From A Particular Diagram To A Universal Result: Euclid 'S Elements, Book I

From a Particular Diagram to a Universal Result:
Euclids Elements, Book I1

DWAYNE RAYMOND
Department of Philosophy
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas, 77843-4237
USA
d-raymond@philosophy.tamu.edu
Abstract
I argue that Euclids highly abstract definitions in Book I of the Elements play a key role,
enabling general conclusions from particular diagrams. I argue four points. First, definitions limit focus to the most generalized features of elementary geometrical objects. Second, an explicit reciprocal dependency relation exists between figure and boundary.
Third, Euclids derivation style employs a combination of diagrams in tandem with the
highly abstract definitions. Fourth, this combination renders all non-universal features
of a particular diagram irrelevant. The result limits the role of diagrams in a way that is
reminiscent of Aristotles characterization of the geometers use of diagrams.
Keywords: Euclid; Diagrammatic Proofs; Co-relatives.
1 Introduction
It is well-known that Euclid obtains universal results from particular geometrical constructions.2 How? In opposition to Ian Muellers view that
Euclids definitions of the most elementary geometrical objects points,
lines, straight lines, angles, etc., are mathematically useless and never invoked in the subsequent development3 of Euclids geometry, I will argue
2
3
I should like to acknowledge the helpful comments of anonymous reviewers, Robin

Smith and the participants comments from the 2010 Joint Session of the Aristotelian
Society and the Mind Association.
Euclid The Thirteen Books of the Elements vol I, II, III, trans. Sir T. Heath (Dover,
1956).
Mueller, I. Philosophy of Mathematics and Deductive Structure in Euclids Elements
(MIT Press, 1981), 40.
apeiron, vol. 44, pp. 211218

Walter de Gruyter 2011
Brought to you by | Fordham University Library

DOI 10.1515/apeiron.2011.014
Authenticated | 150.108.161.71
Download Date | 5/2/13 2:03 PM
212
Dwayne Raymond
that all of his definitions, including those of the most elementary objects,
are fundamental to that development. And, in opposition to Reviel Netz,
who holds that no use can be made of such definitions in the course of
first-order, demonstrative discourse, 4 I will argue that Euclids definitions
play a crucial role in establishing a universal result with a particular diagram. They are fundamental to Euclids diagrammatic reasoning. That is,
the definitions are not simply a kind of second-order discourse about
mathematics in which [b]efore getting down to work, the mathematician
describes what he is doing,5 but rather, Euclids definitions, including
those of the most elementary objects, are significant to his style of deduction in Book I in at least four ways:
First, the definitions of point and line, etc., limit the focus to the most generalized
features of elementary geometrical objects.
Second, an explicit reciprocal dependency relation establishes a non-hierarchical codependency between geometrical objects in the form of boundary and figure.
Third, Euclids derivation style employs a combination of diagrams in tandem with
the highly abstract definitions. Reciprocal dependency relations contribute to the
logical structure within the diagrammatic reasoning.
Fourth, this combination renders all non-universal features of a particular diagram
irrelevant and the use of reciprocal dependency relations limits the role of the diagram in a way that is reminiscent of Aristotles characterization of the geometers
use of diagrams: the diagrams make the truth of a fact obvious, the geometer does
not reason on the basis of a drawn line, but on the basis of the facts made clear by
them.6 Highly abstract geometrical objects are linked together via co-relatives.
In short, the particular, non-universal features of a diagram are systematically excluded from having a role in the demonstrations. In this way, the
geometer does not reason on the basis of a drawn line, but on the basis of
the facts made clear by them.
The combination of definitions and diagrams provides for a style of
deduction that exploits the heuristic advantages of diagrams, while managing the concern that accidental properties may lead one astray. The
highly abstract definitions of point and line severely limit ones attention
to highly abstract features in the diagram. The combination of definitions
and diagrams effectively removes accidental features of the diagram from
the proof. The reciprocal dependency relation (the co-relative pairing) between figure and boundary maximizes our ability to exploit the heuristic
advantages of reasoning with diagrams. The reciprocal relation allows us
to move in both directions.7
4
5
6
7
Netz, R. The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics (CUP, 1999), 95

Netz, Shaping, 95.
Aristotle Posterior Analytics 77a 13.
This needs to be studied in the context of the analysis and synthesis.

From a Particular Diagram to a Universal Result
213
2 Discussion
Mueller distinguishes between definitions that are simply part of a traditional list and have no role in the demonstration, and those that are essential to the demonstrations.8 While Mueller acknowledges that there is no
evidence that the difference between these two sorts of definitions were
felt by the Greeks,9 there does appear to be a divide between highly abstract definitions whose function is not obvious, and more robust definitions whose role in a demonstration is more transparent. For example, the
definitions for a point, a line, and a surface appear to be unlike the definitions for figures such as circles.
A point is that which has no parts.10
A line is breadthless length.11
A surface is that which has length and breadth only.12
A circle is a plane figure contained by one line in such a way that all straight lines
falling upon it from one point among those lying within the figure are equal to one
another.13
It has been suggested that the highly abstract definitions of a point, a

line, and a surface merely reflect the way in which the work of predecessors enters into the Elements.14 Szabo, for example, relies upon the
lack of apparent functionality in proofs when he dates these definitions
earlier than those that have a role in the derivation.15 The complex
definition of a circle, however, clearly provides a context in which the
lengths of lines are equated. Whereas the former appear to play no role
in a demonstration, the latter is designed to contribute to geometrical
constructions. Indeed, the definition of a circle does contribute to Euclids constructions, such as in Book I, Proposition 1, as will be shown
below.
Despite the surface appearances, the highly abstract definitions of
point and line are not ornamental. They too contribute to the geometrical
constructions. In fact, their high degree of abstraction is required by the
function that they have in a demonstration. That function is to exclude
all but the most universalized features from the demonstration. How do
they perform this role?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mueller, Philosophy of., 38.

Mueller, Philosophy of., 40.
Euclid, Elements vol. I, 153.
Mueller, Philosophy of., 38; Heaths commentary in Euclid, Elements vol. I, 151.
Szabo, A. The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics (Reidel, 1978).

214
Dwayne Raymond
My answer fleshes out how Aristotle characterizes the use of diagrams

by a geometer.16 Aristotle holds that diagrams aid in making the facts obvious and that the geometer reasons on the basis of facts made clear by
the diagram. I attempt to explain how this is done. The geometer predominantly reasons in terms of reciprocal dependency relations that exist
between highly abstractly defined geometrical objects. This combination
limits our attention to what is paired, which, in turn, is based upon highly
abstract features such as breadthless length.
Reciprocal dependency relations exist between attributes or properties
that always exist as a pair, if they are to exist at all.17 According to Aristotle, they are tested for by means of what I will call a co-demolition test.18
Two entities are reciprocally dependant if the destruction of A demolishes
B and the destruction of B co-demolishes A. For example, half of is reciprocally dependant with double of. Something is half of something only
in relation to something else, namely that of which it is double. And
something is double of something else, namely that which half of it. If
one exists, the other exists. The destruction of half of co-demolishes double of and the demolition of double of co-demolishes half of. The pairings hold between parts in diagrams; the parts are given definitions in the
Elements and stipulated in a diagram during the construction.
In the Elements Euclid relies upon these relations to create contexts.
For example, there is a reciprocal pairing between two intersecting lines
and the angle at which they intersect. The angle comes into existence
when the lines intersect. The angle and the two intersecting lines co-exist.
This is not minor feature. It plays a central role in the Elements, as Euclid
places previously defined material in new contexts. As we will see with the
circle, the context can provide the means by which objects are measured.
David Reed has astutely observed19 that Definitions 13 and 14 jointly specify a co-relative relationship between figure and boundary: A boundary is
that which is an extremity of any kind. 20 A figure is that which is contained by any boundary or boundaries.21
A figure is contained by a boundary and a boundary contains a figure.
To have a boundary is to have a figure and to have a figure is to have a
16
17
18
19
20
21

Aristotle presents a more robust account, allowing for different types of co-relatives
in both Categories 7 and Metaphysics V 15.
Aristotle, Topics VI, 4.
Reed, D. Figures of Thought (Routledge, 1995), 12. I am indebted to Reed for his
emphasis on context and measurement. Whereas I make several changes to his conception of co-relatives, I take over the bulk of his conceptual framework concerning
measurement.

215
boundary. Thus, the figure and boundary structure provides a framework

of reciprocal dependency relations. Euclid relies on it to define his figures.
For example, every time the figure circle exists, it is contained by a boundary and every time there is a boundary, there is a circle. Recall the definition: A circle is a plane figure contained by one line in such a way that
all straight lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within
the figure are equal to one another.
To be sure, definitions 1 for a point and 2 for a line do not make use of
figure and boundary. However, Euclids third definition states the co-relative
link between them: The extremities of a line are points.22 Since an extremity
is a boundary, whenever two points exist, there is a breadthless length between them. To remove the possibility that different lines exist between two
points, Euclid relies upon a construction postulate to limit the range of cases
under consideration. Postulate 1 of Book I allows us to draw a straight line
from any point to any point. No other shape of line is licensed. Thus, two
points are co-relative with a straight line. As noted, a pairing is also established between intersecting lines and angles; lines contain the angle. Thus,
lines are the boundary for the figure angle. Unlike lines, no limit is set on the
kind of angle that can exist. Rather than ruling out alternative possibilities,
the context that creates the angle creates an area to be studied. This area is
studied in the Elements Book I. Reed correctly observed that Euclid creates
the subject matter to be studied and the means to study it as he proceeds
through his work.23 What inform this, are exactly the test and the dependency relations that Aristotle attributes to the geometers in Topics VI, 4.
The reciprocity between figure-boundary provides a non-hierarchical
structure among the elements. It pairs together such highly abstract components as two points and breadthless length. The pairings are important
in a demonstration insofar as they restrict relevance. That is, the combination of highly abstract definitions and reciprocal relations informs the diagram by limiting our attention to that which is specified in the pairing.
The definitions make precise what is specified. The diagrams aid insofar as
they draw our attention to facts.
How does this work? Consider the construction proof for Proposition
1.1. In this proof reciprocal pairings create contexts in which comparisons
are made. Postulates specify a range of cases under consideration. In this
case, straight lines between two points are part of the investigation, as are
two circles. Common notions enable us to equate items that have already
been measured. For example, Common Notion 1 in Book 1 holds that:
Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.24
22
23
24

Reed, Figures, 12.

216
Dwayne Raymond
[Protasis (enunciation)] On a given finite straight line to construct an equilateral

triangle. [Ekthesis (setting out)] Let AB be the given finite straight line.
[Diorismos (definition of goal)] Thus it is required to construct an equilateral triangle on the straight line AB. [Kataskeu
(construction)] With centre A and distance AB let the circle B be described; again with the centre B and
the distance BA let the circle AE be
described; and from the point , in
which the circles cut one another, to
the points A, B let straight lines A,
B be joined. [Apodeixis (proof)] Now,
since the point A is the centre of circle
B, A is equal to AB. Again, since B is the centre of circle AE, B is equal to
BA. But A was also proved equal to AB; therefore each of the straight lines A,
B is equal to AB. And things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to
one another; therefore A is also equal to B. Therefore the three straight lines A,
AB, B are equal to one another. [Sumperasma (conclusion)] Therefore the triangle,
AB is equilateral; and it has been constructed on the given finite straight line AB.
(Being) what is required to do.25
In the first stage (protasis), a very general claim is enunciated consisting of

two parts: a condition (e.g., on a given line) and something that follows
either a task (e.g., construct an equilateral triangle) or a result (in the case
of a theorem). The second stage (ekthesis), sets out the very condition
noted in stage one. Stage three (diorismos) restates the original goal. The
fourth stage (kataskeu) constructs all the geometric objects required for
the proof. The proof that is given in the apodeixis stage makes reference
to the diagrams given in stage four. The proof ends when the desired result stated in the third stage (the diosismos) is obtained. Euclid ends his
presentation indicating that the protasis has been proven.
This procedure works with mathematically relevant features of the diagram. Those features are precisely those specified by the following reciprocal pairings.
Boundary
Figure
Two points
Line (breadthless length)
A boundary line such that all straight

lines falling upon it from one point
among those lying within the figure
are equal to one another
Circle
25

217
The proof begins with a line whose points are AB. While the drawn
line has breadth, the definition and the reciprocal pairing that links two
points with breadthless length renders all but the points and the breadthless length irrelevant to the demonstration. Since the object is to construct
an equilateral triangle, the demonstration proceeds by constructing two
circles: one with A at the centre and B on the circumference, called AE;
a second one with B at the centre and A on the circumference, called
B. Each circle (figure) coexists with its reciprocally dependent boundary. In drawing each circle, we simultaneously create a context to compare
lines: lines with one point on the center and falling on the circumference
are equal to one another. Since it is taken for granted that this construction is on the same plane, the two circles intersect at a point, called . We
now have two additional sets of two points, A and B. Given two points
a breadthless length co-exists between them automatically. Postulate 1 allows us to draw straight lines A and B, completing the respective pairings.
Each stage in this construction is governed by reciprocal pairings. The
members of each pairing are highly abstract, which limited properties.
Breadthless length co-exists between two points. All there is to a line is
length. Two lengths are measured within a context created by figureboundary pairing of a circle. The contexts for each of the circles establish
that line AB equals A and that B equals AB. The equivalency between
A and B is established by means of Common Notion 1: Things which
are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.26 As Reed observes,
the common notions do not establish contexts, they relate measured
things to each other.27 The contexts provide for measuring, and contexts
emerge via reciprocal pairings.
The particular diagram aided the study by drawing attention to geometrical facts. The highly abstract definitions, in combination with reciprocal relations, make many features of the diagram irrelevant. The scale
of the particular diagram, the thickness of the lines, even to some degree
the accuracy of the sketch, including the straightness of the lines, the
shape of the circle, the presumed location of the circles centre, all play no
role in the demonstration. The highly abstract definitions and the reciprocal pairings exclude non-universal items, such as non-essential features and
inexact renderings, from having a role in the demonstration. Provided that
the diagram is reasonably close, minor variations will not alter the result.
After all, if there is a circle, it co-exists with its boundary. That boundary
contains the context in which pairs of lines are equated. All lines, even if
they are not equal when a ruler, are equal by definition.
26
27

Reed, Figures, 19.

218
Dwayne Raymond
The tight reasoning results because of the reciprocal pairings and the
contexts to which they gave rise. They provide the necessity of the links.
And the highly-abstracted pairings contribute to the repeatability of the
proof. After all, the role of reciprocal pairs and highly abstract definitions
renders scale irrelevant to the demonstration. Proposition 1.1 holds for
the construction of an equilateral triangle on any length of line.
3 Conclusion
I have argued against Muellers claim that the definitions of point and
line, etc., are mathematically useless and never invoked in the subsequent
development. I have argued instead that Euclids definitions, including
those of the most elementary objects, are significant to his style of deduction in Book I in at least four ways:
First, the definitions of point and line, etc., limit the focus to the most generalized
features of elementary geometrical objects.
Second, an explicit reciprocal dependency relation establishes a non-hierarchical codependency between geometrical objects in the form of boundary and figure.
Third, Euclids derivation style employs a combination of diagrams in tandem with
the highly abstract definitions. Reciprocal dependency relations contribute to the
logical structure within the diagrammatic reasoning.
Fourth, this combination renders all non-universal features of a particular diagram
irrelevant, and the use of reciprocal dependency relations limits the role of the diagram in a way that is reminiscent of Aristotles characterization of the geometers
use of diagrams: the diagrams make the truth of a fact obvious; the geometer does
not reason on the basis of a drawn line, but on the basis of the facts.28 Highly
abstract geometrical objects are linked together via co-relatives.
Particular, non-universal features of a particular diagram are systematically excluded
from having a role in the demonstrations.
The combination of definitions and diagrams provides for a style of deduction that exploits the heuristic advantages of diagrams, while managing
the concern that accidental properties may lead one astray. The highly
abstract definitions of point and line severely limit ones attention to
highly abstract features in the diagram. In large part this role manages
concerns about being led astray by accidental features of the diagram. The
combination of definitions and diagrams effectively removes these features.
The reciprocal dependency relation between figure and boundary maximizes our ability to exploit the heuristic advantages of reasoning with diagrams. The reciprocal relation allows us to move in both directions with a
visual demonstration.
28


From A Particular Diagram To A Universal Result: Euclid 'S Elements, Book I

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

From A Particular Diagram To A Universal Result: Euclid 'S Elements, Book I

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

From a Particular Diagram to a Universal Result:

Euclids Elements, Book I1

I should like to acknowledge the helpful comments of anonymous reviewers, Robin

apeiron, vol. 44, pp. 211218

Brought to you by | Fordham University Library

Netz, R. The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics (CUP, 1999), 95

Brought to you by | Fordham University Library