Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The how and why of constructions in classical geometry NAW 5/17 nr. 4 december 2016 283
Viktor Blåsjö
Mathematical Institute
Utrecht University
v.n.e.blasjo@uu.nl
History
Illustration: www.metmuseum.org
Figure 4 Egyptian geometers, or ‘rope-stretchers’, delineating a field by means of a stretched rope. From the tomb of Menna, Egypt, c. 14th century BC.
such-and-such operations, this will result”, translate into a recipe for concrete mea- or that the earth was in the center of the
e.g., if you draw a triangle and add up its surement, no matter how convincing a solar system, or that planetary motion con-
angles they will make two right angles. By story one might be able to spin in such sists of combinations of circular motions,
thus speaking about measurements and ‘metaphysical’ terms. Greek geometry lives despite these theories having been consid-
relations in figures whose constructions by this principle too. It speaks of noth- ered virtually the pinnacle of human un-
have been specified, theorems in the Eu- ing it cannot exhibit in the most tangible, derstanding for thousands of years. Geom-
clidean tradition imply a recipe for check- concrete form right before our eyes. The etry, however, fared differently; it passed
ing them empirically in as many instances definition of 7 as a number such that the test of time with flying colours. Not
as desired. This has many potential uses, 7 # 7 = 7 could certainly be accused a single theorem of ancient mathematics
from convincing sceptic outsiders to aiding of being ‘metaphysical’ and therefore an- needed to be revised.
explorative research. It also makes it pos- ti-scientific in the positivist sense. But It was only natural, therefore, to seek
sible to display expertise without reveal- once it has been concretely exhibited by a the distinguishing characteristic that set
ing one’s methods — a common practice ruler-and-compass construction there is no geometry apart from the other sciences.
in mathematics as late as the seventeenth longer any room for such a critique. And thinkers such as Descartes, Leibniz,
century, where constructions published This foundational role of constructions and Hobbes found the answer in the con-
without proofs are commonplace. These was arguably the key characteristic that structive character of geometry. It is in this
kinds of advantages of construction-based separated geometry from other scientif- light that we must understand for instance
mathematics are quite incompatible with ic and philosophical theories in Greek Hobbes’s otherwise peculiar-sounding
the emphasis in modern mathematics on times. For instance, the Greeks (following claim (in 1656) that political philosophy,
grand ‘systemic’ theorems such as Rolle’s a program laid out by Plato in the fourth rather than physics or astronomy, is the
Theorem in analysis, Cayley’s Theorem in century BC) attempted to account for plan- field of knowledge most susceptible to
group theory, and so on. These modern etary motions using combinations of cir- mathematical rigour:
kinds of theorems are not of the construc- cles. This science was virtually a branch
“Of arts, some are demonstrable, others
tive, Euclidean type, whose very formula- of mathematics. In particular, it was based
indemonstrable; and demonstrable are
tion implies a verification procedure. on axiomatic-deductive reasoning, with its
those the construction of the subject
Another way of putting it is in terms axioms even being supposedly ‘obvious’
whereof is in the power of the artist him-
of the positivist paradigm that has dom- assumptions such as that heavenly mo-
self, who, in his demonstration, does no
inated much of empirical science in mod- tions must be composed of circles since
more but deduce the consequences of
ern times. The positivist principle is that this is the most ‘perfect’ shape. But the
his own operation. The reason whereof
science should only speak of that which one fundamental respect in which this sci-
is this, that the science of every subject
is observable or measurable; it should ence differed from geometry is that it was
is derived from a precognition of the
not engage in speculation about qualities not constructive. It spoke of preexisting
causes, generation, and construction
and sympathies and whatnot that do not phenomena and tried to fit mathematical
of the same; and consequently where
constructs to them, unlike geometry which
the causes are known, there is place for
built up all the objects of its theory from
demonstration, but not where the caus-
scratch using ruler and compass. Much the
es are to seek for. Geometry therefore is
same can be said of many other branches
demonstrable, for the lines and figures
of ancient science, such as the theory that
_ all bodies are composed of four elements
from which we reason are drawn and
√7 (earth, water, air, fire).
described by ourselves; and civil phi-
losophy is demonstrable, because we
The importance of this distinction be-
make the commonwealth ourselves.”
came all the more crucial when the scien-
7 1 tific theories in question were refuted and
[10, pp. 183–184]
Figure 5 Ruler-and-compass construction of 7. A line abandoned in the sixteenth and seven- As bizarre as this may sound to modern
segment of length 7 + 1 is used as the diameter of a circle. teenth centuries. By the end of the seven- ears, it makes perfect sense when we keep
A perpendicular line is erected at the point between the
two subsegments. The height of the perpendicular is 7,
teenth century no one believed anymore in mind the all-important role of construc-
as is easily seen by similar triangles. in the Aristotelian theory of the elements, tions in classical geometry.
286 NAW 5/17 nr. 4 december 2016 The how and why of constructions in classical geometry Viktor Blåsjö
B conic compass approach of Figure 10. For By tracing both of these curves we have
suppose you want to set up this compass solved the problem of the duplication of
θ to trace for instance a parabola. How would the cube, for the x-coordinate of the in-
you go about doing this, in such a way that tersection of y = x 2 /2 and xy = 1 is 3 2 ,
you knew exactly what parabola you would which is the side length needed for the
A P get? The easiest way is to start with the cube of twice the volume of a unit cube.
∏ pen arm BP perpendicular to the ground Of course the Greeks did not have mod-
plane P, which corresponds precisely to ern algebraic notation, vectors and inner
Figure 10 Generalised compasses for drawing conic sec-
tions. The angle i and the direction of the axis AB are
the perpendicularity condition in (ii). products, so their proofs would have been
fixed. As the other leg rotates around the axis, the pen sli- To explain the complete construction of more laborious. Nevertheless the fact re-
des up and down in its cylinder, so as to always reach the the parabola, it is convenient for us to use mains that starting with the pen in a per-
plane P. Figure from [16, p. 29], with altered notation.
modern algebraic notation and modern pendicular position is very natural and
coordinates. Of course the ancient Greeks convenient in this context. Moreover, the
least if one thinks of a cone as generated did not have such methods, but everything above demonstrations are very well suited
by the rotation of a line about an axis, for we shall do was well within their reach by for modern classroom use, not only to in-
then, in a sense, a construction by ‘gener- other means. Start with BP perpendicular vestigate this bit of history but to show the
alised compasses’ as in Figure 10 is really to P, and let this initial position of the pen great power of the notion of inner product.
nothing but the physical manifestation of point be denoted P' to distinguish it from a In these examples, an otherwise very com-
the literal meaning of the definition of a general point on the traced curve. The next plicated geometrical problem is reduced to
conic section. Such generalised compass- step is to choose the angle i. To get a pa- a line or two of simple algebra; it’s a gen-
es were described in the medieval Islamic rabola this angle needs to be 45%. If we take uinely impressive application of the inner
commentary literature and could very well BP' = 1 as our unit length, AP’ will be 1 as product that would go well in any vector
have been considered quite evident in well. Let us introduce a coordinate system geometry class.
Greek times. A tip for building these kinds with P' = (0, 0, 0) as the origin, A = (0, 1, 0) In my view it is highly plausible that the
of conic compasses today is to use a laser as the point determining the direction of Greeks solved the problem of the duplica-
pointer in place of the pen, which removes the y-axis, and B = (0, 0, 1). As we now let tion of the cube by giving a conic-compass
the otherwise mechanically quite tricky is- the pen arm BP rotate about the axis AB, construction of precisely the above kind,
sue of the pen needing to be able to slide the pen point P = (x, y, 0) traces out a cer- and that this was how conic sections were
freely up and down. tain curve. We can find the equation for first encountered by mathematicians. This
Very little is known about the early his- this curve by considering the inner product is a new hypothesis regarding the origin of
tory of conic sections, but arguably the two of BA = (0, 1, 0) - (0, 0, 1) = (0, 1, - 1) with the study of conic sections. For previous
main facts known about it are: (i) at an BP = (x, y, 0) - (0, 0, 1) = (x, y, - 1). The in- attempts — less convincing ones, in my
early stage conics were used for the dupli- ner product identity opinion — at explaining the origin of the
cation of the cube (since this amounts in study of conic sections and the perpen-
modern terms to solving x3 = 2, it can be av $ bv = a1 b1 + a2 b2 + a3 b3 = av bv cos i dicularity condition in particular, see [18,
accomplished by combining the hyperbo- chapter 21] and [14], or, for a brief overview
in this case becomes
la xy = 1 with the parabola y = x2 /2) and of their views, [1] . For an overview of the
other problems of this type; (ii) in the ear- 1 early history of conic sections, see [9, I.I].
y + 1 = 2 x2 + y2 + 1
liest records, cones were defined as line 2
segments rotated about an axis and conic Greek tradition in the seventeenth century
which reduces to
sections as the intersection of a cone with The importance of constructions in the
a plane perpendicular to its side. The per- 1
y = 2 x2 . Greek geometrical tradition was still keenly
pendicularity restriction in (ii) at first ap- felt in the seventeenth century. In partic-
pears very artificial and strange. It makes If we want to trace the hyperbola xy = 1 ular, it plays a crucial role in Descartes’s
no sense in terms of the natural applica- instead, we can define our coordinate Géométrie of 1637. In this work Descartes
tions of conic section theory in astronomi- system by P' = (1, 1, 0), B = (1, 1, 1), and taught the world coordinate geometry and
cal gnomonics and perspective optics, nor A = (2, 2, 0). Then AP' = 2 and AB = 3 , the identification of curves with equations.
does it make any theorems about conics so that cos (i) = 1/ 3 . In this case However, Descartes’s take on these top-
easier to prove. This suggests that the BA = (2, 2, 0) - (1, 1, 1) = (1, 1, - 1) and BP ics is radically different from the modern
study of conic sections was not originally (x, y, 0) - (1, 1, 1) = (x - 1, y - 1, - 1), and view in numerous respects. In particular,
an end in itself, but only a way of interpret- the inner product identity is Descartes did not argue that the geome-
ing curves already necessitated elsewhere. try of algebraic curves was a replacement
The solution of (i) came first, and the no- x-1+y-1+1 for classical geometry, or a radically new
1
tion of a conic section was concocted as a = 3 (x - 1) 2 + (y - 1) 2 + 1 approach to geometry. On the contrary,
3
way of explicating the curves involved in he argued at great length that it was in
this important construction. which reduces to fact subsumed by classical geometry,
In fact, in my view, the reason for the and he would never have accepted it
perpendicularity condition in (ii) lies in the xy = 1. if it wasn’t.
p
288 NAW 5/17 nr. 4 december 2016
them is ⇡
The how and why of constructions in classical geometry
2. Viktor Blåsjö
structions are obviously quite hopeless dere door de instrumenten daertoe ge- y
to apply in practice in any but the very inventeert. Want de linien met de handt
simplest cases. The setup of Figure 12 is van punt tot punt getrocken alleenlijck
already crude to say the least, and it soon de gesochte quantiteyt ten naesten bij
gets much worse when curves of higher konnen geven en dienvolgens niet naer
degree are involved. Thus the following de Geometrische perfectie. Want wat
anecdote could very well have much truth helpt het sooveel puncten te vinden als
in it: men wil, indien men dat eene punct dat x
gesocht werdt niet en vindt?” [11]
“[Descartes] was so learned that all Figure 14 The tractrix, i.e., the curve traced by a weight
dragged along a horizontal surface by a string whose other
learned men made visits to him, and [“One cannot say that the description of a end moves along a straight line.
many of them would desire him to show curved line through found points is geomet-
rical, that is to say complete, or that lines
them ... his instruments ... He would nothing but algebraic curves. The next
so described can serve as a geometrical
drawe out a little drawer under his ta- construction for some problems, because for frontier, thus, was non-algebraic curves,
ble, and show them a paire of Compass- this, in my opinion, no curved lines can serve i.e., graphs of functions that cannot be ex-
es with one of the legges broken: and except those that can subsequently be de- pressed by a polynomial equation. The log-
then, for his ruler, he used a sheet of scribed by some instrument, as the circle by
arithm function is arguably the most funda-
a pair of compasses; and the conic sections,
paper folded double.” (Aubrey’s Brief mental function of this type. So Huygens
conchoids and others by the instruments in-
Lives, 1898 ed., vol. 1, p. 222, quoted vented thereto. For the lines drawn by hand faced the problem of finding a curve-trac-
from [13, p. 42].) from point to point can only give the sought ing method, analogous to those above,
quantity approximately and consequently which could be used to find the logarithm
Nevertheless, as we stressed already in not according to geometrical perfection. For
of any number.
the case of Nicomedes’s instrument above, what does it help to find as many points as
one wishes, in case one does not find the Huygens [12] found the answer in the
even when practical feasibility goes out
one point that is sought?”] tractrix (Figure 14). In the physique de sa
the window, constructions remain the the-
lon of seventeenth-century Paris, a pocket
oretical cornerstone of mathematics. They
Indeed this is what happens in the ex- watch on a chain was a popular way for
are indeed what gives meaning to mathe-
ample above of using the intersection of gentlemen to trace this curve, as shown in
matical concepts. Without them, an equa-
y = x2 /2 and xy = 1 to solve the duplica- Figure 15. A pocket watch is quite well-suit-
tion such as xy = 1 is nothing but empty,
tion of the cube. We solve the problem by ed for the purpose since it is quite heavy
meaningless symbols.
finding the x-coordinate of the point of and has a low center of mass, which pre-
From a modern point of view we might
intersection. If the curves were defined in vents undue slippage or wobbling. Also,
object that the equation xy = 1, or its
terms of plugging in x-values this would since its back is typically somewhat round-
equivalent y = 1/x, has a definite geomet-
clearly be circular reasoning. ed it only has one point of contact with
rical meaning without the peculiar tracing
Finding the equation for the traced curve the table top surface, as the mathematical
tools of Descartes. Namely: fill in various
in Descartes’s construction in the above idealisation requires. By dipping the watch
x-values, compute the corresponding y-val-
manner is certainly a good exercise in any in paint or rubbing it with soot one can en-
ues, and plot the corresponding points. In
course on analytic geometry. This is made sure that it leaves a trace of its path. This
this way as many points of the curve as
all the more satisfying if it is followed by is all very replicable in a modern class-
desired can be produced, making its geo-
the physical tracing of the curve. And it will room. Huygens himself investigated such
metrical meaning clear. The problem with
certainly be very healthy for students to matters in great detail and decided in fa-
this, in seventeenth-century eyes, is that
be confronted with the excellent reasons vour of a more ambitious method: having
it does not generate the curve as a whole,
seventeenth-century mathematicians had a small boat trace the tractrix in a tub of
and therefore it might ‘miss’ the one point
for preferring such methods of curve con- syrup (Figure 16).
we are looking for. Christiaan Huygens ex-
struction. Note well that Huygens’s critique
pressed this well. For the present audience
of pointwise curve constructions applies to
I may quote him in the original Dutch:
the way graphing calculators plot curves:
“Doch soo en kan men niet seggen Descartes and Huygens would have been
dat het beschrijven van een kromme none to impressed by such gadgets as
linie door gevonden puncten geome- far as exact geometry is concerned; on
trisch ofte volkomen sij, of dat sulcke grounds of theoretical rigour they had
beschreven linien konnen dienen tot good reason to stick with their mechanical
geometrische constructie van eenighe instruments instead.
problemata, dewijl hiertoe, nae mijn
opinie, geen kromme linien en konnen “A little boat will serve”
dienen als die door eenigh instrument Huygens himself continued the construc-
vervolgens beschreven konnen worden, tion tradition where Descartes had left off.
Figure 15 Tracing the tractrix by means of a pocket
gelijck den Cirkel door een passer; en According to Descartes, his curve-tracing watch. From Giovanni Poleni, Epistolarum mathematicarum
de Conische Sectien, Conchoides en an- could produce all algebraic curves, and fasciculus, 1729.
290 NAW 5/17 nr. 4 december 2016 The how and why of constructions in classical geometry Viktor Blåsjö
x = log d
1 + 1 - y2 n
y - 1 - y2
JK 2N
KK 1 + 1 - c 2Y 2 m OOO
K 1+Y OO
= log KK 2Y OO - b
KK OO
K 1+Y 2
L P
= log (1/Y) - b.
a
b
a+Y 1 y
1
better put, not a problem at all. The same what is sought they come dangerously constructions was a major guiding force in
goes for one of the other famous problems close to simply assuming it to be done. the development of mathematics from an-
of antiquity: the quadrature of the circle. But one wonders if the real reason is not cient to early modern times. How dismayed
This too becomes elementary if one is al- a more opportunistic one: tape-measure these classical mathematicians would be at
lowed to simply measure the circumference methods could not sustain a mathematical the casual neglect of constructions in mod-
of a circle with a measuring tape. research programme. Allowing such meth- ern mathematics! Today we are happy to
In all of these cases, the measuring tape ods would solve too much: the quadra- reason about entities such as the square
solution is simple and very accurate for all ture of the circle and the multisection of root or logarithm of a given number, the
practical purposes. Yet it was not accepted, an angle would collapse into trivialities at third of a given angle, a cube of a given
and convoluted constructions based on in- once, and where’s the fun in that? These volume, or the graph of an algebraic func-
tersections of curves were sought instead. problems are supposed to be the great tion, without first asking ourselves how
This confirms once again that the construc- prizes of mathematics, not child’s play. we could produce these things from first
tion paradigm was very much a theoretical This in itself is reason enough to deem principles on the blank canvas of a Med-
obsession in the seventeenth century. But such methods to be beyond the rules iterranean beach using nothing but sticks
why insist on these standards, even theo- of the game. and stones. By ancient standards we live
retically? An official rationale can be given in a state of blissful ignorance. We may
along the lines that tape-measure methods Conclusion yet learn a thing or two from our ancient
are not constructions in the proper sense; In conclusion, we have seen that a consis- friends by opening our eyes from this com-
instead of straightforwardly producing tent vision of mathematics as founded on placent slumber. s
References
1 Viktor Blåsjö, Why conic sections?, Eureka 8 E. J. Dijksterhuis, De Elementen van Eu the Theory of Conic Sections, Proceedings
47 (2015), 11–13. clides, Vol. 1, Groningen, 1929. of the American Philosophical Society 92(3)
2 Viktor Blåsjö, The myth of Leibniz’s proof 9 Thomas Little Heath, Apollonius of Perga: (1948), 136–138.
of the fundamental theorem of calculus, Treatise on Conic Sections, Cambridge Uni- 15 Proclus, A Commentary on the First Book
Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde 5/16(1) (2015), versity Press, 1896. of Euclid’s Elements, translated by Glenn R.
46–50. 10 Thomas Hobbes, The English works of Morrow, Princeton University Press, 1992.
3 Viktor Blåsjö, Transcendental Curves in the Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Vol. 7. 16 John Stillwell, Mathematics and Its History,
Leibnizian Calculus, Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 2nd ed, Springer, 2002.
University, 2016. 1845. 17 Ivor Thomas, Greek Mathematical Works:
4 Henk J. M. Bos, Tractional motion and the 11 Christiaan Huygens, Letter to H. Coets, 27 Thales to Euclid, Loeb Classical Library 335,
legitimation of transcendental curves, Cen August 1687, Oeuvres complètes, Tome IX, Harvard University Press.
taurus 31(1) (1988), 9–62. No. 2477. 18 H. G. Zeuthen, Die Lehre von den Kegel
5 Henk J. M. Bos, Redefining Geometrical 12 Christiaan Huygens, Letter to H. Basnage de schnitten im Altertum, A. F. Höst & Sohn,
Exactness: Descartes’ Transformation of Beauval, printed in l’Histoire des Ouvrages 1886, originally published as: Kegelsnitlaeren
the Early Modern Concept of Construction, des Sçavans, February 1693, Oeuvres com in Oltiden, Kongelig Danske videnskaberens
Springer, 2001. plètes, Tome X, No. 2793. Selskabs Skrifter, 6th ser., 1(3) (1885), 1–319.
6 René Descartes, La Géométrie. Leiden, 1637. 13 A. G. Molland, Shifting the foundations: Des- 19 H. G. Zeuthen, Die geometrische Construc-
7 René Descartes, The Geometry of René cartes’s transformation of ancient geometry, tion als ‘Existenzbeweis’ in der antike Ge-
Descartes, translated by D. E. Smith and Historia Mathematica 3 (1976), 21–49. ometrie, Mathematische Annalen 47(2–3)
M. L. Latham, Dover, 1954. 14 Otto Neugebauer, The Astronomical Origin of (1896), 222–228.