
1o

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

He (i.e. Euclid) soys similority, becouse this stote is o quolity (koifiiotun) ond no o quo.ntity (kommiotun)' For when the stote of ihe irst two mognitudes (with regord to eoch other) is the stote of equolity, then the stote of the othr two mognitudes (with regord to eoch other) is the stote of equolity too; ond when the stote of he irst two mogniudes is the stote of multiple, or the siote of port, or the stote of poris, or one of the other slotes of rotio thot ore found in the cose of commensuroble mognitudes

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

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

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

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

6.

is not numerol (ghoiru .ododlotin)." Numerol roiios ore the rotio of equolity, the multiple ond the ports, o non-numerol rotio is the roiio hot con be ound bui connot be expr,essed (hiio md iumkinu on i0diodo wo Id iumkinu on iuntoqo bi-h). This rotjo is found wiih the continuous quoniities (i'l-kommioti 'l-muitosiloti), bu it moy olso be ound with numbers, or inslonce where irrotionol roots ore concerned. On the rotio ound with continuous mognitudes he outhor soys thot fhis rotjo is subdivided

'l-ow'ili

mon inroh il hdh'l-mowdi(i idh kno li-kulli moqlotin ow)ilu

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

J1

53

'l-mo(n 'lldhi

kommijori 'l-moqdiri

.proportionol mognitudes ore hose hoving the soid chorocteriiiic l.h*orni "And", soys ibn ol-Hoithom, "upon my lie, it is on indispensoble chorocleristic (chssoun lzimotun) o. proportionol mognitudes. However, when only stoted ii is not cleorly underslood (ill onnoh loisot zhiroton li 'l-fohmi bi- mudiolrodi ,l-qouli), but needs o proof." To the proof he gives lwill return loter on (13).
So for ibn ol-Hoithom.

thot

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

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

Of lhe commentory 7.. "roiio ond

(14)

meosu.re*.(oij1otu qodri) of two homogeneous mognitudes, one wiih regord to the other." Then the ouhor exploins the meoning of htmogeneous by meons o Euclid,s next deinition (the 4th), ofter which he returns to the foregoing one. He develops the succession of possibilities in the usuol woy, viz. orguing- thJt the less is either o port of the greoter ond tokes it up entirely when they ors reloted to one onother, or it is ports o it, or yet something else ((olo wodihin choro).,, After this he soys thot "it is chorocteristic o quontity to be submittobie to the considerotion of eqrol or unequol. Now rotio is ihe essence of this considerotion when two homogeneous mognitudes ore reloted lo one onolher ond of the consideroiion of someth'g else connected with it, ond this is the mogniude (miqdru) of thot rotio when it is J rotio

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

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

wirh

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

Lt^ JT

55

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

o,taussroN oF THF

DTFFERENT

..MMENTARTES AND EVALUA'.N

PURPORT.

OF THEIR

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

for cUmor ol-Choiinri.

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

The Arobion commenlories quoted

in the foregoing chopier show o

striking

2. lt is more thon likely thot

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

remoinder by the second remoinder ond ind thot

Hence we

hove,

11

it

goes

times

in it

precisely.

3r2

3=ilr
5

:; =l;Ji,=fl;

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

Zeuthen's solution is the following.

ln his commentory Alexonder soys upon the possoge mentioned: "The definition now proportionol ore mognitudes to one onother of proportion 'hove thot the oncients used is this: however colled the dv0uga9eol6 . Aristotle the so,me d,v0ugcrpE6tq which ." &vravaLpectq It is evldent ihot for Alexonder the meoning of dv0ugapeor,q must hove been perfectly cleor. From where then did he get the ierm? An obvious coniecture is: from Euclid, whom he cites more thon once ond whose work he supposes to be common knowledge. Now Euclid does no use lhe noun, but in 7; 1,2 ond l0; 2,3 he uses fhe verb civ0ugaupev in the sence of subtrocting in turn one mogntude or number or o remoinder of ii from the other or its remoinder in order to find the greotest common hqndled o proportion by meons of on d,v0ugotpeor,6 , i.e. ihey developed it into meosure. At this point of the reosoning he conclusion leops to the eye: the "oncients"

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

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

poir, irrespeciive of whether these series ore finite or infinite.

"Thot this method hos ployed o port in Greek mothemotics onyhow", soys Diiksterhuis in 1929 (4), "is confirmed by the monifoid occurrence o opproximofions of irrotionol volues thot upon exominoiion oppeor io be opproximoting froctions of developments into continued froctions". ln our exomple of this porogroph the rotio o o to b con be
expressed by'
d^l

4.

b_r

It-;'
-1

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

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

3.

pointed to lhe some obvious solulion. A more eloborote study of it wos then produced by Hosse ond Scholz (in 'l928) (5) ond in porticulor by Becker (in 'l93) ().

Hoving thus found by o lucky chonce o single possoge in Aristotle (ond not even in o mothemoticol work) pointing to the existence in the flowering oge of Greek mothemotics of o current conception of rotio devioting essentiolly from the Euclideon one, we find in the Moslim period on ovowed preference for the very ideos thot he Greeks seem to hove kept dork so coreully thot it oppeors to hove been done intentionolly. ln olmost every writing on the subiect fhe Euclideon process o inding he greotest common meosure of two mognitudes is ossumed os the noturol source of oll ideos obout rotio ond proportionolity. Nevertheless we must noi lose sight o the {oct thot qn eloborote Arobion theory of proportions, bosed on the onthyphoireticol conception of rotio hos no been found u,p to the present. I think it proboble thot this is moinly o consequnce o the greot perfection of uclid's woy of deoling with the subiect motter, o woy thot took the wind out of the soils of his rivols. Thot the Greeks did not so much qs mention the whole theory is not so surprising

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

58

59

fheir reoch, thence they wei"e impotient wiih oll thot could noi stond its est. For Sporton worrjors to dispose of weok infonts wos os noturol os the proctice of Greek mothemoticions in Euclid's oge never to publish onything in o siote o deeciiveness or uninished development; ond crs long os the onthyphoireiicol woy of deoling with proporiions could not beor comporison wiih the Euclideon method the)r were rglhr inclined to ignore il. They invented the synthetic woy of enuncioting fhe outcome of fhe)r invesligotions, ihot up io the present is used in most mothemoticol textbooks. The exception thot proved the rule wos ound in 'l90 by Heiberg, the so-colled Ephodos of Archlmedes, o writing by the greot mothemoiicion deoling with he woy in which he hod deduced some theorems thot he hod proved elsewhere in o rigorous woy b,y
exhoustion (7). mothemoticol proc{uctivity must oke occount of o diference in ottitude belween the Greeks ond the Arobion scientists o the middle o'ges. The Iotier enterloined o deeprooted venerotion for the Greek clossics, toking them for perfect olmost by oxiom. As to their own work, however, they hod no pretensions of

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

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

5. A posiive evoluotion of Moslim

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

to the following.

Three premisses precede:

6.

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

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

l.

of

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

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

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

into

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

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

7.

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

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

lf our mogniudes
n->

such

pp

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

62

(). t

inconsistent with the supposilion

mus be reiected.

hot

AB

'C:

DG

'

F. This supposition thereore DG

AB:C-DE:F.

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

is only true

, F leods to o
thot

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

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

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

8.

mothemoiiciens betroys

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

9. ln his introduction o

Book 5 ql-T0s declores thot meosuring one mognitude by the other is the essence of rotio. He distinguishes four coses, viz. equolity, port or

thot ; B ?

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

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

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

iresis."

to the mognitudes A, B, C ond D, then

B > Awould cxception,while? q-9'

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

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

64

Proof' As he rotio of

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

ond is equol

i it is equol to it, ond qlls short i il olls short. But E ond F ore

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

CHAPTER

II. NOTES ON THE

TEXT.

8.3 8.9
b. z

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

C. 1B D.5 D. l4

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

bi-kithroii tod(fin iuqlu lo-hum 'l-mutobo(inni

ol-miqdrni
li-onnohum

8,4

'I

I^

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

' I reod , I reod ,

reod

sioi)un wo-l on ioqOlo ond ot the end : wo-l onno (on-hu nqisoton ond hol-woy : oqollu mim-m

F.3
F.
14
21

idh knor odlz'u 'l-r6bi(i iuswi'l-miqdro'l-thlithq ill wo-odjz)u z nqisotun tr:n dh _ ond further, o-oq0lu onno nisboto 'ob il di I reod , o-in kdno h-h osghoro min z I reod , wol-tokun titko 'l-fus0lu dh lrn mn I reod , nisbotu 'U lta a1 I suppress the second , whidin

" I.

r. t.

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

22

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

I reod ' dhO od'fin I reod , wo-uqoddomu m iuhfddju iloihi mithdluhu I reod , mo(o 'l-od'fi li'l-dchoro iozhoru f 'l-odiz)i wo jo(ridu -h I reod (ot the end) li 'l-thn I reod ' li-ihdhumo' I reod , l t0diodu qd({u 'l-owwoli I reod, ol-ju)chodh li-wo Ji od'fun mutoswiiotur
:

N.2 N. I4 N 19,20

N. 2r N. 22

o.

I reod , wo-min-d dkliko 'l-diuz)o I reod ot the end : ollqt I reod , osghoru min hh I reod, fo-jok0nu to okboro min )ob kom onno dn okboru min dh I reod , 'o okboru min Eb I reod , odlz'u i nqisoion I reod ' ol-mo'ch0dholu min d I reod ' hdh 'l-kitAbi I reod ' li 'l-thn wo 'l-rdbi(i
I insert ot the beginning : o-in lom lr)diod

ond urther

wo-lijb wo

19

P, I P. t8

Q.4

66

67

CHAPTER

I. NOTES ON

THE TRANSLATION.

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

Proo' Supposethotsuch pond q could nol be ound, then

I t

Awould
,

I do not know ony commentotor of this nome. The word remotely recolls'ovo8o too. The 2nd Postuloe.

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

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

Conyhow,sothot

il on

(l)

Euclid

5; l2 hos nothing o the kind, but ; l2 gives the construction o the fourth proportionol. he possoge is not quite cleor.

Euclidesn view

thot mognitudes ore divisible od infinilum, while numbers

one.

os

(.l0)

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

composed of lndivisible units ore not.

(ll)

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

o mognitude DG is not colled in

question.

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

ond vice
verso.

thennB -< mAinvolvesnD 5

involves-1

mC

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

q

F:DE.

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

a DE, which
p q

(15)

lf
q

A, B > C,

D,then itispossibletoind some p ond q, sotho

B(Aond

! o c.
8

69

CHAPTER , , .:
.
(

III.

NOTES.
i I

..,

CHAPTER IV. NOTES.

Algiers 1446, 30.

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

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

o,

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

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

ldem, l.c. hoofdstuk V. ldem, l.c. hoofdstuk V, 4. ldem, l.c. blz.73.

Hosse, Helmut und Scholz, Heinrich.

Groningen. Deel
l);lo-. 8

l, blz. 109. :

of he suryey in chop,tgr

1.,

No. 7 of idem. Poris 2467, 160, 197 Vo (-207). Probobly (portly) the some, Berlin 009, I 34 b - 38 o; Corulloh 1502, 50, 25 o - 26 b.

(5)

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

1928.

()

Krokou 59. Anoritii in decem Iibros priores elementorum Euclidis commentorii. Tronslotion by Gerord of Cremono. Books I - 10. 'l899 (Euclidis opero omnio, Suppleldem edidit Mox. Curtze, Teubner, Leipzig,
mentum).

() (7)
(8) (9)

2, H. 4,31 I - 333, 1933.

Dijksierhuis, Lc. blz. 58. The

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

d. Moth. Abt.

B,

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

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

(7)

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

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

935.
l.

is right ofter oll.

The

(10) No. 43 of the survey in chopter

(]0) Add' o fhe

(l

Elements.

l) No. 3l o the survey in chopter L (12) Algiers 1446, 10. Probobly (portly) the some: Oxord I 908, I 0. Feyzulloh 1359,2o, 150-237o. Seroy 3454,20, (Books 5 ond only). Brusso, Horroccizode, Heyet 20, I o. Steinschneider, Hebr. Uebers, 314, 24.
(r 3) Poge 1.

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

v0

71

STELLINGEN

t.

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

". . . . und ijr

metrein wird qodoro oder (oddo geselzt,

p.

292)

continuirliche oder discrete Grssen hondelt./'

il.

ie

nochdem es sich um

De mening von Oscor Becker (Eudoxos-Studien l, Quellen und Studien z. Gesch. d. Moth. Abt. 8,2, H.4, 3l l-333, 1939) ". . dosz von der onthyphoiretischen Theorie ous keine direkte Beweismglichkeit von V, fijr olgemeine Grsse besteht" (dot in een redenheorie geboseerd op de onwikkeling von verhoudingen in kettingbreuken de stelling, dot in een evenredigheid de binnentermen verwisseld mogen worden, niet voor olgemene grootheden bewezen kon worden) is ongegrond.
1il.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Het door Korl Duncker (Zur Psychologie des Produktiven Denkens, Berlin, r935, s. 2) uitgesproken beginsel, ". . . . dosz ein sochverholt sich in der Regel durch weniger Momenle (Aspekte) oufbouen lciszt, ols nochher vermge neuer ,,Betrochtungsweisen" ihm von obgelesen werden knnen", kon een ruirne loepossing vinden in de didqctiek -

der wiskunde.

X,

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

xt.

Dot de bloedinoxicotie von Mosso en de stofwisselingsverhoging von Jongbloed direc verbond stoon met de eigenliike geesteliike orbeid, is niei bewezen.
xt1.

in

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