151 visualizações

Enviado por Anatol

- Reading the Lost Folia of the Archimedean Palimpsest: The Last Proposition of the Method
- Hong DeformingPages algorithm
- FG200305-circuncentros
- Notes on Angles
- 3
- Advertisement- Assistant Administrative Officer - English
- Micro Teaching Task Final
- Crmo 2013 Solutions 3
- Developments Surfaces
- CBSE
- Area
- 2016_10_mathematics_sample_paper_sa2_05-.pdf
- M1 R08 MayJune 10.pdf
- Moments in physics
- EN(368)
- Exam Coe Ases
- Generative_Shape_Design.pdf
- Alberts Circle Wksht 1
- Lemoine’s Circles
- Rpt Matematik Kssm t3 2019

Você está na página 1de 512

English translation by Boris Rosenfeld

The Pennsylvania State University

Apollonius of Perga (ca 250 B.C. - ca 170 B.C.) was one of the greatest

mathematicians of antiquity.

During 1990 - 2002 first English translations of Apollonius main work

Conics were published. These translations [Ap5](Books 1-3), [Ap6](Book 4),

[Ap7] (Books5-7) are very different. The best of these editions is [Ap6].

The editions [Ap4] and [Ap5] are very careless and often are far from the

Greek original. The editors of [Ap5] have corrected many defects of [Ap4], but

not all; they did not compare this text with the Greek original. Some defects

remain also in the edition [Ap6].

The translation [Ap7], being the first rate work, is not a translation of Greek

text because this text is lost, and is the translation of Arabic exposition by

Thabit ibn Qurra (826 - 901).

Therefore we present the new English translation of this classic work written in one style more near to Greek text by Apollonius, in our translation some

expressions of the translations [Ap5], [Ap6], and [Ap7] are used.

The authors of the translations [Ap5], [Ap6], and [Ap7] are linguists and

in their translations many discoveries of Apollonius in affine, projective, conformal, and differential geometries in Apollonius Conics being special cases of general theorems proved in Western Europe only in 17th -19th centuries were not

mentioned.

The commentary to our translation from the standpoint of modern

mathematics uses books [Ro1] and [Ro2] by the translator.

I am very grateful to my master student, now Ph.D. and the author of the

thesis[Rho1] and [Rho2] Diana L. Raodes, possessing ancient Greek. This work

could not be completed without the help of translators daughter, Professor of

the Pennsylvania State University, Svetlana R. Katok, and also Ph.D. Daniel Genin

and Nicholas Ahlbin.

Diagrams to Books I-IV should be taken from editions [AP3] Heiberg or

[AP12] of Stamatis, diagrams to Books V-VII should be taken from the edition

[AP7] of Toomer.

BOOK ONE

Preface

Apollonius greets Eudemus1

If you are restored in body, and other things go with you to your mind,

well; and we too fare pretty well. At the time I was with you in Pergamum, I observed you were quite eager to be kept informed of the work I was doing in conics. And so I am sending you this first book revised. I will send you other books

when I will be satisfied with them. For I dont believe you have forgotten hearing from me how I worked out the plan for these conics at the request of Naucrates2, the geometer, at the time he was with me in Alexandria lecturing, and

how on arranging them in eight books I immediately communicated them in

great haste because of his near departure, not revising them but putting down

whatever came to me with the intention of a final going over. And so finding

now the occasion of correcting them, one book after another, I will publish

them. And since it happened that some others among those frequenting me got

acquainted with the first and second books before the revision, dont be surprised if you come upon them in a different for.

Of the eight books the first four belong to a course in the elements 3.

The first book contains the generation of the three sections and of the

opposite [sections]4, and the principal properties in them worked out more fully

and universally than in the writings of others.

The second book contains the properties having to do with the diameters

and axes and also the asymptotes, and other things of a general and necessary

use for limits of possibility. And what I call diameters and what I call axes you

will know from this book.

The third book contains many unexpected theorems of use for the construction of solid loci and for limits of possibility of which the greatest part and

the most beautiful are new. And when I had grasped these, I knew that the

2

three-line and four-line locus5 had not been constructed by Euclid, but only a

chance part of it and that not very happily. For it was not possible for this construction to be completed without the additional things found by me.

The fourth book shows in how many ways the sections of cone intersect

with each other and with the circumference of a circle, and contains other

things in addition none of which has been written up by my predecessors, that

is in how many points the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle and

the opposite sections meet the opposite sections.

The last four books are fuller in treatment. For there is one [the fifth

book] dealing more fully with maxima and minima, and one [the sixth book] with

equal and similar sections of a cone, and one [the seventh book] with limiting

theorems, and one [the eighth book] with determinate problems.

And so indeed, with all of them published, those happening upon them

can judge them as they see fit.

Let the happiness will be to you.

First definitions

1. If a point is joined by a straight line with a point in the circumference of

a circle which is not in the same plane with the point, and the line is continued in

both directions, and if, with the point remaining fixed, the straight line being rotated about the circumference of the circle returns to the same place from

which it began, then the generated surface composed of the two surfaces lying

vertically opposite one another, each of which increases indefinitely as the generating straight line is continued indefinitely, I call a conic surface 6, and I call

the fixed point the vertex, and the straight line drawn from the vertex to the

center of the circle I call the axis.

2. And the figure contained by the circle and by the conic surface between the vertex and the circumference of the circle I call a cone7, and the

point which is also the vertex of the surface I call the vertex of the cone, and

the straight line drawn from the vertex to the center of the circle I call the axis,

and the circle I call the base of the cone.

3. I call right cones those having axes perpendicular to their bases, and I

call oblique those not having axes perpendicular to their bases.

4. For any curved line that is in one plane, I call straight line drawn from

the curved line that bisects all straight lines drawn to this curved line parallel to

some straight line the diameter 8,9. And I call the end of the diameter situated

on the curved line the vertex of the curved line, and I call these parallels the

ordinates drawn to the diameter 10 .

3

5. Likewise, for any two curved lines lying in one plane, I call the straight

line which cuts the two curved lines and bisects all straight lines drawn to either

of the curved lines parallel to some straight line the transverse diameter. And I

call the ends of the [transverse] diameter situated on the curved lines the vertices of the curved lines. And I call the straight line lying between the two

curved lines, bisecting all straight lines intercepted between the curved lines

and drawn parallel to some straight lines the upright diameter 11. And I call the

parallels the ordinates drawn to the [transverse or upright] diameter.

6. The two straight lines, each of which, being a diameter, bisecting the

straight lines parallel to the other, I call the conjugate diameters12 of a curved

line and of two curved lines.

7. And I call that straight line which is a diameter of the curved line or

lines cutting the parallel straight lines at right angles the axis of curved line and

of two curved lines 13,14.

8. And I call those straight lines which are conjugate diameters cutting

the straight lines parallel to each other at right angles the conjugate axes of a

curved line and of two curved lines.

[Proposition] 1

The straight lines drawn from the vertex of the conic surface to points on

the surface are on that surface 15.

Let there be a conic surface whose vertex is the point , and let there be

taken some point on the conic surface, and let a straight line be joined.

I say that the straight line is on the conic surface.

[Proof]. For if possible, let it not be [and the straight line is not on the

conic surface], and let the straight line be the line generating the surface,

and be the circle along which is moved. Then if, the point remaining

fixed, the straight line is moved along the circumference of the circle .

This straight line [according Definition 1] will also go through the point , and

two straight lines will have the same ends. And this is impossible. Therefore,

the straight line joined from to cannot not be on the surface. Therefore, it

is on the surface.

Porism

It is also evident that, if a straight line is joined from the vertex to some

point among those within the surface, it will fall within the conic surface. And if

it is joined to some point among those without, it will be outside the surface.

4

[Proposition] 2

If on either one of the two vertically opposite surfaces two points are

taken, and the straight line joining the points, when continued, does not pass

through the vertex, then it will fall within the surface, and continued it will fall

outside 16.

Let there be a conic surface whose vertex is the point , and a circle

along whose circumference the generating straight line is moved, and let two

points and be taken on either one of the two vertically opposite surfaces,

and let the joining straight line , when continued not pass through the point

.

I say that will be within the surface, and continued will be without.

[Proof]. Let and be joined and continued. Then [according to

PropositionI.1] they will fall on the circumference of the circle. Let them fall to

and , and let be joined. Therefore the will be within the circle, and so too

within the conic surface. Then let be taken at random on , and let be

joined and continued. Then it will fall on , for the triangle is in one plane

[according to Proposition XI.2 of Euclid]. Let it fall to . Since then H is within

the conic surface, therefore [according to the porism to Proposition I.1] the

straight line is also within the conic surface, and so too the point is within

the conic surface. Then likewise it will be shown that all the points on the

straight line are within the surface. Therefore the straight line is within

the conic surface.

Then let be continued to . I say that it will fall outside the conic surface. For it possible, let there be some point of it not outside the conic surface, and let be joined and continued. Then it will fall either on the circumference of the circle or within [according to Proposition I.1 and its porism]. And

this is impossible, for it falls on continued; as for example to the point .

Therefore the straight line is outside the surface.

Therefore the straight line is within the conic surface, and continued is

outside.

[Proposition] 3

If a cone is cut by a plane through the vertex, the section is a triangle 17.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by some plane through the point , and let it make,

as section, lines and on the surface, and the straight line in the base.

5

[Proof]. For since the line joined from to is the common section of

the cutting plane and of the surface of the cone, therefore is a straight line.

And likewise also . And is also a straight line. Therefore is a triangle. If

then a cone is cut by some plane through the vertex, the section is a triangle.

[Proposition] 4

If either one of the vertically opposite surfaces is cut by some plane parallel to the circle along which the straight line generating the surface is moved,

the plane cut off within the surface will be a circle having its center on the axis,

and the figure contained by the circle and the conic surface intercepted by the

cutting plane on the side of the vertex will be a cone 18.

Let there be a conic surface whose vertex is the point and whose circle

along which the straight line generating the surface is moved is , and let it be

cut by some plane parallel to the circle , and let it make on the surface as a

section the line .

I say that the line is a circle having the center on the axis.

[Proof]. For let be taken as the center of the circle , and let be

joined. Therefore [according to Definition 1] is the axis and meets the cutting plane. Let it meet it at , and let some plane be drawn through . Then

[according to Proposition I.3] the section will be the triangle . And since the

points , , are points in the cutting plane, and are also in the plane of the triangle , [according to Proposition XI.3 of Euclid] is a straight line.

Then let some point be taken on the line , let be joined and continued. Then [according to Proposition I.1] it falls on the circumference . Let

it meet it at , and let and be joined. And since two parallel planes,

and , are cut by a plane , [according to Proposition XI.16 of Euclid] their

common sections are parallel. Therefore is parallel to . Then for the same

reason is also parallel to . Therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of

Euclid] as is to , so is to , and is to , and is to .

Since is equal to and to [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid]

is equal to and to .

Then likewise we could show also that all the straight lines falling from the

point on the line are equal to each other.

Therefore the line is a circle having its center on the axis.

And it is evident that the figure contained by the circle and the conic

surface cut off by it on the side of the point is a cone.

6

And it is there with proved that the common section of the cutting plane

and of the axial triangle [that is triangle through the axis] is a diameter of the

circle.

[Proposition] 5

If an oblique cone is cut by a plane through the axis at right angles to the

base, and is also cut by another plane on the one hand at right angles to the axial triangle, and on the other hand cutting off on the side of the vertex a triangle similar to the axial triangle and situated antiparallel, then the section is a circle, and let such a section be called antiparallel 19.

Let there be an oblique cone whose vertex is the point and whose base

is the circle , and let it be cut through the axis by a plane perpendicular to the

circle , and let it make as a section the triangle . Then let it also be cut

by another plane perpendicular to the triangle and cutting off on the side

of the triangle similar to the triangle and situated antiparallel, that is

so that the angle is equal to the angle . And let it make as a section

on the surface [of the cone] the line .

I say that the line is a circle.

[Proof]. For let any points and be taken on the lines and , and

from and let perpendiculars be dropped to the plane of the triangle

. Then [according to Definition XI.4 of Euclid] they will fall to the common

sections of the planes. Let them fall for example as and .

Therefore [according to Proposition XI.6 of Euclid] is parallel to .

Then be drawn through parallel to , and is parallel to .

Therefore [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane through and

is parallel to the base of the cone. Therefore [according to Proposition I.4] it

is a circle whose diameter is . Therefore [according to Proposition II.14 of

Euclid] 20 pl. is equal to sq. .

And since is parallel to , the angle is equal to the angle .

And the angle is supposed equal to the angle . Therefore the angle

is equal to the angle . And the vertical angles at are also equal.

Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle , and therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .

Therefore [according to Proposition VI.16 of Euclid] pl. is equal to pl..

But it has been shown that sq. is equal to pl..

Therefore pl. is equal to sq..

7

Likewise then all the perpendiculars drawn from the line to could

also be shown to be equal in square to the rectangular plane, in each case under

the segments of .

Therefore the section is a circle21 whose diameter is .

[Proposition] 6

If a cone is cut by a plane through the axis, and if on the surface of the

cone some point is taken which is not on a side of the axial triangle, and if from

this point is drawn a straight line parallel to some straight line which is a perpendicular from the circumference of the circle to the base of the triangle, then

that drawn straight line meets the axial triangle, and on being continued to the

other side of the surface the drawn straight line will be bisected by the triangle22.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let the cone be cut by a plane through the axis, and let it make as

a common section the triangle , and from some point on the circumference let be drawn perpendicular to [the straight line] . Then let some

point be taken on the surface of the cone, and through let be drawn parallel to .

I say that the continued will meet the plane of the triangle , and if

further continued toward the other side of the cone until it meet its surface, will

be bisected by the triangle .

[Proof]. Let be joined and continued. Therefore it will meet the circumference of the circle . Let it meet it at and from let be drawn

perpendicular to .Therefore is parallel to , and therefore [according to

Proposition XI.9 of Euclid] also to . Let be joined. Since then in the triangle

[the straight line] is parallel to , therefore continued will meet .

But is in the plane of the triangle ; therefore will meet this plane.

For the same reasons it also meets , let it meet it at , and let be

continued in a straight line until it meet the surface of the cone. Let it meet it

at . I say that is equal to .

For since , , are points on the surface of the cone, but also in the

plane drawn through , , , , which is a triangle through the vertex of

the cone, therefore , , are points of the common section of the cones surface and of the triangle. Therefore the line through , , and is a straight line.

Since then in the triangle [the straight line] has been drawn parallel in

the base , and some straight line has been drawn across them from ,

8

to . But [according to Proposition III.3 of Euclid] is equal to since is

a chord in the circle perpendicular to the diameter. Therefore is equal to

.

[Proposition] 7

If a cone is cut by a plane through the axis, and if the cone is also cut by

another plane, so that the plane of the base of the cone is cut in a straight line

perpendicular either to the base of the axial triangle or to it continued, and if

from the cutting planes resulting section on the cones surface, straight lines

are drawn parallel to the straight line perpendicular to the base of the triangle,

then these straight lines will fall on the common section of the cutting plane

and of the axial triangle, and further continued to the other side of the section,

these straight lines will be bisected by the common section, and if the cone is

right, then the straight line in the base will be perpendicular to the common

section of the cutting plane and of the axial triangle, but if the cone is oblique,

then the straight line in the base will be perpendicular to that common section

only whenever the plane through the axis is perpendicular to the base of the

cone23,24.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by a plane through the axis, and let it make as a

common section the triangle . And let it also be cut by another plane cutting the plane of the circle in perpendicular either to or to it continued, and let it make as a section on the surface of the cone the line . Then

is the common section of the cutting plane and of the triangle . And let

some point be taken on the section , and let K be drawn through

parallel to .

I say that meets , and if continued to the other side of the section

will be bisected by .

[Proof]. For since a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is

the circle has been cut by a plane through its axis, and makes as a section

the triangle , and since some point on the surface, not on a side of the

triangle , has been taken, and since is perpendicular to [the straight line]

, therefore the straight line drawn through parallel to , that is , meets

the triangle , and [according to Proposition I.6] if further continued to the

other side of the surface, will be bisected by the triangle.

Then since the straight line drawn through parallel to meets the triangle and is in the planes of the section , therefore it will fall on the

9

common section of the cutting plane and of the triangle . But is the

common section of the planes. Therefore the straight line drawn through parallel to will fall on , and, if further continued to the other side of the section , will be bisected by .

Then either the cone is right, or the axial triangle is perpendicular to

the circle , or neither.

First let the cone be right. Then [according to Definition 3 and according

to Proposition XI.18 of Euclid] the triangle would be perpendicular to the

circle . Since then the plane is perpendicular to the plane [of the circle]

, and has been drawn in one of these two planes, [the plane of the circle]

, perpendicular to their common section, [the straight line] , therefore [according to Definition XI.4 of Euclid] is perpendicular to the triangle , and

therefore to all straight lines touching it and situated in the triangle .And so

is also perpendicular to .

Then let the cone not be right. If now the axial triangle is perpendicular to

the circle , we could likewise show that is perpendicular to .

Then let the axial triangle not be perpendicular to the circle .

I say that is not perpendicular to . For, if possible, let it be so. And it

is also perpendicular to [the straight line] .Therefore is perpendicular to

both and , and therefore it will be perpendicular to the plane through

and . But the plane of through and HZ is the [plane of the] triangle ,

and therefore is perpendicular to the triangle . And therefore all planes

through it are perpendicular to the triangle . But one of the planes through

is the [plane of the] circle . Therefore the circle is perpendicular to the

triangle . And so the triangle will also be perpendicular to the circle .

And this is not supposed. Therefore is not perpendicular to .

Porism

Then from this it is evident that is the diameter of the section ,

since it bisects the straight lines drawn parallel to some straight line , and it is

evident that it is possible for some parallels to be bisected by the diameter

and not be perpendicular to .

[Proposition] 8

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and if the cone is cut by another plane cutting the base of the cone in a straight line perpendicular to the

10

base of the axial triangle, and if the diameter of the resulting section on the surface is either parallel to one of the sides of the triangle or meets one of the

sides continued beyond the vertex of the cone, and if both surface of the cone

and cutting plane are continued indefinitely, then the section will also increase

indefinitely and some straight line drawn from the section of the cone parallel to

the straight line in the base of the cone will cut off from the diameter on the

side of the vertex a straight line equal to any given straight line25.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let it be cut also by another plane cutting the circle

in a straight line perpendicular to [the straight line] , and let it make as

a section on the surface the line . And let the diameter of the section

[according to Proposition I.7 and its porism] be either parallel to or on

being continued meet it beyond the point .

I say that if both the surface of the cone and the cutting plane are continued indefinitely, the section also will increase indefinitely.

[Proof]. For let both the surface of the cone and the cutting plane are

continued. Then it is evident that also , , will be therewith continued.

Since is either parallel to or continued meets it beyond the point , therefore and on being continued in the direction of and H will never meet.

Then let them be continued and let some point be taken at random on ,

and let be drawn through parallel to , and parallel to . Therefore the plane through and [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] is

parallel to the plane through and . Therefore [according to Proposition I.4]

the plane is a [plane of a circle].

And since the points , , , are in the cutting plane and also on the

surface of the cone, therefore they are on the common section. Therefore the

section has increased to the points and . Therefore, with the surface of

the cone and the cutting plane increased to the circle , the section

has also increased to the points and .Then likewise we could show also that

if the surface of the cone and the cutting plane are continued indefinitely, the

section will also increase indefinitely.

And it is evident that some straight line will cut off on straight line on

the side of the point a straight line equal to any given straight line. For if we

lay dawn equal to the given straight line, and draw a parallel to through ,

it will meet the section, just as the straight line through was also proved to

meet the section in the points and . And so some straight line is drawn

11

meeting the section, parallel to , and cutting off on on the side of point

a straight line equal to the given straight line.

[Proposition] 9

If a cone is cut by a plane, which meets both sides of the axial triangle

and is neither parallel to the base [of the cone], nor antiparallel to it, then the

section will not be a circle 26.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by some plane neither parallel to the base [of the

cone], nor antiparallel to it, and let it make as a section on the surface the line

.

I say that the line will not be a circle.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it be, and let the cutting plane meet the base,

and let be the common section of these planes, and let be the center of

the circle , and from let be drawn perpendicular to . And let a plane

be drawn through and the axis and let [according to Proposition I.1] it make

as sections on the conic surface and . Since then , , are points in the

plane through the line , and also in the plane through the points , , ,

therefore , , are points on the common section of these planes. Therefore

[according to Proposition XI.3 of Euclid] is a straight line.

Then let some point be taken on the line , and through let be

drawn parallel to . Then [according to Proposition I.7] will be equal to

. Therefore is the diameter of the [supposed] circle . Then let

be drawn through parallel to . But is also parallel to .

And so the plane through and [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid]

is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the base, and the section

[according to Proposition I.4] will be a circle. Let it be the circle .

And since is perpendicular to , and [according to Proposition

XI.10 of Euclid] is also perpendicular to . And so [according to Proposition

II.14 of Euclid] pl. is equal to sq..

But pl. is equal to sq. for the line is supposed a circle, and

is its diameter.

Therefore pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore [according to Proposition

VI.16 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .

Therefore [according to Proposition VI.6 and Definition VI.1 of Euclid] the

triangle is similar to the triangle , and the angle is equal to the

12

And therefore the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore [according to

Proposition I.5] the section is antiparallel to the base of the cone. And this is

not supposed. Therefore the line is not a circle.

[Proposition] 10

If two points are taken on the section of a cone, the straight line joining

these two points will fall within the section, and continued in a straight line it

will fall outside27.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by a plane through the axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . Then let it also be cut [not through the vertex] by another plane, and let it make as a section on the surface of the cone the line ,

and let two points and be taken on the line . I say that the straight line

joining two points and will fall within the line , and continued in a

straight line it will fall outside.

[Proof]. For since a cone, whose vertex is the point and whose base is

the circle , has been cut by a plane through the axis, and some points and

have been taken on its surface which are not on a side of the axial triangle and

since the straight line joining and does not verge to the point , therefore

[according to Proposition I.2] the straight line joining H and will fall within the

cone, and continued in a straight line it will fall outside, consequently also outside the section .

[Proposition] 11

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and also cut by another plane

cutting the base of the cone in a straight line perpendicular to the base of the

axial triangle, and if further the diameter of the section is parallel to one [lateral] side of the axial triangle, and if any straight line is drawn from the section

of the cone to its diameter such that this straight line is parallel to the common

section of the cutting plane and of the cones base, then this straight line

dropped to the diameter will equal in square to [the rectangular plane] under

the straight line from the sections vertex to [the point] where the straight line

dropped to the diameter cuts it off and under another straight line which is to

the straight line between the angle of the cone and the vertex of the section as

the square on the base of the axial triangle to [the rectangular plane] under the

remaining two sides of the triangle.

13

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let it also be cut by another plane cutting the base of

the cone in the straight line perpendicular to [the straight line], and let it

make as a section on the surface of the cone the line , and let the diameter

of the section be parallel to one side of the axial triangle. And let be

drawn from the point perpendicular to , and let it be contrived that as sq.

is to pl. , so is to .

And let some point be taken at random on the section, and through

let be drawn parallel to .

I say that sq. is equal to pl. .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . And is also parallel to .Therefore [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane

through and is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the

base of the cone. Therefore [according to Proposition I.4] the plane through

and is a circle whose diameter is . And is perpendicular to ,

since is also [according to Proposition XI.10 of Euclid] perpendicular to .

Therefore [according to Proposition II.14 of Euclid] pl. is equal to sq..

And since as sq. is to pl., so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded30 of [the ratios]

to and to . Therefore the ratio to compounded of [the ratios] to and to . But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as

is to so is to , and is to and [according to Propositions VI.2

and VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to , is to , and is to .

Therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and

to ZA. But [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio pl. to

pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

Therefore as is to , so pl.N is to pl..

But, with taken as common height [of two rectangular planes, according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to , so pl. is to pl..

Therefore [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to

pl., so pl. is to pl..

Therefore [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid] pl. is equal to

pl..

But pl. is equal to sq.; therefore also sq. is equal to pl..

14

I will call such a section a parabola, and be called the straight line of

application [of rectangular planes] to which the ordinates drawn to are equal

in square. I will call this straight line also the latus rectum.

[Proposition] 12

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and also cut by another plane

cutting the base of the cone in a straight line perpendicular to the base of the

axial triangle, and if the diameter of the section continued meets [continued]

one [lateral] side of the axial triangle beyond the vertex of the cone, and if any

straight line is drawn from the section to its diameter such that this straight line

is parallel to the common section of the cutting plane and of the cones base,

then this straight line to the diameter will equal in square to some [rectangular]

plane which is applied to a straight line increased by the segment added along

the diameter of the section, such that this added segment subtends the exterior angle of the [vertex of the axial] triangle, and as the added segment, is to

the mentioned the straight line, so the square on the straight line drawn parallel

to the sections diameter from the cones vertex to the [axial] triangles base is

to the [rectangular] plane under the segments of the triangles base divided by

the straight line drawn from the vertex [of the cone], and the applied plane has

as breadth the straight line on the diameter from the sections vertex to [the

point] where the diameter is cut off by the straight line drawn from the section

to the diameter, this plane is [the rectangular plane under two mentioned

straight lines] and increased by a figure similar and similarly situated to the

plane under the mentioned straight line and the diameter.

I will call such a section a hyperbola31.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let the cone also be cut by another plane cutting the

base of the cone in perpendicular to , the base of the triangle , and let

this second cutting plane make as a section on the surface of the cone the line

, and let the diameter of the section [according to Proposition I.7 and

Definition 4] when continued meet , one [lateral] side of the triangle beyond the vertex of the cone at . And let be drawn through

parallel to the diameter of the section , and let it cut [at K]. And let

be drawn from perpendicular to , and let it be contrived that as sq. is to

pl., so is to .

And let some point be taken at random on the section and through

let be drawn parallel to , and through let be drawn parallel to .

15

And let be joined and continued to , and let and be drawn through

and parallel to .

I say that is equal in square to the rectangular plane , which is applied to having as breadth, and increased by a figure similar to pl. .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . And is also parallel to . Therefore [according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane

through and is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the

base of the cone. Therefore if the plane is drawn through and , the section [according to Proposition I.4] will be a circle whose diameter is . And

is perpendicular to it. Therefore pl. is equal to sq..

And since as sq. is to pl., so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore also the ratio to is compounded

of [the ratios] to and to .

But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to ,

and is to and as is to , so is to and is to .

Therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and

to . And [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio pl. to

pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

Therefore also [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as pl. is to

pl., so is to and is to .

But, with taken as common height [according to Proposition VI.1 of

Euclid] as is to , so pl. is to pl..

Therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to

pl., so pl. is to pl., and [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid]

pl. is equal to pl..

But it was shown that sq. is equal to pl., therefore also sq. is

equal to pl..

But pl. is the parallelogram . Therefore is equal in square to

which is applied to and having as breadth increased by the parallelogram

similar to pl.. I will call such a section a hyperbola, and be called the

straight line of application [of rectangular planes] to which the ordinates drawn

to are equal in square.

I will call this straight line also the latus rectum, and the straight line

the latus transversum.

[Proposition] 13

16

If a cone is cut by a plane through its axis, and is also cut by another

plane which on the one hand meets both [lateral] sides of the axial triangle, and

on the other hand, when continued, is neither parallel to the base [of the cone]

nor antiparallel to it, and if the plane of the base of the cone and the cutting

plane meet in a straight line perpendicular either to the base of the axial triangle

or to it continued, then any [straight] line drawn parallel to the common section

of the [base and cutting] planes from the section of the cone to the diameter

of the section will be equal in square to some [rectangular] plane applied to a

straight line to which the diameter of the section is as the square on the

straight line drawn parallel to the sections diameter from the cones vertex to

the [axial] triangles base to the [rectangular] plane under the straight lines cut

[on the axial triangles base] by this straight line in the direction of the sides of

the [axial] triangle, and the applied plane has as breadth the straight line on

the diameter from the sections vertex to [ the point] where the diameter is cut

off by the straight line drawn from the section to the diameter, this plane is

[the rectangular plane under two mentioned straight lines] and decreased by a

figure similar and similarly situated to the plane under the mentioned straight

line and the diameter. I will call such a section an ellipse32.

Let there be a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the

circle , and let it be cut by a plane through its axis, and let it make as a section the triangle . And let it also be cut by another plane on the one hand

meeting both [lateral] sides of the axial triangle and on the other hand continued neither parallel to the base of the cone, nor antiparallel to it, and let it make

as a section on the surface of the cone the [closed curved] line . And let the

common section of the cutting plane and of the plane of the base of the

cone be perpendicular to , and let [according to Proposition I.7 and Definition 4] the diameter of the section be [the straight line] . And let be

drawn from perpendicular to [the diameter] , and let be drawn through

parallel to , and let it be contrived that as sq. is to pl., so is to

.

And let some point be taken [at random] on the section, and let be

drawn through parallel to .

I say that is equal in square to the rectangular plane, which is applied

to and having as breadth, and decreased by a figure similar to pl..

[Proof]. For let be joined, and on the one hand let be drawn

through parallel to , and on the other hand let and be drawn through

and parallel to , and let be drawn through parallel to

Since then is parallel to , and is also parallel to , therefore

17

[according to Proposition XI.15 of Euclid] the plane through and is parallel to the plane through and , which is to the base of the cone.

If therefore a plane is drawn through and , the section [according

to Proposition I.4] will be a circle whose diameter is . And is perpendicular

to it. Therefore [according to Proposition II.14 of Euclid] pl. is equal to

sq..

And since as sq. is to pl., so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to

and is to , and as is to , so is to and is to ,

Therefore the ratio to is compounded of the [ratios] to and

to .

But [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio pl. to

pl. is compounded of the [ratios] to and to .

Therefore [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as pl. is to

pl., so is to and is to .

And with the straight line taken as common height [according to

Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to , so pl. is to pl..

Therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to

pl., so pl. is to pl..

Therefore [according to Proposition V.9 of Euclid] pl. is equal to pl..

But it was shown that pl. is equal to sq., therefore also pl. is

equal to sq..

Therefore is equal in square to the parallelogram , which is applied

to and having as breadth and decreased by the figure similar to

pl..

I will call such a section an ellipse, and let be called the straight line

of application [of rectangular planes] to which the ordinates drawn to are

equal in square. I will call this straight line also the latus rectum, and the straight

line the latus transversum 33-38.

[Proposition] 14

If the vertically opposite surfaces are cut by a plane not through the vertex, the section on each of two surfaces will be that which is called the hyperbola, and the diameter of these two hyperbolas will be the same straight line,

and the straight lines, to which straight lines drawn to the diameter parallel to

18

the straight line in the cones base are applied in square, are equal, and the latus

transversum of the eidos39 [of these hyperbolas], that is the straight line situated between the vertices of the hyperbolas is common. I call such hyperbolas

opposite 40.

Let there be the vertically opposite surfaces whose vertex is the point

and let them be cut by a plane not through the vertex and let it make as sections on the surface the lines and .

I say that each of the two sections and is the so-called hyperbola.

[Proof]. For let there be the circle along which the line generating

the surface moves, and let the plane be drawn parallel to it on the vertically opposite surfaces, and and [according to Proposition I.4] are common sections of the plane of the sections and , and of the [planes of

the] circles. Then [according to Proposition XI.16 of Euclid] they will be parallel.

And let the axis of the conic surface be the straight line and the centers of

the circles be and , and let a straight line drawn from perpendicular

to be continued to the points and , and let a plane be drawn through

and the axis. Then [according to Proposition XI.16 of Euclid] it will make as

sections in the [planes of the] circles the parallel straight lines and , and

on the surface [according to Proposition I.1 and Definition1] and .

Then will be perpendicular to , since is also perpendicular to ,

and [according to Proposition XI.10 of Euclid] each of these two [straight lines]

is parallel to the other. And since the plane through the axis meets the sections

in the points and within the [curved] lines [ and ], it is clear that the

plane through the axis also cuts the [curved] lines. Let it cut them at and .

Therefore , , and are points on the plane through the axis and in the

plane of the [curved] lines, therefore [according to Proposition XI.3 of Euclid]

the line is a straight line. It is also evident both that , , , and are in a

straight line and , , , and also for [according to Proposition I.1]; they are

both on the conic surface and in the plane through the axis. Let then and

be drawn from and perpendicular to , and let be drawn

through parallel to , and let it be contrived that as is to , so sq.

is to pl., and as is to , so sq. is to pl..

Since then a cone whose vertex is the point and whose base is the circle has been cut by a plane through its axis, and it has made as a section the

triangle , and it has also been cut by another plane cutting the base of the

cone in perpendicular to , and it has made as a section on the surface

the line and the diameter continued has met one side of the axial trian19

gle beyond the vertex of the cone, and through the straight line has been

drawn parallel to the diameter of the section , and from the straight line

has been drawn perpendicular to , and as is to , so sq. is to pl.,

therefore [according to Proposition I.12] the section is a hyperbola, and

is the latus rectum of the eidos of this hyperbola , and is the latus transversum of this eidos . Likewise is also a hyperbola whose diameter is and

the latus rectum of whose eidos is , and the latus transversum of whose eidos is .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For since is parallel to , as is to , so is to , and

as is to , so is to .

But [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to pl.

is compounded of [the ratios] to and to and the ratio sq.

to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore as

sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.. Also as sq. is to pl. , so is to

, and sq. is to pl., so is to .Therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as is to , so is to . Therefore [according to

Proposition V.9 of Euclid] is equal to 41.

[Proposition] 15

the diameter is continued both ways to the section, and if it is contrived that as

the continued straight line is to the diameter, so the diameter is to some

straight line, then any straight line which is drawn parallel to the diameter from

the section to the continued straight line will be equal in square to the plane

which is applied to this third proportional and which has as breadth the continued straight line from the section to [the point] where the straight line drawn

parallel to the diameter cuts it off, but such this plane is decreased by a figure

similar to the rectangular plane under the continued straight line to which the

straight lines are drawn and the latus rectum, [that is the third proportional]

and if the straight line drawn parallel to the diameter is further continued to the

other side of the section, this drawn straight line will be bisected by the continued straight line to which it has been drawn42.

Let there be an ellipse whose diameter is , and let be bisected at

the point , and through let be drawn as an ordinate and continued both

ways to the section, and from let be drawn perpendicular to .

And let it be contrived that as is to , so is to .

20

And let some point be taken on the section, and through let be

drawn parallel to , and let be joined, and through let be drawn parallel to , and through and let and be drawn parallel to .

I say that is equal in square to the [rectangular] plane which is applied to and having as breadth and decreased by a figure similar to

pl. [that is is the diameter conjugate to the diameter , and is the

latus rectum for the ordinates to ].

[Proof]. For let be the latus rectum for the ordinates to and let

be joined, and through let be drawn parallel to , and through and

let and be drawn parallel to , and through , , and let , , and

be drawn parallel to .

Therefore sq. is equal to [the plane] , and [according to Proposition

I.13] sq. equal to [the plane] .

And since [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so

is to , and is to and is equal to and is equal to , and is

equal to . Therefore [the plane] is equal to [the plane] , and [the plane]

is equal to [the plane] .

Since also [according to Proposition I.43 of Euclid the plane] is equal

to [the plane] , and [the plane] is common, therefore [the plane] is

equal to [the plane] .

But [the plane] is equal to [the plane] , and [the plane] is common. Therefore [the plane] is equal to [the plane] and is equal to [the

planes] and , and so [the plane] without [the plane] is equal to

[the plane] .

Also [the plane] is equal to sq., [the plane] is equal to sq. and

[the plane] is equal to pl., therefore sq. without sq. is equal to

pl..

Since also has been cut into equal parts at , and into unequal parts at

, therefore [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] the sum of pl. and

sq. is equal to sq., or the sum of pl. and sq.H is equal to sq..

Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to pl., but sq. without

sq. is equal to pl., therefore pl. is equal to pl..

And since as is to , so is to , therefore [according to the porism to

Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as is to , so sq. is to sq., which is [according to Proposition V.15 of Euclid] as is to , so sq. is to sq..

And [according to Proposition I.13] pl. is equal to pl., and is equal

to sq., and since [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so

is to , or [according to Propositions VI.1 and V.11 of Euclid] as is to

21

pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., therefore also as pl. is to pl.,

so pl. is to sq..

And pl. is equal to pl., therefore pl. is equal to sq. and is

equal to sq..

Therefore is equal in square to [the plane] , which is applied to ,

decreased by a figure similar to pl..

I say then that also, if continued to the other side of the section, will

be bisected by .

[Proof]. For let it be continued and let it meet the section at and let

be drawn through parallel to , and through let be drawn parallel to

. And since is equal to , therefore also sq. is equal to sq..

But [according to Proposition I.13] sq. is equal to pl.O and sq. is

equal to pl..

Therefore [according to Proposition VI.16 of Euclid] as is to , so

is to .

And [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to

, therefore also as is to , so is [according to Proposition V.17 of

Euclid] as is to , so is to . Therefore is equal to . And also

is equal to . Therefore also the remainders is equal to , and so also

is equal to .

Therefore , continued to the other side of the section, is bisected by

.

[Proposition] 16

If through the midpoint of the latus transversum of the opposite hyperbolas a straight line be drawn parallel to an ordinate, it will be a diameter of the

opposite hyperbolas conjugate to the diameter just mentioned43.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is , and let be

bisected at and through let be drawn parallel to an ordinate.

I say is a diameter conjugate to .

[Proof]. For let and be the latera recta for the ordinates to , and

let and be joined and continued, and let some point be taken at random

on either section, and through H let be drawn parallel to , and from and

let and be drawn as ordinates, and through and let and be

drawn parallel to and . Since then [according to Proposition I.34 of Euclid]

is equal to , therefore also sq. is equal to sq..

22

equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to pl..

And since [according to Proposition I.14] is equal to , therefore

[according to Proposition V.7 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .

But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to

, and as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is

to .

But, with taken as common height, as is to , so pl. is to

pl., and, with taken as common height, as is to , so pl. is to

pl..

And therefore as pl. is to pl., so pl. is to pl..

And alternately [according to Proposition V.16 of Euclid] as pl. is to

pl., so pl. is to pl..

And above was proved that pl. is equal to pl., therefore pl. is

equal to pl.. Therefore is equal to .

But also is equal to , and therefore is equal to , and so also

is equal to .

Therefore is bisected by , and is parallel to . Therefore is

the diameter and conjugate to .

Second definitions

9. Let the midpoint of the diameter of both the hyperbola and the ellipse

be called the center44 of the section, and let the straight line drawn from the

center to meet the section be called the radius of the section.

10. And likewise let the midpoint of the latus transversum of the opposite

hyperbolas be called the center.

11. And let the straight line drawn from the center [of the hyperbola or

of the ellipse] parallel to an ordinate, being a mean proportional to the sides of

the eidos and bisected by the center, be called the second diameter45.

[Proposition] 17

section and parallel to an ordinate it will fall outside the section46.

Let there be a section of a cone whose diameter is .

I say that the straight line drawn from the vertex, that is from the point

, parallel to an ordinate, will fall outside the section.

23

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall within as . Since then a point has

been taken at random on a section of a cone, therefore the straight line drawn

from within the section parallel to an ordinate will meet the diameter and

[according to Proposition I.7] will be bisected by it. Therefore continued will

be bisected by . And this is impossible for , if continued, [according to

Proposition I.10] will fall outside the section. Therefore the straight line drawn

from the point parallel to an ordinate will not fall within the section, therefore

it will fall outside, and so it is tangent to the section.

[Proposition] 18

falls outside the section, and some point is taken within the section, and

through it a parallel to the straight line meeting the section is drawn, the parallel

so drawn, if continued both ways, will meet the section47.

Let there be a section of a cone and the straight line meeting it, and

let it fall, when continued both ways, outside the section. And let some point

be taken within the section, and through let be drawn parallel to .

I say that continued both ways will meet the section.

[Proof]. For, let some point be taken on the section, and let be

joined. And since is parallel to , and some straight line meets ,

therefore continued will also meet . And if it meets between and , it

is evident that it also meets the section, but if it meets it beyond , that will

first meet the section. Therefore, if is continued to the side of and , it

meets the section. Then likewise we could show that, if it is continued to the

side of and , it also meets it.

Therefore, continued both ways will meet the section.

[Proposition] 19

In every section of a cone any straight line drawn from the diameter parallel to an ordinate will meet the section48.

Let there be a section of a cone whose diameter is , and let some point

be taken on the diameter, and through let be drawn parallel to an ordinate.

I say that continued will meet the section.

[Proof]. For let some point be taken on the section. But is also on the

section; therefore the straight line joined from to [according to Proposition

I.10] will fall within the section. And since the straight line drawn from parallel

24

meets it, and is parallel to the ordinate, therefore will also meet .

And if it meets between and , it is evident that it will also meet the section, but, if it meets if beyond as at , that it will first meet the section.

Therefore the straight line drawn from parallel to an ordinate will meet the

section.

[Proposition] 20

If in a parabola two straight lines are dropped as ordinates to the diameter, the squares on them will be to each other as the straight lines cut off by

them on the diameter beginning from the vertex are to each other49.

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let some points and

be taken on it, and from and let and be dropped as ordinates to .

I say that as sq. is to sq., so is to .

[Proof]. For let be the latus rectum for the ordinates to the diameter.

Therefore [according to the Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl. and

sq. is equal to pl..

Therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

But [according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as pl. is to pl., so

is to , and therefore as sq. is to sq., so is to .

[Proposition] 21

lines are dropped as ordinates to the diameter, the squares on them will be to

the [rectangular] planes under the straight lines cut off by them beginning from

the [both] ends of the latus transversum of the eidos as the latus rectum of the

eidos is to the latus transversum, and to each other as the planes under the

straight lines cut off as we have said51.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is and whose latus rectum for the ordinates to the diameter

is , and let the ordinates and be dropped to the diameter.

I say that as sq. is to pl., so is to , and as sq. is to sq.,

so pl. is to pl..

[Proof]. For let determining the eidos be joined, and through and

let and be drawn parallel to . Therefore [according to Propositions I.12

and I.13] sq. is equal to pl., and sq. is equal to pl..

25

height as is to , so pl. is to pl., therefore as is to , so

pl. is to pl., or as is to , so sq. is to pl..

Then also for the same reasons as is to , so sq. is to pl..

And therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl., and alternately

as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

[Proposition] 22

the diameter inside, it will, if continued, meet the diameter of the section outside the section52.

Let there be a parabola or a hyperbola whose diameter is , and let

some straight line cut the section at two points and [and do not cut the diameter ].

I say that , if continued, will meet outside the section.

[Proof]. For let and be dropped as ordinates from and , and first

let the section be a parabola. Since then in the parabola [according to Proposition I.20] as sq. is to sq., so is to and is greater than , therefore also sq. is greater than sq..

And so also is greater than .

And they are parallel; therefore [according to Proposition I.10] continued will meet outside the section.

But then let it be a hyperbola [with the latus transversum ]. Since then

in the hyperbola [according to Proposition I.21] as sq. is to sq., so

pl. is to pl., therefore also sq. is greater than sq..

And they are parallel; therefore continued will meet outside the

section.

[Proposition] 23

If a straight line situated between two diameters cuts the ellipse, it will,

when continued, meet each of the diameters outside the section 53.

Let there be an ellipse whose diameters are and , and let some

straight line is situated between the diameters and .

I say that , when continued, will meet each of and outside the

section.

[Proof]. For let HE and be dropped as ordinates from and to ,

and and as ordinates to .Therefore [according to Proposition I.21] as

26

to pl..

And pl. is greater than pl. for [according to Proposition II.5 of

Euclid] H is nearer to the midpoint of than , and pl. is greater than

pl. [for is nearer to the midpoint of than ].

Therefore also sq. is greater than sq., and sq. is greater than sq..

Therefore also is greater than , and is greater than .

And is parallel to , and to , therefore [according to Proposition I.10 and Proposition I.33 of Euclid] continued will meet each of the diameters and outside the section 54.

[Proposition] 24

If a straight line meeting a parabola or a hyperbola at a point, when continued both ways falls outside the section, then it will meet the diameter 55.

Let there be a parabola or a hyperbola whose diameter is , and let

meet it at , and when continued both ways, let it fall outside the section.

I say that it will meet the diameter .

[Proof]. For let some point be taken on the section, and let be

joined, therefore [according to Proposition I.22] continued will meet the diameter of the section. Let it meet it at , and is situated between the section and . And therefore continued will meet the diameter outside the

section.

[Proposition] 25

both ways falls outside the section, it will meet each of the diameters 56.

Let there be an ellipse whose diameters are and , and let , some

straight line between two diameters, meet it at , and continued both ways fall

outside the section.

I say that will meet each of and .

[Proof]. Let and be dropped as ordinates to and respectively. Since [according to Proposition I.15] is parallel to , and some

straight line has met , therefore it will also meet . Then likewise will

also meet .

[Proposition] 26

27

If in a parabola or a hyperbola a straight line if drawn parallel to the diameter of the section, it will meet the section at one point only 57.

Let there first be a parabola whose diameter is , and whose latus rectum is , and let be drawn parallel to .

I say that continued will meet the section [at one point only].

[Proof]. For let some point be taken on , and from let be drawn

parallel to an ordinate, and let pl. is greater than sq., and from let [according to Proposition I.19] be erected as an ordinate.

Therefore [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl..

But pl. is greater than sq., therefore sq. is greater than sq.,

therefore is greater than . And they are parallel.

Therefore continued cuts , and so it will also meet the section.

Let it meet it at . Then I say also that it will meet it at only.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it also meet it at . Since then a straight line

cuts a parabola at two points, if continued [according to Proposition I.22] it will

meet the diameter of the section, and this is impossible for it is supposed parallel.

Therefore continued meets the section at only one point.

Next let the section be a hyperbola, and be the latus transversum of

the eidos, and be the latus rectum, and let be joined and continued. Then

with the same construction let be drawn from parallel to . Since then

pl. is greater than , sq. is equal to pl., and pl. is greater than

sq., therefore also sq. is greater than sq.. And so also is greater

than , and the same reasons as in the first case will come to pass.

[Proposition] 27

If a straight line [within the section] cuts the diameter of a parabola, then

continued both ways it will meet the section 58.

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let some straight

line cut it within the section.

I say that continued both ways will meet the section.

[Proof]. For let some straight line be drawn from parallel to an ordinate, therefore [according to Proposition I.17] will fall outside the section.

Then either is parallel to or not.

If it is parallel to it, it has been dropped as an ordinate, so that continued

both ways [according to Proposition I.18] it will meet the section.

Next let it not be parallel to , but continued let it meet at .

28

Then it is evident that it meets the section in the side of E for if it meets ,

and a fortiori it cuts the section.

I say that if continued the other way, it also meets the section.

[Proof]. For let be the latus rectum for the ordinates to the diameter,

and be an ordinate, and let [according to Propositions VI.11 and VI.17 of

Euclid] sq. is equal to pl., and let parallel to an ordinate meet at .

Since pl. is equal to sq., hence as is to , so is to , and therefore [according to Proposition V.10 of Euclid] as is to , so is to

.Therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

But since sq. is equal to pl., hence as is to , so sq. is to

sq., and sq. is to sq..

But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as is to , so

pl. is to pl..

Therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl., and correspondingly as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..

But because of the section [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to

pl.. Therefore also sq. is equal to pl..

But is the latus rectum, and is parallel to an ordinate. Therefore

[according to the Proposition I.11] the section passes through , and meets

the section at .

[Proposition] 28

If a straight line touches one of the opposite hyperbolas, and some point

is taken within the other hyperbola, and through it a straight line is drawn parallel to the tangent, than continued both ways, it will meet the section 59.

Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is , and let some

straight line touch the hyperbola , and let some point be taken within the

other hyperbola, and through let be parallel to .

I say that continued both ways will meet the section.

[Proof]. Since then it has been proved [in Proposition I.24] that continued will meet the diameter , and is parallel to it, therefore continued

will meet the diameter. Let it meet it at , and let be made equal to , and

through let be drawn parallel to , and let be dropped as an ordinate,

and let be made equal to , and let be drawn parallel to an ordinate,

and let be further continued in the same straight line. And since is parallel to , and to , and is one straight line [with the diameter ] the

29

is equal to .and so also sq. is equal to sq..

And since is equal to and is equal to , and is common,

therefore is equal to , and therefore pl. is equal to pl..

Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

And [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus

transversum is to the latus rectum.

Therefore also as pl. is to sq., so latus transversum is to the latus

rectum.

Therefore is on the section. Therefore [according to Proposition I.21]

continued will meet the section at .

Likewise then it could be shown that continued to the other side it will

meet the section.

[Proposition] 29

meet either of the hyperbolas, then continued it will cut the other hyperbola 60.

Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose transverse diameter is , and

whose center is , and let cut the hyperbola .

I say that it will also cut the other hyperbola.

[Proof]. For let be dropped as an ordinate, and let be made equal

to , and let be drawn as an ordinate. And since is equal to , and

is common, therefore pl. is equal to pl..

And since [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the

latus transversum is to the latus rectum, but also pl. is to sq., so the

latus transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore also [according to Proposition I.14] as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

But pl. is equal to pl.; therefore sq. is equal to sq..

Since then is equal to and is equal to , and is a straight

line, and is parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition VI.32 of Euclid]

is also a straight line. And therefore [continued] will also cut the other

hyperbola.

[Proposition] 30

If in an ellipse or in opposite hyperbolas a straight line is drawn in both directions from the center, meeting the section, it will be bisected at the center61.

30

their center , and through let some straight line be drawn.

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let and be drawn as ordinates. And since [according to

Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus

rectum, but also as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus

rectum, therefore also [according to Proposition V.11 of Euclid] as pl. is to

sq., so pl. is to sq..

And alternately as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq..

But [according to Propositions V.16, VI.4 and VI.22 of Euclid] as sq. is

to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore alternately as pl. is to sq., so

pl. is to sq..

Therefore also [according to Propositions II 5 and II.6 of Euclid] componendo in the case of the ellipse and inversely and convertendo 62 in the case of

the opposite hyperbolas, as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and alternately [as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.]. But sq. is equal to sq.,

therefore also sq. is equal to sq., therefore is equal to .

And and are parallel; therefore also is equal to .

[Proposition] 31

taken cutting off from the vertex of the section not less than half of the latus

transversum of the eidos, and a straight line be drawn from it to meet to section, then when further continued it will fall within the section on the near side

of the section 63.

Let there be a hyperbola whose diameter is , and let some point on

the diameter be taken Cutting off not less than half of , and let some

straight line be drawn to meet the section.

I say that continued will fall within the section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall outside the section as , and from ,

a point at random, let be dropped as an ordinate, also [let be dropped as

an ordinate]; and first let be equal to .

And since [according to Propositions V.8 and VI.22 of Euclid] the ratio

sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio sq. to sq., but as sq. is to

sq., so sq. is to sq. because is parallel to , and as sq. is to

sq., so pl. is tO pl. because for the section [according to Proposition

I.21], therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio pl. to

31

pl.. Therefore alternately the ratio sq. to pl. is greater than the ratio

sq. to pl..

Therefore separando [according to Propositions II.6 and V.17 of Euclid]

the ratio sq. to pl. is greater than the ratio sq. to pl., and this is

impossible [according to Proposition V.8 of Euclid]. Therefore will not fall

outside the section, and it falls inside.

And for this reason the straight line from some of the points on will a

fortiori fall inside, since it will also fall inside .

[Proposition] 32

to an ordinate, then it touches the section, and another straight line will not fall

into the space between the conic section and this straight line 64.

Let there be a section of a cone, first the so-called parabola whose diameter is [and whose vertex is ], and from let be drawn parallel to an

ordinate.

Now [in the Proposition I.17] it has been shown that it falls outside the

section.

Then I say that also another straight line will not fall into the space between and the section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall inside as , and let some point be

taken on it at random, and let be dropped as the ordinate, and let be the

latus rectum for the ordinates to . And since [according to Propositions V.8

and VI.22 of Euclid] the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio sq. to

sq., and [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl., therefore

also the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio pl. to sq., or is

greater than the ratio to .

Let then it be contrived that as sq. is to sq., so is to , and

through let be drawn parallel to .

Since then as sq. is to sq., so is to , and pl. is to

sq. and [according to Propositions VI.4 and Vi.22 of Euclid] as sq. is to

sq., so sq. is to sq., and [according to Proposition I.11] sq. is equal

to pl., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

Therefore is equal to , and this is impossible. Therefore another

straight line will not fall into the space between and the section.

32

circle whose diameter is , and whose latus rectum is , and let be joined

and continued, and from let be drawn parallel to an ordinate.

Now [in Proposition I.17] it has been shown that it falls outside the section.

Then I say that also another straight line will not fall into the space between and the section.

[Proof], For, if possible, let it fall inside as , and let some point be

taken on it at random, and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let be

drawn parallel to .

And since [according to Propositions I.12 and I.13] sq. is equal to

pl., let it be contrived that pl. is equal to sq., and let cut at ,

and through let be drawn parallel to , and through parallel

to . Since then sq. is equal to pl., hence as is to , so is to ,

and therefore [according to Propositions V.11 and VI.22 and the porism to

Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as is to , so sq. is to sq..

But as is to , so is to , and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is

to sq.. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq., therefore [according

to the porism to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as is to , so is to .

Therefore sq. is equal to pl., but also because for the section [according to Propositions I.12 and I.13] sq. is equal to pl., therefore sq.

is equal to sq., and this is impossible. Therefore another straight line will not

fall into the space between and the section.

[Proposition] 33

the diameter, and to the straight line cut off by it on the diameter from the vertex a straight line in the same straight line from its extremity is made equal,

then the straight line joined from the point thus resulting to the point taken will

touch the section 65.

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , [and whose vertex is ],

and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let be made equal to , and let

be joined.

I say that continued will fall outside the section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall within as , and let be dropped as

an ordinate. And since the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than sq. to sq.,

but as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. , and [according to Proposition

33

than sq. to sq..

But as is to , so quadruple pl. is to quadruple pl., therefore

also the ratio quadruple pl. to quadruple pl. is greater than sq. to

sq..

Therefore, alternately the ratio quadruple pl. to sq. is greater than

the ratio quadruple pl. to sq., and this is impossible for since is equal

to , hence quadruple pl. is less than sq. for [according to Proposition

II.5 of Euclid], is not the midpoint of .Therefore t does not fall within the

section, therefore it touches it.

[Proposition] 34

is taken, and if from it a straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter,

and if the straight lines which the ordinate cuts off from the ends of the latus

transversum of the eidos have to each other a ratio which other segments of

the latus transversum have to each other, so that the segments from the vertex are homologous 66, then the straight line joining the point taken on the latus

transversum and that taken on the section will touch the section 67.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is , and let some point be taken on the section, and from

let be drawn as an ordinate, and let it be contrived that as is to , so

is to , and let be joined.

I say that touches the section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it cut it, as , and let some point be taken

on it, and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let and be drawn

through and parallel to , and let , , and be joined and continued

to , , and . And since as it to , so is to , but [according to

Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to , and as is to , so

is to , and is to , therefore as is to , so is to , therefore

is equal to .

Therefore [according to Propositions II.5 and VI.27 of Euclid] pl. is

greater than pl..

Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] as to , so is to ,

therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

Therefore pl., is greater than pl.,.

34

sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to sq..

But as pl., is to sq., so pl. is to sq. because the triangles

, , and are similar, and as pl., is to sq., so pl. is to

sq., therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is greater than the ratio pl. to

sq., therefore alternately the ratio to pl. is greater than the ratio

sq. to sq..

But [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to

sq. and [according to Propositions VI.4 and VI.22 of Euclid] as sq. is to

sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore also the ratio sq. to sq. is greater

than the ratio sq. to sq..

Therefore [according to Proposition V.10 of Euclid] is less than

, and this is impossible. Therefore does not cut the section. Therefore, it

touches it 68-69.

[Proposition] 35

If a straight line touching a parabola, meets the diameter outside the section, the straight line drawn from the point of contact as an ordinate to the diameter will cut off on the diameter beginning from the vertex of the section a

straight line equal to the straight line between the vertex and the [diameters

intersection with the] tangent, and not straight line will fall into the space between the tangent and the section 70.

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , [whose vertex is ], and let

be erected as an ordinate, and let be tangent to the section.

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it be unequal to it, and let be made equal

to , and let be upright as an ordinate, and let be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition I.33] continued will meet , and this is impossible for

two straight lines will have the same ends. Therefore is not unequal to ;

therefore it is equal to it.

Then I say that no straight line will fall into the space between and the

section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let fall between, and let be made equal to

, and let be erected as an ordinate. Therefore [according to Proposition

I.33] the straight line joined from to touches the section, therefore continued it will fall outside it. And so it will meet , and two straight lines will have

35

the same ends, and this is impossible. Therefore a straight line will not fall into

the space between the section and .

[Proposition] 36

If some straight line meeting the latus transversum of the eidos touches a

hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle, and if a straight line

dropped from the point of contact as an ordinate to the diameter, then as the

straight line cut off by the tangent from the end of the latus transversum is to

the straight line cut off by the tangent from the other end of the latus transversum, so the straight line will cut off by the ordinate from the end of the latus

transversum be to the straight line cut off by the ordinate from the other end

of the latus transversum in such a way that the homologous straight lines are

in continuous correspondence, and another straight line will not fall into the

space between the tangent and the section of the cone 71.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is , and let be tangent, and let be dropped as an ordinate.

I say that as BE is to , so is to .

[Proof]. For if it is not, let it be as is to , so is to , and let

be erected as an ordinate, therefore the straight line joined from to [according to Proposition I.34] will touch the section, therefore continued it will meet

. Therefore two straight lines will have the same ends, and this is impossible.

I say that no straight line will fall between the section and .

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it fall between, as , and let it be contrived

that as is to , so to , and let be erected as an ordinate, therefore the straight line joined from to , when continued [according to Proposition I.34] will meet . Therefore two straight lines will have the same ends,

and this is impossible. Therefore a straight line will not fall into the space between the section and .

[Proposition] 37

If a straight line touching a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of

a circle meets the diameter, and from the point of contact to the diameter a

straight line is dropped as an ordinate, then the straight line cut off by the ordinate from the center of the section with the straight line cut off by the tangent

from the center of the section will contain an area equal to the square on the

radius of the section, and with the straight line between the ordinate and the

36

tangent will contain an area having the ratio to the square on the ordinate which

the latus transversum has to the latus rectum 72.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is and let be drawn tangent, and let be dropped as an

ordinate, and let be the center.

I say that pl. is equal to sq., and as pl. is to sq.. so the latus

transversum is to the latus rectum.

[Proof]. For since touches the section, and has been dropped as an

ordinate, hence [according to Proposition I.36] as is to , so is to .

Therefore componendo as the sum of and is to , so the sum of

and is to .

And [according to Proposition V.15 of Euclid] let the halves of the antecedents be taken. In the case of the hyperbola we shall say: but half of the sum

of and is equal to , and half of is equal to , therefore as is to

, so is to . Therefore convertendo as is to , so is to , therefore pl. is equal to sq..

And since as is to , so is to , and is to , and alternately

as is to , so is to , and componendo as is to , so is to

and so, pl. is equal to pl..

But [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus

transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore also pl. is to sq., so the

latus transversum is to the latus rectum.

And in the case of the ellipse and of the circle we shall say: but half of the

sum of AD and is equal to and half of is equal to , therefore as is

to , so is to . Therefore convertendo as is to , so is to .

Therefore pl. is equal to sq..

But [according to Proposition II.3 of Euclid] pl. is equal to the sum of

pl. and sq. and [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] sq. is equal to

the sum pl. and sq..

Let the common sq. be subtracted, therefore pl. is equal to pl..

Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

But [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so the latus

transversum is to the latus rectum. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so the latus

transversum is to the latus rectum 73-80.

[Proposition] 38

37

a circle meets the second diameter and if from the point of contact a straight

line is dropped to the same diameter parallel to the other diameter then the

straight line cut off from the center of the section by the dropped straight line,

together with the straight line cut off [on the second diameter] by the tangent

from the center of the section will contain an area equal to the square on the

half of the second diameter and together with the straight line [on the second

diameter] between the dropped straight line and the tangent will contain an

area having a ratio to the square on the dropped straight line which the latus

rectum of the eidos has to the latus transversum 81.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is , and whose second diameter is , and let meeting at be a tangent to the section, and let the be parallel to .

I say that pl. is equal to sq. and as pl. is to sq., so the latus

rectum is to the latus transversum.

[Proof]. Let ME be drawn as an ordinate, therefore [according to Proposition I.37] as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum.

But [according to Definition 11] as the latus transversum is to ,

is to the latus rectum and therefore [according to the porism to Proposition

VI.19 of Euclid] as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so sq. BA is to

sq., and as the quarters of them, that is as the latus transversum is to the

latus rectum, so sq., is to sq., therefore also as pl. is to sq., so

sq. is to sq..

But the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to or the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]

to and to . Therefore inversely as sq. is to sq., so is to

or the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to and to or the ratio

to .

Therefore, the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]

to and to which is the same as the ratio pl. to pl..

Therefore as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq.. And alternately

[as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..].

But [according to Proposition I.37] pl. is equal to sq., therefore

also pl. is equal to sq..

Again since [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus rectum is to

the latus transversum, so sq. is to pl., and the ratio sq. to pl.

is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , or the ratio sq. to

38

, is the same as pl. to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so

the latus rectum is to the latus transversum.

[Porism] 1

Under the same suppositions [on the hyperbola] we shall prove that as each

straight line situated [on the second diameter] between the tangent and the

end of the [second] diameter from the ordinate is to the straight line situated

between the tangent and the other end of the [second] diameter, so the

straight line situated between the other end of the [second] diameter and the

ordinate to the straight line situated between the first end and the ordinate 82.

Since pl. is equal to sq., that is pl. because is equal to ,

pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so is to , and

separando and convertendo as is to ,so is to . If the antecedents

are doubled and separando we obtain that as is to , so is to , what

was to prove 83.

[Porism] 2

From the said it is evident that the straight line is tangent to the section because pl. is equal to sq.. Hence we can prove that as pl.

is to sq. , so the ratio [of the latus rectum to the latus transversum] that

was proved [in Proposition I.38].

[Proposition] 39

a circle meets the diameter and if from the point of contact a straight line is

dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, then whichever of the two straight lines

is taken, of which one is the straight line between the [intersection of the] ordinate [with the diameter] and the center of the section, and the other is between [the intersection of] the ordinate and the tangent [with the diameter]

the ordinate will have to it the ratio compounded of the ratio of the other of the

two straight lines to the ordinate and of the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos to the latus transversum84.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is , and let the center of it be , and let be drawn tangent

to the section, and be dropped as an ordinate.

I say that the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] the latus

39

compounded of [the ratios] the latus rectum to the latus transversum and

to .

[Proof]. For let pl. is equal to pl., and since [according to Proposition I.37] as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the

latus rectum and pl. is equal to pl.,, therefore as pl., is to sq.,

so H is to and the latus transversum is to the latus rectum.

And since pl. is equal to pl.,, hence as is to , so is to .

And since the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to ,

but as is to H, so the latus rectum is to the latus transversum,

therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] the latus rectum

to the latus transversum and to .

[Proposition] 40

of a circle meets the second diameter, and if from the point of contact a

straight line is dropped to the same diameter parallel to the other diameter,

then whichever of two straight lines is taken [along the second diameter], of

which one is the straight line between the dropped straight line and the center

of the section, and the other is between the dropped straight line and the tangent, then the dropped straight line will have to one of two straight lines the

ratio compounded of the ratio of the latus transversum to the latus rectum and

of the ratio of the other of two straight lines to the dropped straight line85.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

, and its diameter , and its second diameter , and let be drawn

tangent, and be drawn parallel to .

I say that the ratio to one of , is compounded of the ratio the

latus transversum to the latus rectum and the ratio the other of , to

[Proof] . Let pl., is equal to pl.,. And since [according to Proposition I.38] as the latus rectum is to the latus transversum, so pl., is to

sq. and pl., is equal to pl.,, therefore also as pl., is to sq., so

is to and the latus rectum is to the latus transversum.

And since the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and

to , but as is to , so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and

as is to , so is to because pl. is equal to pl.,, therefore the

ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] the latus transversum to the latus

rectum and to .

40

[Proposition] 41

straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if equiangular parallelogrammic figures are described both on the ordinate and on the

radius, and if the ordinate side has to the remaining side of the figure the

ratio compounded of the ratio of the radius to the remaining side of its

figure, and of the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos of the section to the

latus transversum, then the figure on the straight line between the center

and the ordinate, similar to the figure on the radius, is in the case of the hyperbola greater than the figure on the ordinate by the figure on the radius,

and in the case of the ellipse and the circumference of a circle together with the

figure on the ordinate is equal to the figure on the radius 86.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is , and center , and let be dropped as an ordinate, and

on and let the equiangular figures and be described, and let the

ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus rectum to

the latus transversum.

I say that with the figure on similar to [the plane] in the case on

the hyperbola the figure on is equal to the sum of [the planes] and ,

and in the case of the ellipse and the circle the sum of the figure on and

[the plane] is equal to [the plane] .

[Proof]. For let it be contrived that as the latus rectum is to the latus

transversum, so is to .

And since as is to , so the latus rectum is to the latus transversum

, but as is to , so sq. is to pl. , and [according to Proposition I.21]

as the latus rectum is to the latus transversum, so sq. is to pl., therefore

pl. is equal to pl. .

And since the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and

the latus rectum to the latus transversum , or the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , and further the ratio to is

compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore the ratio compounded of[the ratios] to and to is the same, as the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

Let the common ratio to be taken away, therefore as is to

, so is to .

But as is to , so pl. is to pl. ,and as is to , so sq. is

to pl., therefore as pl. is to pl. , so sq. is to pl..

41

pl. is to pl., so sq. is to pl., and alternately as pl. is to sq.,

so pl. is to pl..

And as pl. is to pl., so [the plane] is to [the plane] for they

are equiangular and [according to Proposition VI.23 of Euclid] have to one another the ratio compounded of their sides, to and to , and therefore as pl. is to sq., so [the plane] is to [the plane] .

Moreover in the case of the hyperbola we are to say : componendo as the

sum of pl. and sq. is to sq., so the sum of [the planes] and is to

[the plane] or [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq.,

so the sum of [the planes] and is to [the plane] . And as sq. is to

sq., so [according to the porism to Proposition VI,29 of Euclid] the figure described on is similar and similarly situated to [the plane] , to [the plane]

, therefore with the figure on similar to [the plane] , as the sum of [the

planes] and is to [the plane] , so the figure on is to [the plane] .

Therefore the figure on is equal to the sum of [the planes] and , the

figure on being similar to [the plane] . And in the case of the ellipse and of

the circumference of a circle we shall say : since then [according to Proposition

V.19 of Euclid] as whole sq. is to whole [the plane] , so pl. subtracted

is to [the plane] subtracted, also remainder is to remainder as whole to

whole.

And [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] sq. without pl. is equal

to sq., therefore as sq. is to [the plane] without [the plane] , so

sq. is to [the plane] . But [according to the porism to Proposition VI,20 of

Euclid] as sq. is to [the plane] , so sq. is to the figure on , the figure

on being similar to [the plane] . Therefore as sq. is to [the plane]

without [the plane] , so sq. is to the figure on the . Therefore the figure

on being similar to [the plane] , the figure on is equal to [the plane]

without [the plane] .

Therefore the sum of the figure on and [the plane] is equal to [the

plane] .

[Proposition] 42

If a straight line touching a parabola meets the diameter, and if from the

point of contact a straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if

some point is taken on the section, two straight lines are dropped to the diameter, one of them parallel to the tangent, and the other parallel to the straight

line dropped from the point of contact, then the triangle resulting from them

42

[that is from the diameter and the two straight lines dropped from the point at

random] is equal to the parallelogram under the straight line dropped of the

point of contact and the straight line cut off by the parallel from the vertex of

the section 87 .

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let be drawn tangent to the section, and let be dropped as an ordinate and from some point

at random let be dropped as an ordinate and through let be drawn parallel to , and through let be drawn parallel to and through B let

be drawn parallel to .

I say that the triangle is equal to the parallelogram .

[Proof]. For, since touches the section, and has been dropped as

an ordinate [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , therefore is

equal to double . Therefore [according to Proposition I.41 of Euclid] the triangle is equal to the parallelogram .

And since as sq. is to sq., so is to because of the section

[according to Proposition I.20], but [according to the porism to Proposition

VI.20 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle

and [according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , therefore the triangle is to the triangle

, so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram .

Therefore alternately as the triangle is to the parallelogram , so

the triangle is to the parallelogram .

But the triangle is equal to the parallelogram ,therefore the

triangle is equal to the parallelogram .

[Proposition] 43

a circle meets the diameter, and if from the point of contact a straight line is

dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if through the vertex a parallel [to

an ordinate] is drawn meeting the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the center, and if some point [at random] is taken on the section, two

straight lines are drawn to the diameter, one of which is parallel to the tangent

and the other parallel to straight line dropped [as an ordinate] from the point of

contact, then in the case of the hyperbola the triangle resulting from them that

is the diameter and two lines drawn through the point taken at random to the

diameter] will be less than the triangle cut off by the straight line through the

center to the point of contact [by the ordinate through the point at random] by

the triangle on the radius similar to the triangle cut off, and in the case of the

43

ellipse and the circumference of a circle [the triangle resulting from the diameter and two lines through the point taken at random to the diameter] together

with the triangle cut off [by the line] from the center [to the point of contact

and by the ordinate through the point at random] will be equal to the triangle

on the radius similar to the triangle cut off 88.

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is , and center , and let be drawn tangent to the section,

and let be joined, and let be dropped as an ordinate, and let some point

be taken on the section, and let be drawn parallel to the tangent, and let

be dropped as an ordinate [and continued to meet at ], and through let

be erected as an ordinate.

I say that the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

.

[Proof]. For since touches and has been dropped, hence [according

to Proposition I.39] the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to

and the latus rectum to the latus transversum.

But as to , so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.4 of

Euclid] as is to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus rectum to the latus transversum.

And through those reasons it has been shown in the theorem 41[that is

Proposition I.41] the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

for the same reasons have also been shown in the case of the parallelograms, their doubles.

[Proposition] 44

If a straight line touching one of the opposite hyperbolas meets the diameter, and if from the point of contact some straight line is dropped as an ordinate to the diameter, and if a parallel to it is drawn through the vertex of the

other hyperbola meeting the straight line drawn through the point of contact

and the center, and if some point is taken at random on the section and [from

it] two straight lines are dropped to the diameter, one of which is parallel to the

tangent and the other parallel to the straight line dropped as an ordinate from

the point of contact, then the triangle resulting from them will be less than the

triangle cut off by the dropped straight line from the center of the section by

the triangle on the radius similar to the triangle cut off 89.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and let their diameter be

and center , and from some point on the hyperbola let be drawn

tangent to the section, and as an ordinate, and let be joined and contin44

ued as , and through let be drawn parallel to , and let some point

be taken on the hyperbola , and from let be dropped as an ordinate,

and let be drawn parallel to .

I say that the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle

.

[Proof]. For through let be drawn tangent to the hyperbola , and

let be drawn as an ordinate. Since then and are opposite hyperbolas

whose diameter is , and the straight line through whose center is , and

and are tangents to the section, hence is parallel to . And is

parallel to , therefore NK is also parallel to , and to . Since then is

a hyperbola whose diameter is and whose center is , and is tangent to

the section, and drawn as an ordinate, and is parallel to , and has

been taken on the section as the point from which has been dropped as an

ordinate, and has been drawn parallel to , therefore the sum of the

triangles and is equal to the triangle for this has been shown in

the theorem 43 [that is Proposition I.43].

[Proposition] 45

a circle meets the second diameter, and if from the point of contact some

straight line is dropped to same diameter parallel to the other diameter, and if

through the point of contact and the center a straight line is drawn, and if some

point is taken as random on the section, and [from it] two straight lines are

drawn to the second diameter, one of which is parallel to the tangent and the

other parallel to the dropped straight line, then in the case of the hyperbola the

triangle resulting from them is greater than the triangle cut off by the dropped

straight line from the center by the triangle whose base is the tangent and vertex is the center of the section, and in the case of the ellipse and the circle [resulting from the second diameter and two straight lines drawn to the second

diameter] together with the triangle cut off will be equal to the triangle whose

base is the tangent and whose vertex is the center of the section 90 .

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

, whose diameter is , and second diameter , and center , and let

touch it at , and let be drawn parallel to , and let be joined and continued, and let some point be taken at random on the section, and from let

and be drawn parallel to and .

45

I say that in the case of the hyperbola the triangle is equal to the

sum of the triangles and , and in the case of the ellipse and the circle

the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle .

[Proof]. For let and be drawn parallel to . Since then is tangent, and has been dropped as an ordinate, hence [according to Proposition

I.39] the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus

rectum to the latus transversum, and [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid]

as is to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is compounded of

[the ratios] to and the latus rectum is to the latus transversum.

And the triangle is the figure on , and the triangle , that is the

triangle , is the figure on , that is on , therefore in the case of the hyperbola the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangle and the triangle

on similar to the triangle , and in the case of the ellipse and the circle

the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle on similar to

the triangle for this was also shown in the case of their doubles in the theorem 41 [that is Proposition I.41].

Since then the triangle differs either from the triangle or from

the triangle by the triangle on similar to the triangle , and it also differs by the triangle , therefore the triangle is equal to the triangle on

similar to the triangle . Since then the triangle is similar to the triangle , and the triangle [is similar] to the triangle , therefore they

have the same ratio. And the triangle is described on between the ordinate and the center, and the triangle on the ordinate , which is on ,

and by already shown [in Proposition I.41] the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle on similar to the triangle , and so also by the

triangle .

[Proposition] 46

straight line drawn through the point of contact parallel to the diameter in the

direction of the section bisects the straight lines drawn in the section parallel to

the tangent 91 .

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and let touch the

section, and through let be drawn parallel to , and let some point be

taken at random on the section and let be drawn parallel to .

I say that is equal to .

46

already shown in the theorem 42 [that is Proposition I.42] the triangle is

equal to the parallelogram BM and [the triangle] is equal to the [parallelogram] , therefore the remainders the parallelogram is equal to the quadrangle92 .

Let the common the quinquangle93 be subtracted, therefore the

remainders the triangle is equal to [the triangle] , therefore [according

to Proposition VI.22 of Euclid] is equal to 94 .

[Proposition] 47

a circle meets the diameter, and if through the point of contact and the center

a straight line is drawn in the direction of the section, then it bisects the

straight lines drawn in the section parallel to the tangent 95 .

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is and center , and let be drawn tangent to the section,

and let joined and continued, and let a point be taken at random on the

section, and through let [the straight] line be drawn parallel to .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let , , and be dropped as ordinates. Therefore by

reasons already shown in the theorem 43 [that is Proposition I.43] the triangle

is equal to the quadrangle , and the triangle is equal to the

quadrangle . Therefore the remainders quadrangle is equal to the

quadrangle .

Let the common quinquangle be subtracted, therefore the remainder triangle is equal to triangle .

And is parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition VI.22 of

Euclid] is equal to 96 .

[Proposition] 48

and if through the point of contact and the center a straight line drawn cuts

the other hyperbola, then whatever line is drawn in the other hyperbola parallel to the tangent, will be bisected by the drawn straight line 97 .

Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is and center , and

let touch the hyperbola A and let be joined and continued, and let some

47

.

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the section, therefore

[according to Proposition i.44] is parallel to . And so also to since

then is a hyperbola whose center is and tangent , and since has

been joined and a point has been taken on the section and through it has

been drawn parallel to , by a theorem already shown [in Proposition I.47] for

the hyperbola is equal to .

[Proposition] 49

the point of contact a parallel to the diameter is drawn, and if from the vertex a

straight line is drawn parallel to an ordinate, and if it is contrived that as the

segment of the tangent between the straight line erected [as an ordinate] and

the point of contact is to the segment of the parallel between the point of contact and the straight line erected [as an ordinate], so is some straight line to

the double of the tangent, then whatever straight line is drawn [parallel to the

tangent] from the section to the straight line drawn through the point of contact parallel to the diameter, will equal in square to the rectangular plane under

the straight line found [that is the latus rectum] and the straight line cut off by

it [that is the line parallel to the tangent] from the point of contact 98.

Let there be a parabola whose diameter is , and its tangent, and

through let be drawn parallel to , and let be erected as an ordinate,

and let it be contrived that as is to , so some straight line is to double

, and let some point be taken on the section, and let be drawn

through parallel to .

I say that sq. is equal to pl., , that is that with as diameter, is

the latus rectum.

[Proof]. For let and be dropped as ordinates. And since

touches the section, and has been dropped as an ordinate, then [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to .

But is equal to . And therefore is equal to . And so also the

triangle is equal to the triangle .

Let the common figure be added, therefore [according to Proposition I.42] the quadrangle is equal to the parallelogram and is equal

to the triangle .

48

Let the common quadrangle be subtracted therefore the remainders triangle is equal to parallelogram . And the angle is equal to

the angle , therefore pl. is equal to double pl.. And since as is to

, so is to double , and as is to , so is to , therefore also as

is to double , so is to .

But as is to , so sq. is to pl., and as is to double , so

pl., is to double pl., therefore as sq. is to pl., so pl., is to

double pl., and corresponding [as sq. is to pl., , so pl. is to double pl.]. But pl. is equal to double pl., therefore also sq. is equal

to pl.,.

[Proposition] 50

a circle meets the diameter, and if a straight line is drawn through the point of

contact and the center, and if from the vertex a straight line erected parallel to

an ordinate meets the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the

center, and if it is contrived that as the segment of the tangent between the

point of contact and the straight line erected [as an ordinate from the vertex] is

to the segment of the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the

center between the point of contact and the straight line erected [as an ordinate from the vertex], so some straight line is to the double tangent, then any

straight line parallel to the tangent and drawn from the section to the straight

line drawn through the point of contact and the center will equal in square to a

rectangular plane applied to the found straight line having as breadth the

straight line cut off [of the diameter] by the ordinate from the point of contact,

and in the case of the hyperbola increased by a figure similar to the rectangular plane under the double straight line between the center and the point of

contact and the found straight line, but in the case of the ellipse and the circle

decreased by the same figure 99 .

Let there be a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle

whose diameter is and center , and let be a tangent, and let be

joined and continued both ways, and let be made equal to , and through

let be erected as an ordinate, and through let be drawn perpendicular to , and let it be that as is to , so is to double , and let be

joined and continued, and let some point be taken on the section, and

through it let be drawn parallel to , and parallel to , and let

[be drawn] parallel to .

I say that sq. is equal to pl..

49

equal to ,and as is to ,so is to , therefore also is equal to ..

And since as is to , so is to double , and double is equal to

, therefore also as is to , so is to , and [according to Proposition

VI.4 of Euclid] as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is

to .

And since it was shown [in Proposition I.43] that in the case of the hyperbola the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles and , and

is equal to the sum of the triangles and , and in the case of the ellipse

and the circle the sum of the triangles and is equal to the triangle ,

and is equal to the triangle .

Therefore in the case of the hyperbola with the common triangle and

common quadrangle subtracted, and in the case of the ellipse and the

circle with the common triangle subtracted the triangle is equal to the

quadrangle . And is parallel to , and the angle is equal to the

angle . Therefore [according to Proposition I.49] pl. is equal to pl.,

the sum of and . And since as is to , so is to , and as is to

, so is to , therefore as is to , so is to . And componendo

as the sum of and is to , so the sum of and is to , and alternately as the sum of and is to the sum of and , so is to .

But as the sum of and is to the sum of and , so pl., the sum of

and is to pl., the sum of and , and as is to , so is to

, and so is to , or as is to , so sq. is to pl., therefore as pl.

,the sum of and , is to pl. ,the sum of and , so sq. is to

pl., and alternately as pl. , the sum of and is to sq., so pl. ,

the sum of and is to pl..

But pl. is equal to pl., the sum of and , therefore sq. is

equal to pl., the sum of and , and is equal to , and is equal to

. Therefore sq. is equal to .

[Proposition] 51

If a straight line touching either of the opposite hyperbolas meets the diameter, and if through the point of contact and the center some straight line is

drawn to the other hyperbola, and if from the vertex a straight line is erected

parallel to an ordinate and meets the straight line drawn through the point of

contact and the center, and if it is contrived that as the segment of the tangent

between the erected straight line and the point of contact is to the segment of

50

the straight line drawn through the point of contact between the point of contact and the erected straight line, so some straight line is to the double tangent, then whatever straight line in the other hyperbola is drawn to the straight

line through the point of contact and the center parallel to the tangent, will be

equal in square to the rectangular plane applied to the found straight line and

having as breadth the straight line cut off by it from the point of contact and

increased by a figure similar to the rectangular plane under the straight line between the opposite hyperbolas and the found straight line 100 .

Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is and center , and

let be drawn tangent to the hyperbola and be joined and continued, and

let be drawn as an ordinate, and let it be contrived that as is to , so

some straight line is to double ..

Now it is evident that the straight lines in the hyperbola parallel to

and drawn to continued are equal in square to the planes applied to and

having as breadths the straight line cut off by them from the point of contact,

and projecting by a figure similar to pl., for is equal to double .

I say then that in the hyperbola the same reason will come about.

[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the hyperbola , and

let be erected as an ordinate. And since and are opposite hyperbolas, and and are tangents to them, therefore [according to Proposition

I.44] is equal and parallel to . But also is equal to , therefore also

is equal to . And since as is to , so is to double or double ,

therefore also as is to , so is to double .

Since then is a hyperbola whose diameter is and tangent , and

has been drawn as an ordinate, and as is to , so is to double ,

hence any lines drawn from the section to continued, parallel to , will be

equal in square to the rectangular plane under and the line cut off by them

from increased by a figure [according to Proposition I.50] similar to pl.,.

[Porism]

And with these reasons shown, it is at once evident that in the parabola

each of the straight lines drawn parallel to the original diameter is a diameter

[according to Proposition I.46] but in the hyperbolas and the ellipse and the opposite hyperbolas each of the straight lines drawn through the center is a diameter [according to Propositions I.47 and I.48], and that in the parabola the

straight line dropped to each of the diameters parallel to the tangents will be

equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to it [according to Proposition

I.49], but in the hyperbola and the opposite hyperbolas they will equal in square

51

to the planes applied to the diameter increased by the same figure [according

to Propositions I.50 and I.51], but in the ellipse the planes applied to the diameter and decreased by the same figure [according to Proposition I.50], and that

all which has been already proved about the sections as following when the

principal diameters are used, will also those same reasons follow when the other

diameters are taken.

[Proposition] 52 [Problem]

Given a straight line in a plane bounded at one point, to find in the plane

the section of a cone called parabola whose diameter is the given straight line

and whose vertex is the end of the straight line, and where whatever straight

line dropped from the section to the diameter at given angle will be equal in

square to the rectangular plane under the straight line cut off by it from the

vertex of the section and by some other given straight line 101.

Let there be the straight line given in position and bounded at , and

another [straight line] given in magnitude, and first let the given angle be

right, it is required then to find a parabola in the considered plane whose diameter is , whose vertex is , and whose latus rectum is and there the

straight lines dropped as ordinates will be dropped at a right angle, that is so

that [according to Definition 7] is the axis.

[Solution]. Let be continued [beyond ] to , and let be taken as

quarter of , and let is greater than , and let as is to , so is to .

Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq., and is less than quadruple ,

therefore also sq. is less than quadruple sq., and is less than double .

And so double is greater than . Therefore it is possible for a triangle to be

constructed from and two . Then let the triangle be constructed on

at right angles to the considered plane, so that is equal to , and is

equal to , and let be drawn parallel to , and to ,and let a cone be

conceived whose vertex is and whose base is the circle about the diameter

at right angles to the plane through [the triangle] . Then the cone [according to Definition 3] will be right for is equal to .

And let the cone be cut [through B] by a plane parallel to the circle ,

and let it make as a section [according to Proposition I.4] the circle at

right angles clearly to the plane through [the triangle] , and let be the

common section of the circle and of the triangle , therefore it is the

diameter of the circle and let be the common section of the considered

plane and of the circle. Since then the circle is at right angles to the

52

triangle , and the considered plane also is at right angles to the triangle

, therefore , their common section, is at right angles to the triangle ,

that is to the triangle [according to Proposition XI.19 of Euclid], and therefore it is perpendicular to all straight lines touching it in the triangle, and so it is

perpendicular to both and .

Again since a cone whose base is the circle and whose vertex is

has been cut by a plane at right angles to the triangle and makes as a section the circle , and since it has also been cut by another plane cutting the

base of the cone in at right angles to which is the common section of

the circle and the triangle , and the common section of the considered

plane and of the triangle , [the straight line] , is parallel to the side of

the cone , therefore the resulting section of the cone in the considered

plane is a parabola, and its diameter is , and the straight lines dropped as ordinates from the section to will be dropped at right angles for they are parallel to which is perpendicular to . And since as is to , so is to ,

and is equal to ,and is equal to , and is equal to and is equal to

, therefore as is to , so is to . And therefore as is to , so

sq. is to sq. or pl.. Therefore is the latus rectum of the section for

this has been shown in the theorem11 [that is Proposition I.11]102.

[Proposition] 53 [Problem]

With the same supposition let the given angle not be right, and let the

angle be made equal to it, and let is equal to half of , and from let

be drawn parallel to , and from let be drawn perpendicular to ,

and let be bisected at , and from let be drawn perpendicular to

and continued to and , and let pl. is equal to sq.. And the given two

straight lines and , in position and bounded at , and in magnitude, and let a parabola be described with a right angle whose diameter is ,

and whose vertex is , and whose latus rectum is , as has been shown before [in Proposition I.52] , and it will pass through because [according to

Proposition I.11] sq. is equal to pl., and will touch the section [according to Proposition I.33] because is equal to . And is parallel to

, therefore is the diameter of the section, and the straight lines

dropped to it parallel to will be bisected by [according to Proposition

I.46],and they will be dropped at the angle . And since the angle is

equal to the angle , and the angle at is common, therefore the triangle

53

therefore as double is to double , so is to .

But is equal to double , therefore as is to , so is to double ..

Than by already shown in the theorem 49 [Proposition I.49] is the latus rectum.

[Proposition] 54 [Problem]

them being drawn on the side of the right angle, to find on the continued

straight line the section of a cone called hyperbola in the same plane with the

straight lines, so that the continued straight line is a diameter of the section,

and the point at the angle is the vertex, and where whatever straight line is

dropped from the section to the diameter making an angle equal to a given angle will equal in square to the rectangular plane applied to the other straight line

having as breadth the straight line cut off by the dropped straight line beginning

of the vertex and increased by a figure similar and similarly situated to the plane

under the original straight lines 103 .

Let there be two bounded straight lines and perpendicular to each

other, and let be continued to . It is required then to find in the plane

through and a hyperbola whose diameter will be and vertex , and

the latus rectum , and where the straight lines dropped from the section to

at the given angle will equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to

and having as breadths the straight lines cut off by them from B and increased

by a figure similar and similarly situated to pl..

[Solution]. First let the given angle be right, and on let a plane be

erected at right angles to the considered plane, and let the circle be described in it about , so that the segment of the diameter of the circle within

the arc has to the segment of the diameter within the arc a ratio not

greater than that of to , and let [the arc] be bisected at , and let

be drawn perpendicular from to and let it be continued to , therefore

[according to Proposition III.1 of Euclid] is a diameter. If then as is to ,

so is to , we use , but if not, let it be contrived [according to Proposition VI.12 of Euclid] that as is to , so is to where is less than

, and through let be drawn parallel to , and let , , and be

joined, and through let be drawn parallel to . Since then the angle

is equal to the angle , but the angle is equal to the angle , and the

54

angle is equal to the angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the

angle , therefore also is equal to .

Let a cone be conceived whose vertex is and whose base is the circle

about diameter at right angles to the triangle . Then the cone will be

right for is equal to .

Then let , , be continued, and let the cone be cut by a plane parallel to the circle , then the section [according to Proposition I.4] will be a

circle. Let it be the circle , and so will be the diameter of the circle. And

let be the common section of the circle and of the considered plane,

then will be perpendicular to both and for both circles and

are perpendicular to the triangle , and the considered plane is perpendicular

to the triangle , and therefore their common section is perpendicular to

the triangle , therefore it makes right angles also with all straight lines

touching it and situated in the same plane.

And since a cone whose base is the circle and vertex has been cut

by a plane perpendicular to the triangle , and has also been cut by another

plane, the considered plane, in perpendicular to , and the common section of the considered plane and the triangle , that is continued in the

direction of , meets at , therefore, as it was already shown before [in

Proposition I.12] the section will be a hyperbola whose vertex is , and

where the straight lines dropped as ordinates to will be dropped at a right

angles for they are parallel to . And since as is to , so is to ,

and as is to , so is to , and pl. is to sq., therefore as is to

, so pl. is to sq.. And [according to Proposition III.35 of Euclid] pl.

is equal to pl., therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq..

But the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and

to , but as is to , so is to , and is to , and as is to

, so is to , therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratio]

to and to , that is sq. to pl.. Therefore as is to , so

sq. is to pl..

And is parallel to , therefore is the latus transversum and

is the latus rectum for it has been shown in the theorem 12 [that is Proposition

I.12].

[Proposition] 55 [Problem]

Then let the given angle not be right, and let there be two given straight

lines and , and let the given angle be equal to the angle , then it is

55

required to describe a hyperbola whose diameter will be , and the latus rectum , and where the ordinates will be dropped at the angle .

Let be bisected at , and let the semicircle be described on ,

and let some straight line parallel to be drawn to the semicircle where as

sq. is to pl., so is to , and let be joined and continued to , and

let as is to , so is to , and let be made equal to , and let

pl. is equal to sq., and let be joined, and through let be drawn

perpendicular to and let it be continued towards . And with two given

bounded and perpendicular to each other, let a hyperbola be described

whose latus transversum is and latus rectum , and where the straight

lines dropped from the section to the diameter will be dropped at a right angles

and will be equal in square to the rectangular plane [according to Proposition

I.54] applied to and having as breadths the straight lines cut off by them

from and increased by a figure similar to pl., and the section will pass

through for [according to Proposition I.12] sq. is equal to pl..

And will touch it for [according to Proposition I.37] pl. is equal to

sq., and so [according to Proposition I.47 and Definition 4] is a diameter

of the section. And since as is to double or , so sq. is to pl., but

the ratio to double is compounded of [the ratios] to double and

double to double , or the ratio to double is compounded of [the

ratios] to double and to , and as is to , so is to ,

therefore the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to double

and to .

But also the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to , therefore the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to double

and to is the same, as the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to

and to .

Let the common ratio to be taken away, therefore as is to double , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore as is to double , so

is to .

But whenever this is so, is the latus rectum for the ordinates to the

diameter for this has been shown in the theorem 50 [that is Proposition I.50].

[Proposition] 56 [Problem]

Given two bounded straight lines perpendicular to each other, to find one

56

of them as diameter in the same plane with the [mentioned] two straight lines

the section of a cone called ellipse whose vertex will be the point at the

right angle, and where the straight lines dropped as ordinates from the section

to the diameter at a given angle will be equal in square to the rectangular

planes applied to the other straight line having as breadth the straight line cut

off by them from the vertex of the section and decreased by a figure similar

and similarly situated to the plane under the given straight lines 104 .

Let there be two given straight lines and perpendicular to each

other, of which the greater is , then it is required to describe in the considered plane an ellipse whose diameter will be and vertex and the latus rectum , and where the ordinates will be dropped from the section to

the diameter at a given angle and will be equal in square to the rectangular

plane applied to and having as breadths the straight lines cut off by them

from and decreased by a figure similar and similarly situated to pl..

[Solution]. First let the given angle be right, and let a plane be erected

from at right angles to the considered plane, and in it on let the arc of a

circle be described, and its midpoint be , and let and be joined, and

let be made equal to , and through let be drawn parallel to B, and

through let be drawn parallel to , and let be joined and let it meet

continued at , then we will have as is to , so is to , and is to

, and is to .

And let and be joined and continued, and let some point be taken

at random on , and through it let be drawn parallel to and let it meet

continued at , then let be continued and let it meet at .

Since then the arc is equal to the arc , [according to Proposition III.27 of

Euclid] the angle is equal to the angle .

And since the angle is equal to the sum of the angles and ,

but the angle is equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the

angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle and is equal

to the angle .

And also is parallel to , therefore the angle is equal to the angle

, and the angle is equal to the angle .

And also the angle is equal to the angle , and is equal to .

Then let the circle be described about at right angles to the triangle , let a cone be conceived whose base is the circle , and whose

vertex is , then the cone will be right because is equal to .

And since the circle is at right angles to the plane , and the considered plane is also at right angles to the plane through and , therefore

57

their common section will be at right angles to the plane through and .

Then let their common section be , therefore is perpendicular to both

and .

And since a cone whose base is the circle and whose vertex is , has

been cut by a plane through the axis and makes as a section the triangle ,

and has been cut also by another plane through and , which is the considered plane, in which is perpendicular to , and the plane meets the

sides of the cone and , therefore the resulting section [according to

Proposition i.13] is an ellipse whose diameter and where the ordinates will be

dropped at a right angle for they are parallel to . And since as is to , so

pl. or pl. is to sq. ,and the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of

[the ratios] E to and to , but as is to , so is to , and as

is to , so is to , and is to , therefore the ratio to is

compounded of [the ratios] to and to which is the same as the

ratio sq. to pl., therefore as is to , so is to pl.. Whenever

this is so, is the latus rectum of the eidos, as it has been shown in the theorem 13 [that is Proposition I.13].

[Proposition] 57 [Problem]

With the same supposition let be less than , and let it be required

to the scribe an ellipse about diameter so that is the latus rectum.

Let bisected at , and from let [the straight line] be drawn perpendicular to , and let sq. is equal to so that is equal to , and let

be drawn parallel to , and let it be contrived that as is to , so is

to , therefore also is greater than . And since pl. is equal to sq.,

hence as is to , so sq. is to sq., and sq. is to sq.. But as is

to , so is to , therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq.. But sq. is

equal to pl., therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq..

Then with two bounded straight lines situated at right angles to each

other and with greater, let an ellipse be described whose diameter is and

latus rectum [according to Proposition I.56], then the section will pass

through because [according to Proposition I.21] as pl. is to sq., so is

to . And is equal to , then it will also pass through . Then an ellipse has

been described about .

And since as is to , so sq. is to sq.,and sq. is equal to

pl., therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl.. And so [according to

Proposition I.21] is the latus rectum.

58

[Proposition] 58 [Problem]

But then let the given angle not be right, and let the angle be equal

to it, and let be bisected at , and let the semicircle be described on

, and in it let be drawn parallel to making as sq. is to pl., so

is to , and let and be joined and continued, and let at is to ,

so is to , and let is to , and let it be contrived that pl. is equal

to sq., and let be joined and from let be drawn perpendicular to

and so parallel to for the angle at is right. And with given bounded

and perpendicular to each other, let an ellipse be described whose the

transverse diameter is , and the latus rectum of whose eidos is , and

where the ordinate to [according to Propositions I.56 and I.57] will be

dropped at right angles, then the section will pass through because [according to Proposition I.13] sq. is equal to pl.. And since is equal to ,

and is equal to , the section will also pass through , and will be the

center, and will be the diameter. And will touch the section because

pl. is equal to sq.. And since as is to , so sq. is to pl., but

the ratio to is compounded of [the ratios] to double and double

to or to , and the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore the ratio compounded of [the ratios]

to double and to is the same, as the ratio compounded of [the ratios]

to and to .

But as is to , so is to , and common ratio being taken away,

we will have as is to double , so is to or as is to double , so

is to .

And whenever this is so [according to Proposition I.50] is the latus

rectum of the eidos.

[Proposition] 59 [Problem]

opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is one of the given straight lines and

whose vertices are the ends of this straight line, and where the straight lines

dropped in each of the hyperbolas at a given angle will equal in square to the

rectangular planes applied to the other of the straight lines and increased by a

figure similar to the rectangular plane under the given straight lines 105.

Let there be two given bounded straight lines and perpendicular to

each other, and let the given angle be , then it is required to describe opposite

59

hyperbolas about one of the straight lines and , so that the ordinates are

dropped at an angle .

[Solution]. For let and be given, and let a hyperbola be described

whose transverse diameter will be , and the latus rectum of whose eidos will

be , and where the ordinates to continued will be at an angle , and let it

be the line for we have already described how this must be done [in Proposition I.55]. Then let be drawn through perpendicular to and equal to

, and let another hyperbola be likewise described whose diameter is

and the latus rectum of whose eidos is , and where the ordinates from the

hyperbola will be dropped at a same angle . Then it is evident that and are

opposite hyperbolas, and there is one diameter for them, their latera recta are

equal.

[Proposition ] 60 [Problem]

Given two straight lines bisecting each other, to describe about each of

them opposite hyperbolas, so that the straight lines are their conjugate diameters, and the diameter of one pair of opposite hyperbolas is equal in square to

the eidos of the other pair, and likewise the diameter of the second pair of opposite hyperbolas is equal in square to the eidos of the first pair 106.

Let there be two given straight lines and bisecting each other, then

it is required to describe opposite hyperbolas about each of them as the diameters, so that and are conjugate in them, and is equal in square to the

eidos [of the hyperbola] about , and is equal in square to the eidos [of

the hyperbola] about .

[Solution]. Let pl. is equal to sq., and let be perpendicular to

. And given and are perpendicular to each other, let the opposite hyperbolas and be described whose transverse diameter will be , and

whose latus rectum will be , and where the ordinates from the hyperbolas to

will be dropped at the given angle [according to Proposition I.59], then

will be a second diameter of the opposite hyperbolas [according to Definition

11] for it is the mean proportional between sides of the eidos, and parallel to an

ordinate it has been bisected at . Then again let pl. be equal to sq., and

let be perpendicular to .

And given and situated perpendicular to each other, let the opposite hyperbolas and be described whose transverse diameter will be

, and the latus rectum of whose eidos will be . And where the ordinates from

the hyperbolas will be dropped to at the given angle [according to Proposi60

tion I.59], then will also be a second diameter of the hyperbolas and

, and so bisects the parallels to between the hyperbolas and

, and bisects the parallels to , and this is what was to make107.

And let such hyperbolas be called conjugate 108 .

BOOK TWO

Preface

Apollonius greets Eudemius1.

If you are well, well good, and I, too fare pretty well.

I have sent you my son Apollonius2 bringing you the second book of the

Conic as was arranged by us. Go through it then carefully and acquaint those

with it worthy of sharing in such things. And Philonides3, the geometer. I introduced to you Fphesus, if ever he happen about Pergamum, acquaint him with it

too.

[Proposition] 1

sides of the diameter a straight line is cut off equal in square to the quarter of

the eidos, then the straight lines drawn from the center of the section to the

ends thus taken on the tangent will not meet the section 4.

There be let there be a hyperbola whose diameter , vertex , and the

latus rectum , and let touch the section at , and let the square on and

61

each be equal to the quarter of the [eidos] pl., and let and be

joined and continued.

I say that they will not meet the section,

[Proof]. For, if possible, let meet the section at , and from let

be dropped as an ordinate, therefore [according to Proposition I.17] it is parallel

to . Since then as is to , so sq. is to pl., but sq. is equal to

the quarter of sq., and sq.BD is equal to the quarter of pl.,

therefore as is to , so is to sq., and sq. is to sq..

And also [according to Proposition I.21] as is to , so pl. is to

sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

Therefore pl. is equal to sq., and this [according to Proposition

II.6 of Euclid] is impossible. Therefore will not meet the section. Then

likewise we could show that neither does , therefore and are asymptote

of the section.

[Proposition] 2

With the same suppositions it is to be shown that a strait line cutting the

angle under the strait line and is not another asymptote5.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let be it, and let be drawn through parallel to and let it meet as , and let be made equal to and let be

joined and continued to the points , , and [of intersection with the hyperbola, its diameter and the line , respectively].Since then and are

equal and parallel, and are also equal and parallel.

Since is bisected at and added to it, [according to Proposition II.6 of

Euclid] the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq..

Likewise then since is parallel , and is equal to , therefore also

is equal to .

And since is equal to , therefore is greater than . And also

is greater than , since also greater than , therefore pl. is

greater than pl., which is greater than sq..

Since then [according to Proposition II.1] as is to , so sq. is to

sq., but [according to Proposition I,21] as is to , so pl. is to sq.,

and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore also as sq. is to

sq., so pl. is to sq..

Since then as whole sq. is to whole sq., so subtracted part pl. is

to subtracted part sq., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so remainder

sq. is to remainder pl., that is as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to sq..

62

Therefore sq. is equal to pl., and this is impossible for it has been shown

to be greater than it. Therefore is not an asymptote to the section.

[Preposition] 3

will be bisected at the point of contact, and the square on each of its segments

will be equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the diameter drawn

through the point of contact 6.

Let there be the hyperbola , and its center , and asymptotes and

, and some straight line touch it at .

I say that continued will meet and .

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it not meet them, and let is joined and

continued, and let be made equal to , therefore is a diameter. Then let

sq. and sq. each be made equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding

to , and let and be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition II.1]

they are asymptotes, and this is [according to Proposition II.2] is impossible for

and are supposed asymptotes. Therefore continued will meet the

asymptotes and .

I say then also that sq. and sq. will each be equal to the quarter of

the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. For let it not be, but if possible, let sq. and sq. each be

equal to the quarter of the eidos. Therefore [according to Proposition II.1]

and are asymptotes, and [according to Proposition II.2] this is impossible.

Therefore sq. and sq. will each equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 4 [Problem]

Given two straight lines containing an angle and a point within the angle,

to describe through the point the section of a cone called hyperbola, so that

the given straight lines are its asymptotes7.

Let there be two straight lines and containing a chance angle at

, and some point be given, and let it be required to describe through a hyperbola with the asymptote and .

[Solution]. Let be joined and continued to , and let be made equal

to , and let be drawn through parallel to , and let be made equal

to , and let be joined and continued to , and let be contrived that pl.,

is equal to sq., and with continued let a hyperbola be described about it

63

through , so that the ordinate equal in square to the [rectangular] planes applied to and increased by a figure similar to pl., . Since then is parallel

to , and is equal to , therefore is equal to , and sq.GB is equal to

quadruple sq.. And sq. is equal to pl., ,therefore sq. and sq. are

each equal to the quarter of the eidos pl., . Therefore and are asymptote of the described hyperbola.

[Proposition] 5

[within the section], the tangent to the section at the end of the diameter will

be parallel to the bisected straight line 8.

Let there be the parabola or the hyperbola whose diameter is

,and let touch the section, and let some straight line be drawn in

the section making equal to .

I say that is parallel to .

[Proof]. For, if not let be drawn through parallel to and let be

joined. Since then is a parabola or a hyperbola whose diameter is , and

tangent , and is parallel to it, therefore [according to Propositions I.46

and I.47] is equal to . But also is equal to .

Therefore is parallel to , and this is impossible for [according to

Proposition I.22] continued it .

[Proposition] 6

some straight line not through the center, the tangent to the section at the end

of the diameter will be parallel to the bisected straight line 9

Let there be an ellipse or the circumference of a circle whose diameter is

, and let bisect , a straight line not through the center, at .

I say that the tangent to the section at is parallel to .

[Proof]. For let it not be, but, if possible, let be parallel to the tangent

at , therefore [according to Proposition I.47] is equal to .

But also is equal to , therefore is parallel to , and this is possible for if is the center of the section , and [according to Proposition

I.23 will meet [the straight line] , and if it is not, suppose it to be , and let

be joined and continued to , and let be joined. Since then is equal to

64

this is impossible. Therefore the tangent at is parallel to .

[Proposition] 7

If a straight line touches a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle, and a parallel to it is drawn in the section and bisected, the straight line

joined the point of contact with the midpoint will be a diameter of the section

10.

There be a section of a cone the circumference of a circle , and

tangent to it, and parallel to and bisected at , and let be joined.

I say that is a diameter of the section.

[Proof] . For let it not be, but, if possible, let be a diameter of the

section. Therefore [according to Definition 4] is equal to , and this is not

impossible for is equal to .

Therefore will not be a diameter of the section. Then likewise we could

show that there is no other [diameter] than .

[Proposition] 8

will meet the asymptotes, the straight lines cut off on it by the section from

the asymptotes will be equal 11.

Let there be the hyperbola and the asymptotes and , and let

some straight line meet .

I say that continued both ways it will meet the asymptotes.

[Proof]. Let be bisected at and let be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition I.47] it is a diameter of the section, therefore the tangent at

[according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to . Then let be the tangent,

then it will [according to Proposition II,3] meet and . Since then is parallel to , and meets and , therefore also will meet and .

Let it meet them at and , and [according to Proposition II.3] is

equal to , therefore also is equal to . And so also is equal to .

[Proposition] 9

will touch the section one point only 12.

65

at .

I say that it touches the hyperbola at no other point.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let meet touch it at as . Therefore [according to

Proposition II.8] is equal to , and this is impossible for is supposed

equal to . Therefore it will not touch the section as another point.

[Proposition] 10

If some straight line cutting the hyperbola meet both asymptotes, the

rectangular plane under the straight lines cut off between the asymptotes and

the section is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the diameter

bisecting the straight lines drawn parallel to the drawn straight line 13.

Let there be the hyperbola and let , be its asymptotes, and let

some straight line be drawn cutting the section and the asymptotes, and let

be bisected at and let be joined, and let be made equal to , and

let be drawn from perpendicular to ,therefore [according to the

porism to Proposition I.51] is a diameter and is the latus rectum.

I say that pl. is equal to the quarter of pl., then likewise also

pl. is equal to the quarter of pl..

[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the section, therefore

[according to Proposition II.5] it is parallel to . And since it has been shown

[in Proposition II.1] that as is to , so sq. is to sq., and sq. is to

sq., and [according to Proposition I.21] as is to , so pl. is to

sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

Since then as whole sq. is to whole sq., so subtracted part of pl.

is to subtracted part of sq., therefore also [according to Proposition II.5, II.6,

and V.19 of Euclid] as remainder sq. is to remainder pl., so sq. is to

sq. or as remainder sq. is to remainder pl., so sq. is to sq..

Therefore pl. is equal to sq..

Then likewise it could be shown also that pl. is equal to sq., therefore also pl. is equal to pl..

[Proposition] 11

If some straight line cut each of the straight lines containing the angle

that is adjacent to the angle which contains the hyperbola, then this straight

line will meet the section at one point only, and the rectangular plane under the

66

straight lines cut off [on this straight line] between the containing straight lines

and the section will be equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the

diameter drawn parallel to the cutting straight line 14.

Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are , , and let be

continued to , and through some point let be drawn cutting and

[continued as necessary].

Now it is evident that it meets the section at one point only for the

straight line drawn through parallel to as will cut the angle and

[according to Proposition II.2] will meet the section and [according to the

porism to Proposition I.51] be its diameter, therefore [according to Proposition

I.26] will meet the section as one point only. Let it meet it as .

I say then also that pl. is equal to sq. .

[Proof]. For let be drawn as an ordinate through , therefore the

tangent through [according to Proposition II.5] is parallel . Let it be .

Since then [according to Proposition II.3] is equal to , therefore the ratio

sq. or pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , therefore

the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

But also the ratio pl. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and sq.KH to HE, therefore as pl. is to pl., sq. is to sq..

Alternately as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

But it was shown [in Proposition II.10] that pl. is equal to sq.,

therefore also pl. is equal to sq..

[Proposition] 12

If two straight lines at chance angles are drawn to the asymptotes from

some point of those on the section, and parallels are drawn to two straight lines

from some point of those on the section, then the rectangular plane contained

by the parallels will be equal to that contained by those straight lines to which

15

Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are and , and let some

point be taken on the section, and from it let and be dropped [at

chance angles] to and , and let some other point on the section be

taken, and through let and be drawn parallel to and .

I say that pl. is equal to pl..

[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to and . Since then

67

, so is to .

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to ,

therefore as is to , so is to .

Therefore pl. is equal to pl..

[Proposition] 13

If in the place bounded by the asymptotes and the section some straight

line is drawn parallel to one of the asymptote, it will meet the section at one

point only16 .

Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptote are and , and let some

point be taken [in the place bounded by asymptotes and the section], and

through it let be drawn parallel to .

I say that it will meet the section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it not meet it, and let some point on the

section be taken, and through let and be drawn parallel to and ,

and let pl. is equal to pl., and let be joined and continued, then

[according to Proposition II.2] it will meet the section. Let it meet it as , and

through K parallel to and let and be drawn, therefore

[according to Proposition II.12] pl. is equal to pl..

And it is supposed that also pl. is equal to pl., therefore pl.

or pl. is equal to pl., and this is impossible for both is greater than

, and is greater than .

Therefore will meet the section. Let it meet it at .

I say then that it will not meet it at any other point.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let it also meet it at , and through and let

and be drawn parallel to . Therefore [according to Proposition II.12]

pl. is equal to pl., and this is impossible. Therefore it will not meet the

section at another point.

[Proposition] 14

each other, and they reach a distance less than any given distance 17.

Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are and , and a given

distance .

I say that and and the section, if continued, draw nearer to each other

and will reach a distance less than .

68

[Proof]. For let and be drawn parallel to the tangent, and let

be joined and continued to . Since then [according to Proposition II.10] pl.

is equal to pl., therefore as is to , so is to .

But [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] is greater than , therefore also is greater than .

Then likewise we could show that the succeeding straight lines are less.

Then let the distance be taken less than , and through let be

drawn parallel to , therefore it [according to Proposition II.12 ] will meet the

section. Let it meet it at , and through let be drawn parallel to

therefore is equal to , and so is less than .

Porism

Then from this if is evident that and are nearer than all asymptotes

to the section, and the angle under , is clearly less than that under other

asymptote to the section 18.

[Proposition] 15

Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose diameter is and center .

I say the asymptote of the hyperbolas and are common.

[Proof]. Let and be drawn tangent to the hyperbola through

and , they [according to Proposition I.44] are therefore parallel. Then let

each of [the straight lines] , , , and be cut off equal in square to the

quarter of the eidos applied to , therefore is equal to , is equal to ,

and is equal to .

Then let , , , and be joined. Then it is evident that is in a

straight line with , and with because of the parallel. Since then it is a

hyperbola whose diameter is and tangent , and and are each equal

in square to the quarter of the eidos applied to , therefore and are asymptotes. For the same reasons and are also asymptotes to hyperbola .

Therefore the asymptote of opposite hyperbola are common.

[Proposition] 16

lines containing the angle adjacent to the angles containing the sections, it will

69

meet each of the opposite hyperbola in one point only, and the straight lines

cut off on it by the hyperbola from the asymptotes will be equal 20 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is and asymptotes and , and let some straight line be drawn trough, cutting

each of and .

I say that continued it will meet each of the hyperbolas in one point only.

[Proof]. For since and are asymptotes of the hyperbola , and some

straight line has been drawn across cutting both of straight lines containing

the adjacent angle , therefore [according Proposition II.11] continued will

meet the section. Then likewise also . Let it meet them at and . Let be

drawn through parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition II.11]

pl. is equal to sq., and pl. is equal to sq..

And so also pl. is equal to pl., and is equal to .

[Proposition] 17

Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas whose conjugate diameters

are and , and whose center is .

I say that their asymptotes are common.

[Proof]. For let , , , and be drawn through [the points]

, , , and touching the hyperbolas, therefore [according to Proposition I.44] is a parallelogram. Then let and be joined, therefore they are

diagonals of the parallelogram, and they are all bisected at . And since the figure on [according to Proposition I.60] is equal to sq., and is equal to

, therefore each of sq., sq., sq., and sq. is equal to the quarter of

the eidos corresponding to . Therefore and [according to Proposition II.1] are asymptotes of hyperbolas and . Then likewise we could show

that same straight lines are also asymptotes of the hyperbolas and . Therefore the asymptotes of conjugate opposite hyperbolas are common.

[Proposition] 18

continued both ways, falls outside the section, it will meet both of the adjacent

hyperbolas at one point only 22.

70

some straight line meet the hyperbola and continued both ways fall outside

the section.

I say that it will meet both hyperbolas and at one point only.

[Proof]. For let and be asymptotes of the hyperbolas. Therefore

[according to Proposition II.3] meets both and . Then it is evident that

it will {according to Proposition II.16] also meet the hyperbolas and at one

point only.

[Proposition] 19

If some straight line is drawn touching one of the conjugate opposite hyperbolas at random, it will meet the adjacent hyperbolas and will be bisected at

the point of contact 23.

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let

some straight line touch it at .

I say that continued it will meet the hyperbolas and and will be bisected at .

It is evident now that it will [according to Proposition II.18] meet the hyperbolas and , let it meet them at and .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let the asymptotes of the hyperbolas and be drawn.

Therefore [according to Proposition II.16] is equal to , and [according to

Proposition II.3] is equal to , and is equal to .

[Proposition] 20

straight lines are drawn through their center, one through the point of contact,

and one parallel to the tangent until it meet one of the adjacent hyperbolas,

then the straight line touching the section at the point of meeting will be parallel to the straight line drawn through the point of contact and the center, and

those through the point of contact and the center will be conjugate diameters

of the opposite hyperbolas 24.

Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas whose conjugate diameters

are and , and center , and let be drawn touching the hyperbola ,

and continued let it meet at , and let be joined and continued to , and

through let be drawn parallel to , and through let be drawn touching the section.

71

[Proof]. For let , , and be drawn as ordinates, and let and

be the latera recta. Since then [according to Proposition I.60] as is to

, so is to , but [according to Proposition I.37] as is to , so

pl. is to sq., and as is to , so sq. is to pl., therefore also as

pl. is to sq., so sq. is to pl..

But the ratio pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to and

to , and the ratio sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to , therefore the ratio compounded of [the ratios] to

and to is the same ratio compounded of [the ratios] to and to

, and of these as is to , so HL is to , for each of , , and is

parallel to each of , , and , respectively.

Therefore as remainder is to , so is to .

Also the sides of equal angles at and L are proportional, therefore the

triangle is similar to the triangle , and will have equal angles corresponding to the subtend sides.

Therefore the angle is equal to the angle .

But also the angle is equal to the angle , and therefore the angle

is equal to the angle . Therefore is parallel to .

Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to , therefore is

the half of the latus rectum of the ordinates to the diameter in hyperbolas

and [according to Proposition I.51]. Since is the second diameter of the

hyperbolas and , and meets it, therefore pl., is equal to sq. for if

we draw from a parallel to , the rectangular plane under and the

straight line cut off by the parallel will [according to Proposition I.38] be equal

to sq..

And therefore [according to Proposition VI.20 of Euclid] as is to ,

so sq. is to sq..

But as is to , so is to or [according to Proposition VI.1 of

Euclid] as is to , so the triangle is to the triangle , and [according

to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the

triangle or [according to Proposition II.1] as sq. is to sq., so the

triangle is to the triangle . Therefore as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle .

Therefore the triangle is equal to the triangle . But they also

have the angle is equal to the angle for is parallel to , and to

. Therefore the sides of the equal angles [according to Proposition VI.15 of

Euclid] are reciprocally proportional. Therefore as is to , so is to ,

72

as is to , so is to for they are parallel, therefore also as is to ,

so E is to .

But with taken as common height, as is to , so pl., is to

pl., and as is to , so sq. is to pl.. And therefore as pl., is to

pl., so sq. is to pl..

Alternately as pl., is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

But pl. is equal to pl., therefore also pl., is equal to sq..

And pl., is the quarter of the eidos corresponding to for is

equal to the half of , and is the latus rectum, sq. is equal to the quarter

of sq. for is equal to .

Therefore sq. is equal to the eidos corresponding to . Then likewise

we could show also that is equal in square to the eidos corresponding to .

Therefore and are conjugate diameters of the opposite hyperbolas

, , , and .

[Proposition] 21

the tangents is on one of the asymptotes 25.

Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas, whose diameters are and

, and let and be drawn tangent.

I say that is on the asymptote.

[Proof]. For since sq. is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding

to [according to Proposition I.60], and [according to Proposition II.17] sq.

is equal to ,therefore also sq. is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to . Let be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.1] is

an asymptote, therefore [the point] is on the asymptote.

[Proposition] 22

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas a radius is drawn to any of the hyperbolas, and a parallel is drawn to it meeting one of adjacent hyperbolas and

meeting the asymptotes, then the rectangular plane under the segments

continued between the section and the asymptotes on the straight line drawn is

equal to the square on the radius26.

73

be the asymptotes of these hyperbola and , and from the center let

some straight line be drawn across, and let be drawn parallel to it cutting both adjacent hyperbolas and the asymptotes.

I say that pl. is equal to sq..

[Proof]. Let be bisected at , and let be joined and continued

therefore is the diameter of the hyperbolas and [according to the porism

to Proposition I.51]. And since the tangent at [according to Proposition II.5]

is parallel to , therefore [according to Proposition I.17]

has been dropped as an ordinate to . And center is , therefore and

are conjugate diameter [according to Definition 6] .Therefore sq. [according

to Proposition I.60] is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to .

And pl. [according to Proposition II.10] is equal to the quarter of the eidos

corresponding to , therefore also pl. is equal to sq..

[Proposition] 23

hyperbola, and a parallel is drawn to it meeting three adjacent hyperbolas,

then the rectangular plane under the segments continued between the three

hyperbolas on the straight line drawn is twice the square on the radius27.

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let the

center of the section be , and from let some straight line be drawn to

meet any one of the hyperbolas, and let be drawn parallel to cutting

three adjacent hyperbolas.

I say that pl. is equal to double sq..

[Proof]. Let the asymptotes to the hyperbolas, and , be drawn,

therefore [according to Proposition II.22] sq. is equal to pl. and [according to Proposition II.11] is equal to pl.. And the sum of pl. and pl. is

equal to pl. because of the straight lines on the ends[according to Propositions II.8 and II.16] being equal. Therefore also pl. is equal to double sq..

[Proposition] 24

If two straight lines meet a parabola each at two points, and if a point of

meeting of neither one of them is contained by the points of meeting of the

other, then the straight lines will meet each other outside the section 28.

74

Let there be the parabola , and let and meet , and let a

point of meeting of neither of them be contained by the points of meeting of

the other.

I say that the straight lines continued will meet each other.

[Proof]. Let the diameters of the section, and , be drawn through

and ,therefore [according to the porism to Proposition I.51] they are parallel

and each one cut the section [according to Proposition I.26] at one point only.

Then let be joined, therefore the sum of the angle and is equal to

two right angles, and and continued make the angles less than two right

angles. Therefore [according to Proposition I,10, and Euclids Postulate 5] they

will meet each other outside the section.

[Proposition] 25

If two straight lines meet a hyperbola each at two points, and if a point

of meeting of neither of them is contained by the points of meeting of the

other, then the straight lines will meet each other outside the section, but

within the angle containing the section 29.

Let there be a hyperbola whose asymptotes are and , and let

and cut the section, and let a point of meeting of neither of them be

contained by the points of meeting of the other.

I say that and continued will meet outside the section, but within

the angle .

[Proof]. For let and be joined and continued and let be joined.

And since and continued cut the angles and , and mentioned

angles [according to Proposition I.17 of Euclid] are less than two right angles,

and and continued will meet each other outside the section but within

the angle .

Then we could likewise show it, even if and are tangents to the

sections.

[Proposition] 26

through the center cut each other, then they do not bisect each other 30.

[Proof]. For, if possible, in the ellipse for in the circumference of a circle

let and not through the center bisect each other at and let be the

center of the section, and let be joined and continued to and .

75

Since then is a diameter bisecting , therefore [according to Proposition II.6] the tangent at is parallel to . We could then likewise show that it

also parallel to . And so also is parallel to . And this is impossible. Therefore and do not bisected each other.

[Proposition] 27

the straight line joining the points of contact is through the center of the section, the tangents will be parallel, but if not, they will meet on the same side of

the center 31.

Let there be the ellipse or the circumference of a circle , and let

and touch it, and let be joined, and first let it be through the center.

I say that is parallel to .

[Proof]. For since is a diameter of the section, and touches it at

, therefore [according to Proposition I.17] is parallel to the ordinates to .

Then or the same reasons is also parallel to same ordinate. Therefore

is also parallel to .Then let not be through the center as in the second

diagram, and let the diameter be drawn, and let be drawn tangent

through , therefore is parallel to . Therefore continued will meet

on the same side of the center as .

[Proposition] 28

line bisects two parallel straight lines, then it will a diameter of the section 32.

Let and , two parallel straight lines in a conic section, bisected at

and , and let be joined and continued.

I say that it is a diameter of the section.

[Proof]. For if not, let be so if possible. Therefore the tangent at

[according to Proposition II.5 and II,6] is parallel to . And so the same

straight line is parallel to . And is a diameter, therefore [according to

Definition 4] is equal to , and this is impossible for it is supposed that

is equal to . Therefore is not a diameter. Then likewise we could show that

there is no other except . Therefore will be a diameter of the section.

[Proposition] 29

76

meet, the straight line, drawn from their t point of meeting to the midpoint of

the straight line joining the points of contact is a diameter of the section 33 .

Let there be a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle to which

let and , meeting at , be drawn tangent, and let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined.

I say that it is a diameter of the section.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let be a diameter, and let be joined, then it

will cut the section [according to Propositions I.5 and I.36]. Let it cut it at ,

and through let ZKH be drawn parallel to . Since then is equal to ,

also is equal to .

And since the tangent at is parallel to [according to Propositions

II.5 and II.6], and is also parallel to , therefore also is parallel to the

tangent at . Therefore [according to Propositions I.46 and I.47] is equal to

, and this is impossible. Therefore is not a diameter. Then likewise we

could show that there is no other except .

[Proposition] 30

If two straight lines tangent to a section of a cone or to the circumference of a circle meet, the diameter drawn from the point of meeting will bisect

the straight line joining the points of contact 34.

Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle , and

let two tangents and be drawn to their meeting at , and let be

joined, and let be drawn through as a diameter of the section.

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let it not be, but, if possible, let be equal to , and let

be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.29] is a diameter of the

section. But it also the diameter, and this is impossible.

For if the section is an ellipse, at which the diameters meet each other,

will be a center outside the section, and this is impossible, and if the section is a

parabola the diameters [according to the porism to Proposition I.51] meet each

other, and if is a hyperbola, and and meet the section without containing

one another points of meeting, then the center is within the angle containing

the hyperbola [according to Proposition II.25], but it is also on it for it has been

supposed a center since and are diameter [according to the porism to

Proposition I.51] and this is impossible. Therefore is not equal to .

[Proposition] 31

77

If two straight line touch each of the opposite hyperbolas, then if the

straight line joining the points of contact falls through the center, the tangents

will be parallel, but if not, they will meet on the same side as the center 35 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be

tangent to them at and , and let the straight line joined from to fall first

through the center of the hyperbola.

I say that is parallel to .

[Proof]. For since they are opposite hyperbolas for which is a diameter, and touches one of them at , therefore the straight line drawn through

parallel to [according to Proposition I.44] touches the section. But also

touches it, therefore is parallel .

Then let the straight line from to not be through the center of the

hyperbolas, and let be drawn as a diameter of the hyperbolas, and let be

tangent to the section, therefore is parallel to , and since and

touch a hyperbola, therefore they [according to Proposition II.25] will meet.

And is parallel to , therefore also and continued will meet. And it is

evident that they are on the same side as the center.

[Proposition] 32

If straight lines meet each of the opposite hyperbolas, at one point when

touching or at two points when cutting, and, when continued, the straight lines

meet, then their point of meeting will be in the angle adjacent to the angle containing the hyperbola36.

Let there be opposite hyperbolas and and either touching the opposite hyperbolas at one point or cutting them at two points, and let them

meet when continued.

I say that their point of meeting will be in the angle adjacent to the angle

containing the section.

[Proof]. Let and be asymptotes to the hyperbolas, therefore

continued [according to Proposition II.8] will meet the asymptotes. Let it meet

them at and . And since and are supposed as meeting, it is evident

that either they will meet in the place under the angle or in that under the

angle . Likewise also if they touch [according to Proposition II.3].

[Proposition] 33

78

Let them be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let some straight line

cut , and, when continued both ways, let it fall outside the section 37.

I say that does not meet the hyperbola .

[Proof]. For let and be drawn as asymptote to the hyperbolas,

therefore continued will meet [according to Proposition ii.8] the asymptotes.

And it only meets them at and . And so it will not meet the hyperbola .

And it is evident that it will fall through three places. For if some straight

line meets both of opposite hyperbolas it will meet neither of opposite hyperbolas at two points. For it meets it at two points, by what has just been proved it

will not meet the other hyperbola.

[Proposition] 34

be drawn in the other hyperbola, then the straight line drawn from the point of

contact to the midpoint of the parallel will be a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas38.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and ,and let some straight line

touch one of them at , and let be drawn parallel to in the other hyperbola, and let it be bisected at , and let be joined.

I say that is a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let be [a diameter] therefore the tangent

at is parallel to [according to Proposition II.31]. But is also parallel to

, and therefore the tangent at is parallel to . Therefore [according to

Proposition I.47] is equal to , and this is impossible for is equal to .

Therefore is not a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas. Therefore is [a

diameter].

[Proposition] 35

straight line touching the other hyperbola at the end of the diameter will be

parallel to the bisected straight line 39 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let their diameter

bisect in hyperbola at .

I say that the tangent the hyperbola [] at is parallel to .

[Proof]. For, if possible, let be parallel to the tangent to the hyperbola

at , therefore [according to Proposition I.48] is equal to .

79

But also is equal to . Therefore is parallel to , and this is impossible for continued it [according to Proposition I.22] meets it. Therefore

is not parallel to the tangent to the hyperbola at , nor is any other straight line

except .

[Proposition] 36

then the straight line joining their midpoints will be a diameter of the opposite

hyperbolas 40.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be

drawn, one in each of them, and let them be parallel, and let them both be bisected at and , and let be joined.

I say that is a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas.

[Proof]. For if not, let be one [diameter]. Therefore the tangent to

[according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to , and so also to . Therefore [according to Proposition I.48] is equal to , and this is impossible since also

is equal to . Therefore is not a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas.

Therefore is [the diameter].

[Proposition] 37

If a straight line not through the center cuts the opposite hyperbolas,

then the straight line joined from its midpoint to the center is a so-called upright diameter of the opposite hyperbolas, and the straight line drawn from the

center parallel to the bisected straight line is a transverse diameter conjugate to

it 41.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and let some straight line

not through the center cut the hyperbola and and let it be bisected at ,

and let be the center of the hyperbolas, and let is joined, and through

let be drawn parallel to .

I say that and are conjugate diameters of the hyperbolas.

[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to , and let be joined.

Therefore [according to Proposition I.30] is equal to . But also is equal

to . Therefore is parallel . Let be continued to . And since is

equal to , therefore also is equal to , and so also is equal to .

Therefore the tangent at [according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to , and

80

[Proposition] 38

If two straight lines meeting touch opposite hyperbolas, the straight line

joined from the point of meeting to the midpoint of the straight line joining the

points of contact will be a so-called upright diameter of the opposite hyperbolas

and the straight line drawn through center parallel to the straight line joining of

contact is a transverse diameter conjugate to it 42

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and and touching

the hyperbolas, and let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined.

I say that the diameter is a so-called upright diameter, and the

straight line drawn through the center parallel to is a transverse diameter

conjugate to it.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let be a diameter, and let be a point taken at

random, therefore will meet . Let it meet it at , and let be joined,

therefore [according to Proposition I.32] will hit the hyperbola. Let it hit it

as , and through let be drawn parallel to . Since then is a diameter,

and bisects , it also bisects [according to Definition 4] the parallels to it.

Therefore is equal to . And since is equal to , and is on the triangle

, therefore also is equal to . And so also equal to , and this is

impossible. Therefore will be a diameter.

[Proposition] 39

If two straight line meeting touch opposite hyperbolas, the straight line

drawn through the center and the point of meeting of the tangents bisects

straight line joining the points of contact 43.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be drawn

touching and , and let be joined, and let be drawn as a diameter.

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For if not, let be bisected as , and let be joined, therefore

[according to Proposition II.38] is [a diameter]. But is also

[a diameter], therefore [according the porism to Proposition I.31] is the center. Therefore the point of meeting of the tangents is at the center of the hyperbolas, and this [according to Proposition II.32] is impossible.

Therefore, is not unequal to . Therefore [they are] equal.

81

[Proposition] 40

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and trough the

point of meeting a straight line drawn parallel to straight line joining the points

of contact, and meeting the hyperbolas, then the straight lines drawn from the

points of meeting to the midpoint of the straight line joining the point of contact touch the hyperbolas 44.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let and be drawn

touching and , and let be joined, and through E let be drawn parallel

to , and let be bisected at , and let and be joined.

I say that and touch the hyperbolas.

[Proof]. Let be joined, therefore is an upright diameter, and the

straight line drawn through the center parallel to [according to Proposition

II.38] is a transverse diameter conjugate to it. And let the center be taken,

and let be drawn parallel to , Therefore and are conjugate diameter. And has been drawn as an ordinate to the second diameter, and has

been drawn touching the section and meeting the second diameter. Therefore

pl. is equal to the square on the half of the second diameter [according to

Proposition I.38], which is to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to . And

since has been drawn as an ordinate and joined, therefore [according to

Proposition I.38] touches the hyperbola . Likewise then also touches

the hyperbola . Therefore and touch the hyperbolas and .

[Proposition] 41

If in opposite hyperbolas two straight lines not through the center cut

each to other, then they do not bisect each other45.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and in and let and

not through the center cut each other at .

I say that they do not bisect each other.

[Proof]. For if possible, let them bisect each other, and let be the center of the hyperbolas, and let is be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.37] is a diameter. Let be drawn through parallel to , therefore

is a diameter conjugate to and [according to Proposition II.37]to .

Therefore the tangent at is parallel to [according to Definition 6].Then for

the same reasons with drawn parallel to , the tangent at is parallel to

, and so also the tangent at is parallel to the tangent at , and this is im-

82

possible for it has been shown [in Proposition II.31] that is it also meets it.

Therefore and not through the center do not bisect each other.

[Proposition] 42

center cut each to other, then they do not bisect each other46 .

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and in

, , , and let two straight lines not through the center, and , cut each

other at .

I say that they do not bisect each other.

[Proof]. For, if possible, let them bisect each other, and let the center of

the hyperbola be , and let be drawn parallel to and [parallel] to ,

and let be joined, therefore [according to Proposition II.37] and are

conjugate diameters. Likewise and are also conjugate diameter. And so

also the tangent at is parallel to the tangent at , and this is impossible for it

meets it, since the tangent at [according to Proposition II.19] cuts the hyperbolas and , and the tangent at [cuts] the hyperbolas and , it is evident

also that their point of meeting [according to Proposition II.21] is in the place

under the angle . Therefore and not through the center do not bisect

each other.

[Proposition] 43

and through the center one straight line is drawn to the meet point of the cutting straight line, and another straight line is drawn parallel to the cutting

straight line, they will be conjugate diameter of the opposite hyperbolas47.

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and let

some straight line cut the hyperbola at two points and , and let be bisected at , and let be the center, and let be joined, and let be drawn

parallel to .

I say that and are conjugate diameters.

[Proof]. For since is a diameter, and bisects , the tangent at

[according to Proposition II.5] is parallel to , and so also to . Since then

they are opposite hyperbolas, and a tangent has been drawn to one of them,

at , and from the center one straight line is joined to the point of contact, and another has been drawn parallel to the tangent, therefore and

are conjugate diameter for this has been shown before [in Proposition II.20].

83

[Proposition] 44 [Problem]

Let there be the given conic section on which are the point , , , ,

and . Then it is required to find a diameter.

[Solution]. Let it have been done, and let it be than with and

drawn as ordinates and continued is equal to , and is equal to .

If then we fix and in position to be parallel, the points and will

be given. And so will be given in position.

Then the synthesis49 to this problem is as follows. Let there be the given

conic section on which are the points , , , , and , and let and be

drawn parallel and bisected at and . And joined will be [according to

Proposition II.28] a diameter of the section. And in the same way we could also

find an indefinite number of diameter.

[Proposition] 45 [Problem]

And this is evident: for if two diameters of the section and , are

drawn [according to Proposition II.44] through point at which they cut each

other will be the center of the section, as indicated.

[Proposition] 46 [Problem]

Let the given section if a cone first be a parabola, on which are the

point , , and . Then it is required to find its axis.

[Solution]. For let be drawn as a diameter of it [according to Proposition II.44]. If then is an axis, what was enjoined would have been done, but it

not, let it have been done, and let be the axis: therefore the axis is parallel to [according to the porism to Proposition I.51] and bisects the straight

lines drawn perpendicular to it[according to Definition 7] And the perpendiculars

to are also perpendiculars to , and so bisects the perpendicular to .

If then we fix , a perpendicular to , it will be given in position, and therefore

is equal to , therefore is given.

Therefore through the given point , has been drawn parallel to ,

which is given in position, therefore is given in position.

84

which are points , , and A, and let , a diameter of it, be drawn [according to

Proposition II.44] and let be drawn perpendicular to it, and let it be continued to . If then is equal to , it is evident that is the axis [according to

Definition 7], but if not, let be bisected at and let be drawn parallel to

. Then it is evident that is the axis of the section for it is parallel to the

diameter it is also a diameter it bisects at right angles. Therefore has

been found as the axis of the given parabola.

And it is evident that the parabola has one only axis for if there is another

as , it will be parallel to [ according the porism to Proposition I.51]. And

its cuts and so it also bisects it [according to Definition 4].

Therefore is equal to , and this is impossible.

[Proposition] 47 [Problem]

Let there be the hyperbola or the ellipse , then it is required to find

its axis.

[Solution]. Let it have been found, and let it be , and the center of

the section, therefore bisects the ordinates to it and at right angles [according to Definition 7].

[Solution]. Let the perpendicular be drawn, and let and be

joined. Since then is equal to , therefore is equal to .

If then we fix the given point , will be given. And so the circle described, will be given. And so the circle with the center and the radius

will also pass through and will be given in position. And the section is

also given in position, therefore is given. But is also given, therefore is

given in position. Also is equal to , therefore is given. But also is given,

therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of thus: problem is as follows. Let there be given the

hyperbola or the ellipse , and let be taken as its center, and let a point be

taken as random on the section, and let the circle with the center and the

radius be described, and let be joined and bisected at , and let , KD,

and be joined, and let be drawn through .

Since then is equal , and is common, therefore and are

equal to and , and the base is equal to the base . Therefore bisects at right angles. Therefore is an axis [according to Definition 7],

85

the hyperbola conjugate to [according to Definition 8].

[Proposition] 48 [Problem]

Then with these reasons shown, let it be next in order to show that there

are no other axes of the same section53.

[Solution]. For, if possible, let there also be another axis . Then in the

same way as before with drawn perpendicular [according to Definition 4]

is equal to and so also is equal to . But also is equal to , therefore is equal to , and this is impossible.

Now that the circle does not hit the section also at another point between , , and , is evident in the case of the hyperbola, and in the case of

the ellipse the perpendiculars and be drawn. Since then is equal to

for they are radii, also sq. is equal to sq.. But the sum of sq. and sq.

is equal to sq., therefore the sum sq. and sq. is equal to the sum sq.

and sq..

Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the difference between sq. and sq..

Again since the sum pl. and sq. is equal to sq., and also

[according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] the sum pl. and sq. is equal to

sq., therefore the sum pl. and sq. is equal to the sum pl. and

sq.. Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the difference between pl. and pl..

And it was shown that the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to

the difference between sq. and sq., therefore the difference between sq.

and sq. is equal to the difference between pl. and pl.. And since

and are ordinates [according to Proposition I.21] as sq. is to pl., so

sq. is to pl..

But the same difference was also shown for both, therefore sq. is equal

to pl., and [according to Propositions V.9, V.16, and V.17 of Euclid]

sq. is equal to pl.

Therefore the line is a circle and this is impossible for it is supposed

an ellipse.

[Proposition] 49 [Problem]

Given a section of a cone and a point both with in the section, to draw

from this point a straight line touching the section 54 .

86

Let the given section of a cone first a parabola whose axis is . Then it is

required to draw a straight line as prescribed from the given point that is not

within the section.

Then the given point is either on the line or on the axis or somewhere else

outside.

Now let it be on the line, and let it be , and let it have been done, and

let it be , let be drawn perpendicular, then it will be given in position.

And [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , and is given, therefore is also given. And is given, therefore is also given. But also [is

given], therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn perpendicular from , and let be made equal to , and let be joined.

Then it is evident that it [according to Proposition I.33] touches the section.

Again let the given point be on the axis, and let it have been done, and

let be drawn tangent, and let be drawn perpendicular, therefore [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to . And is given, therefore also is

given. And is given, therefore is also given. And is perpendicular, therefore is given in position. Therefore is given. But also [is given], therefore

is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be made equal to

, and from let be drawn perpendicular to , and let be joined.

Then it is evident that touches [according to Proposition I.33].

And it is evident also that, even if the given point is the same as , the

straight line drawn from perpendicular touches the section [according to

Proposition I.17].

Then let be let the given point, ad let it have been done, and let be

it, and through let be drawn parallel to the axis, that is to , therefore

is given in position. And from let be drawn as an ordinate to , then [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to . And is given, therefore is also

given. And has been erected as an ordinate, which is parallel to the tangent

as [according to Proposition I.32], therefore is given in position. Therefore is also given, but also [is given]. Therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn through

parallel to , and let be made equal to , and let be drawn parallel to

the tangent at , and let be joined. It is evident then that this will do the

problem [according to Proposition I.33].

Again let it be a hyperbola whose axis is and center , and asymptotes an . Then the given point will be given either on the section or on

87

the axis or within the angle or in the adjacent place or on one of the asymptotes containing the section or in the place between the straight lines containing the angle vertical to the angle .

Let first be on the section, and let it have been done, and let be

tangent, and let be drawn perpendicular, and let be the latus transversum

of the eidos, then [according to Propositions I.36] as is to , so is to

. And the ratio to is given for both these straight lines are given,

therefore also the ratio to is given. And is given, therefore is given.

But also [is given], therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn perpendicular from , and let as is to , so is to , and let be joined

then it is evident that touches the section [according to Proposition I.34].

Then again let the given point be on the axis, and let it have been done,

and let be drawn tangent, and let be drawn perpendicular. Then for the

same reason [according to Proposition I.36] as is to , so is to . And

is given, therefore is given. And is perpendicular, therefore is given

in Position. And also the section is given in position, therefore is given. But

also [is given], therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let all other be supposed

the same, and let it be contrived that as is to , so is to , and let

be drawn perpendicular, and let be joined. Then it is evident does the

Problem [according to Proposition I.34], and that from another tangent to the

section could be drawn on the other side.

With the same suppositions let the given point be in the place inside the

angle , and let it be required to draw a tangent to the section from .

Let it have been done, and it be , and let be joined an continued, and let

be made equal to , therefore they are all given. Then also will be

given. Then let be drawn as an ordinate to , then also as is to , so

is to .

And the ratio to is given, therefore the ratio to is given.

And is given, therefore also is given. And has been erected parallel to

the tangent at , therefore is given in position.

And also the section is given in position, therefore is given. But is

also given, therefore is given.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let all other be supposed

the same, and the given point , and be joined and continued, and let be

made equal to , and let it be contrived that as is to , so is to ,

88

and let be drawn parallel to the tangent at , and let be joined, therefore [according to Proposition I.34] touches the section.

And it is evident that a tangent to the section could also be drawn to the

other side.

With the same suppositions the given point be on one of the asymptotes containing the section, and let it be required to draw from a tangent to

the section. And let it have been done, and let it be , and through let

be drawn parallel to , then is equal to , since also [according to Proposition II.3] is equal to . And is given, therefore also is given. And

through the given point has been drawn parallel in position to , therefore is given in position. And the section is also given in position, therefore

is given. But also given therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be the section

, and asymptotes and , and the given point on one of the asymptotes containing the section, and let be bisected as , and through let

be drawn parallel to and let be joined. And since is equal to therefore also is equal to .

And so by the shown before [in Proposition II.9] touches the section.

With the same supposition let the given point be in the place under the

angle adjacent to the straight lines containing the section, and let it be , it is

required then to draw a tangent to the section from . And let it have been

done, and let be , and let be joined and continued, then it will be given in

position. If then a given point is taken on the section, and through is

drawn parallel to it will be given in position. And if is bisected at , and

is joined and continued, it will be in position a diameter conjugate to [according to Definition 6]. Then let be made equal to , and through let

be drawn parallel to , then because and are conjugate diameters,

and a tangent, and a straight line drawn parallel to , therefore pl.

is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to [according to Proposition I.38]. Therefore pl. is given. And is given, therefore is also

given. But it is also given in position, and is given, therefore is also given.

And through has been drawn parallel in position to , therefore is

given in position. And the section is also given in position, therefore is given.

But also [is given], therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis is as follows. Let the other supposition be the same,

and let the given point be in the mentioned place, and let be joined

89

and continued, and let some point be taken, and let be drawn parallel to

, and let bisected at and let be joined and continued, and be

made equal to , therefore is a transverse diameter conjugate to

[according to Definition 6] then let pl. be made equal to the quarter of the

eidos corresponding to , and through let be drawn parallel to ,

and let be joined, then it is clear that touches the section according to

the converse of the theorem [Proposition I.38].

And if it is given in the place between and , the problem is impossible for the tangent will cut . And so it will meet both and , and this is

impossible according to shown in the theorem 31 of the book I [Proposition

I.31] and in the theorem 3 of this book [Proposition II.3].

With the same suppositions let the section be an ellipse and the given

point on the section, and let it be required to draw from tangent to the

section. Let it have been done, and let it be , and let be drawn from as

an ordinate to the axis , then will be given, and [according to Proposition

I.36] as is to , so is to .

And the ratio to is given, therefore the ratio to is also given.

Therefore is given. But also [is given],therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let be drawn perpendicular, and let as is to , so is to , and let be joined.

Then it is evident that touches, as also in the case of the hyperbola [according to Proposition I,34].

Then again let the given point be , and let it be required to draw a tangent. Let it have been done, and let it be , and let be joined to the center and continued to , then will be given in position. And if is drawn as

an ordinate, then [according to Proposition I.36] as is to , so is to

. and the ratio to is given, therefore the ratio to is also given.

Therefore is given. And has been erected as an ordinate for it is parallel

to the tangent at , therefore is given in position. Therefore is given. But

also [is given], Therefore is given in position.

And the synthesis of this problem is the same as for the preceding.

[Proposition] 50 [Problem]

Given the section of a cone, draw a tangent, which will make with the axis,

on the same side as the section, an angle equal to a given acute angle55.

90

required to draw a tangent to the section that will make with the axis on the

same side as the section an angle equal to the given acute angle.

[Solution]. Let the have been done, and let it be , therefore the angle

is given, let is drawn perpendicular, then the angle at is also given.

Therefore the ratio to is given. But the ratio to is given, therefore

also the ratio to is given. And the angle at is given, therefore the angle

is also given. And it is [given] with respect to , which is given in position, and with respect to the given point , therefore is given in position.

And the section is also given in position, therefore is given. And touches,

therefore is given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let the given section of

a cone first be a parabola whose axis is , and the given acute angle , and

let some point be taken on , and let be drawn perpendicular, and let

be bisected at , and let be joined, and let the angle be made equal to

the angle , and let be drawn perpendicular, and let be made equal to

, and let be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition I.33] is tangent

to the section.

I say then that the angle is equal to the angle . For since as is

to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , therefore ex56 as

is to , so is to .

And the angles at and are right, therefore the angle at is equal to

the angle at .

Let the section be a hyperbola, and let it have been done, and let be

tangent, and let the center of the section be taken, and let be joined and

let be perpendicular, therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is given for [according to Proposition I.37] it is the same as the ratio of the latus transversum to

the latus rectum. And the ratio sq, to sq. is given for each of the angles

and is given. Therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is given, and so also

the ratio to is given. And the angle at is given, therefore the angle at

is also given. Then some straight line has been drawn across in position with

respect to and to the given point at a given angle, therefore is given in

position. And the section is also given in position, therefore is given. And

has been drawn across as tangent, therefore is given in position.

Let the asymptote to the hyperbola be drawn, therefore continued

[according to Proposition II,3] meet the asymptote. Let it meet it at . Therefore the angle is greater than the angle .

Therefore for the construction the given acute angle will have to be

91

Then the synthesis of his problem is as follows. Let there be the given

hyperbola whose axis is , the asymptote , and the given acute angle

greater than the angle and let the angle equal to the angle and

let be drawn from perpendicular to and let some point be taken on

, and let be drawn from it perpendicular to . Since then the angle

is equal to the angle , and also the angles at and are right, therefore as

is to , so is to , and [the ratio] to is greater than [the ratio]

to , therefore also [the ratio] to is greater [the ratio] to .

And so also [the ratio] sq. to sq. is greater than [the ratio] sq. to

sq. .

But [according to Proposition II.1] as sq. is to sq., so the latus

transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore also [the ratio] the latus transversum to the latus rectum is greater than [the ratio] sq. to sq..

If then we shall contrive that as sq. is to sq., so some other is to

sq., it will be greater than sq.. Let it be pl., and let be joined.

Since then sq. is greater than pl., therefore [the ratio] sq. to sq.

is greater than [the ratio] pl. to sq., which is greater than [the ratio]

sq. to sq..

And if we shall contrive that as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to some

other, it will be to a magnitude less than sq., and the straight line joined from

to the point taken will make similar triangles, and therefore the angle is

greater than the angle . Let the angle be made equal to the angle

, therefore will cut the section [according to Proposition II.2]. Let is cut

it at , and from let be drawn tangent to the section [according to Proposition II.49], and drawn perpendicular, therefore the triangle is similar to

the triangle . Therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

But also [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is to the

latus rectum, so pl. is to sq., and as the latus transversum is to the latus

rectum, so pl. is to sq.. And inversely as sq. is to pl., so sq. is

to pl., therefore ex as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.. And

therefore as is to , so is to . But also we had as is to , so

is to , therefore ex as is to , so is to .

And the angles at and are right, therefore the angle at is equal to

the angle .

Let the section be an ellipse whose axis is . Then it is required to draw

a tangent to the section that with the axis will contain on the same side as the

section an angle equal to the given acute angle.

92

Let it have been done, and let it be . Therefore the angle is given.

Let be drawn perpendicular, therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is given. Let

be the center of the section, and let be joined. Then the ratio sq. to

pl. is given for [according to Proposition I.37] it is the same as the ratio of

the latus rectum to the latus transversum, and therefore the ratio sq. to

pl. is given, and therefore the ratio to is given. And [the ratio] to

[also is given], therefore the ratio to is given.

And the angle at is right, therefore the angle at is given. And it is

given respect to a straight line given in position and to a given point, therefore

is given. And from the given point let be drawn tangent, therefore is

given in position.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be the given

acute angle , and let some point be taken on , and let be drawn

perpendicular, and let it be contrived that as the latus rectum is to the latus

transversum, so sq. is to pl., and let be joined, and let be the center of the section, and let the angle be made equal to the angle , and

let be drawn tangent to the section [according to Proposition II.49].

I say that does the problem, that is the angle is equal to the angle

. For since as is to , so is to , therefore also as sq. is to

sq., so sq. is to sq.. But also as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.

for each is the same ratio as that of the latus rectum to the latus transversum

[according to Proposition I.37]. And therefore ex as sq. is to pl., so

sq. is to pl.. And therefore as is to , so is to .

But also as is to , so is to , therefore ex as is to , so

is to .

And the sides about the right angles are proportional, therefore the angle

is equal to the angle . Therefore does the problem.

[Proposition] 51 [Problem]

drawn through the point of contact will contain an angle equal to a given acute

angle 57 .

Let the given section of a cone first be a parabola whose axis is , and

the given angle is , then it is required to draw a tangent to the parabola which

with the diameter from the point of contact will contain an angle equal to the

angle .

93

[Solution]. Let it have been done, and let be drawn a tangent making

with the diameter drawn through the point of contact the angle equal to

the angle , and let meet the axis at [according to Proposition I.24]. Since

then is parallel to [according the porism to Proposition I.51] the angle

is equal to the angle .

But the angle is given for it is equal to the angle , therefore the angle is also given.

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be a parabola

whose axis is , and the given angle is . Let be drawn a tangent to the

section making with the axis the angle equal to the angle [according to

Proposition II.50], and through let be drawn parallel to . Since then the

angle is equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle ,

therefore also the angle is equal to the angle .

Let the section a hyperbola whose axis is , and center and asymptote , and the given acute angle , and let be tangent and let be joined

doing the problem. And let be drawn perpendicular. Therefore the ratio of

the latus transversum to the latus rectum is given, and so also the ratio pl.

to sq. [according to Proposition I.37]. Then let some given straight line be

laid out, and on it let there be described an arc of a circle admitting an angle

equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.33 of Euclid], therefore it will

greater than a semicircle [according to Proposition III.31 of Euclid]. And from

some point of those on the circumference let be drawn perpendicular making as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and

let and be joined. Since then the angle is equal to the angle , but

also as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and

as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, therefore

the triangle is similar to the triangle , and the triangle [is similar]to the triangle . And so the angle is equal to the angle .

Then the synthesis of this problem is as follows. Let there be the given

hyperbola , and axis , and center , and given acute angle , and let the

given ratio of the latus transversum to the latus rectum be the same as

to , and let be bisected at , and let a given straight line be laid

out, and on it let there be described an arc of a circle greater than semicircle

and admitting an angle equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.31 and

III,33], and let it be , and let the center of the circle be taken, and from

let be drawn perpendicular to , and let be cut at in the ratio to

, and through let be drawn parallel to and from let be drawn

perpendicular to continued, and let and be joined, and let be con94

And therefore as is to or is to , so is to .

And doubling the antecedents as is to , so is to , and componendo as is to , so is to . But as is to , so pl. is to

sq., therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq., and [according to

Proposition III.36 of Euclid] pl. is to sq..

But as is to , so the latus transversum is to the latus rectum,

therefore also as pl. is to sq., so the latus transversum is to latus rectum.

Then let be drawn from perpendicular to . Since then [according

to Proposition II.1] as sq. is to sq. so the latus transversum is to the latus

rectum, and also as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to

sq., and [the ratio] sq. to sq. is greater than [the ratio] pl. to

sq., therefore also [the ratio] sq. to sq. is greater than [the ratio]

sq. to sq..

And the angles at and are right, therefore the angle is less than the

angle .

Then let the angle be made equal to the angle , therefore will

[according to Proposition II.2] meet the section. Let it meet it at . Then let

be drawn tangent from [according to Proposition II.49], and let be drawn

perpendicular, then [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is

to latus rectum, so pl. is to sq.. Therefore also as pl. is to sq., so

pl. is to sq., therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle , and

the triangle [is similar] to the triangle , and the triangle to the triangle . And so the angle is equal to the angle and is equal to the

angle .

And if the ratio of the latus transversum to the latus rectum is equal to

the equal, is touches the circle [according to Proposition III.37 of

Euclid], and the straight line joined from the center to will be parallel to

and it will do the problem.

[Proposition] 52

drawn through the point of contact, it is not less than the angle adjacent to the

one contained by the straight lines deflected at the middle of the section 58 .

Let there be an ellipse whose axes are and , and center , and let

95

be the major axis, and let touch the section, and let , , and be

joined, and let be continued to .

I say that the angle is not less than the angle .

[Proof]. For is either parallel to or not.

Let it first be parallel, and is equal to , therefore also is equal to

. And is a diameter, therefore [according to Proposition II.6] the tangent

at is parallel to . But also is parallel to , therefore is a parallelogram, and therefore the angle is equal to the angle . And since and

are each greater than , the angle is obtuse, therefore the angle

is acute. And so also the angle [is acute]. And therefore the angle is

obtuse.

Then let not be parallel to , and let be drawn perpendicular,

therefore the angle is not equal to the angle . But the right angle at

is equal to the right angle at , therefore it is not true that as sq. is to sq.,

so sq. is to sq.. But [according to Proposition I.21] as sq. is to sq., so

pl. is to sq., that is the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is to latus rectum, so

pl. is to sq.. Therefore it is not true that as pl. is to sq., so sq.

is to sq.. Therefore is not equal to .

Let there be laid out an arc of a circle admitting an angle equal to

the angle [according to Proposition III.33 of Euclid], and the angle is

obtuse, therefore is an arc less than a semicircle [according to Proposition

III.31 of Euclid]. Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to ,

and from let be drawn at right angles, and let and be joined, and

let be bisected at , and let be drawn at right angle; therefore it is a

diameter. Let the center be , and from it let be drawn perpendicular, and

and be joined. Since then the angle is equal to the angle , and

and have been bisected, one at and other at , and the angles at and

are right, therefore the triangles and are similar. Therefore as sq. is

to sq., so sq. is to sq.. And since is equal to , and is greater

than , therefore [the ratio] to is greater than [the ratio] to , and

convertendo [the ratio] to is less than [the ratio] to .

And doubling the antecedents, therefore [the ratio] to is less

[the ratio] to .

And separando [the ratio] to is less [the ratio] to .

But [according to Proposition I.21] as is to , so sq. is to sq., that is

sq. is to sq., that is the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, and [according to Proposition I.37] as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so

96

pl. is to sq.. Therefore [the ratio] pl. to sq. is less than [the ratio]

to , that is less [the ratio] pl. to sq., what

is less [the ratio] pl. to sq..

If then we contrive it that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to some

other, it will be greater than sq.. Let it be to sq.. Since then as is to

, so is to , and and are perpendicular, and as pl. is to sq.,

so pl. is to sq., therefore the angle is equal to the angle .

Therefore the angle or the angle is greater than the angle , and

the adjacent angle is greater than the angle .

Therefore the angle is not less than the angle .

[Proposition] 53 [Problem]

Given an ellipse, to draw a tangent which will make with the diameter

drawn through the point of contact an angle equal to a given acute angle, then

it is required that the given acute angle be not less than the angle adjacent to

the angle contained by the straight lines deflected at the middle of the section59.

Let there be the given ellipse whose major axis is and minor axis ,

and center , and let and be joined, and let the angle be the given angle not less than the angle , and so also the angle is not less than the

angle .

Therefore the angle is either greater for equal to the angle .

[Solution]. Let it first be equal, and through let be drawn parallel to

, and through let be drawn tangent to the section [according to Proposition II.49]. Since then is equal to , and as is to , so is to ,

therefore is equal to . And is a diameter therefore the tangent to the

section at , that is , is parallel to [according to Proposition II.6]. And

also is parallel to , therefore is a parallelogram, and therefore the

angle is equal to the angle . And the angle is equal to the given

angle, which is , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle .

Then let the angle is greater than the angle , then inversely the angle is less than the angle .

Let a circle be laid out, and let an arc be taken from it, and let it be

admitting an angle equal to the angle , and let be bisected at , and from

let be drawn at right angles to , and let and be joined,

therefore the angle is less than the angle .

97

But the angle is equal to the half of the angle , and the angle

is equal to the half of the angle , therefore the angle is less than

the angle , And the angle at and are right, therefore [the ratio] to

is greater than [the ratio] to . And so also [the ratio] sq. to sq.

is greater than [the ratio] sq. to sq..

But sq. is equal to pl., and [according to Proposition III.35 of

Euclid} sq. is equal to pl., and is equal to pl., therefore [the ratio]

pl. to sq. for the latus transversum to the latus rectum [according to

Proposition I.21] is greater than [the ratio] to .

Then let it be that as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so

is to 60 , and let be bisected at . Since then [the ratio] the latus

transversum to the latus rectum is greater than [the ratio] to , also [the

ratio] to is greater than [the ratio] to .

And componendo [the ratio] to is greater than [the ratio] to .

Let the center of the circle be , and so also [the ratio] to is

greater than [the ratio] to .

And separando [the ratio] to is grater than [the ratio] to .

Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to less than such

as , and let and and be drawn parallel. Therefore as is to , so

is to , and is to is to , and componendo as is to , so is to

.

Doubling the antecedents, as is to , so is to .

Separando as is to or the latus transversum to the latus rectum,

so is to .

Then let and be joined, and let the angle be made on at

equal to the angle , and through let be drawn touching the section

[according to Proposition II.49], and let be dropped as an ordinate. Since

then the angle is equal to the angle , and the right angle at is equal

to the right angle at , therefore the triangle is equiangular with the triangle . And as the latus transversum is to the latus rectum, so is to ,

that is pl. is to sq., that is pl., is to sq.. Therefore the triangle

is similar to the triangle , and the triangle [is similar] to the triangle and therefore the angle is equal to the angle .

But the angle is equal to the angle is equal to the angle ,

therefore also the angle is equal to the angle . And therefore the

adjacent angle is equal to the adjacent angle . Therefore has been

drawn across tangent to the section and making with the diameter drawn

98

through the point of contact, the angle equal to the given angle , and this

it was required to do 61.

99

BOOK THREE

[Proposition] 1

If straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meet, and diameters are drawn through the points of contact meeting the

tangents, the resulting vertically related triangles will be equal1 .

Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle ,

and let and meeting at touch , and let the diameters of the section

and be drawn through and meeting the tangents at and .

I say that the triangle is equal to the triangle .

[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to , therefore it has been

dropped as an ordinate [according to Proposition I.32]. Then in the case of the

parabola [according to Proposition I.42] the parallelogram is equal to the

triangle , and with the common area subtracted, the triangle is

equal to the triangle .

And in the case of the other sections let the diameters meet at the center .

Since then has been dropped as an ordinate, and touches [according to

Proposition I.37] pl. is equal to sq.. Therefore as is to , so is to

, therefore also [according to the porism to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as

is to , so sq. is to sq..

But [according to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid] as sq. is to sq., so the

triangle is to the triangle , and as is to , so the triangle is to

the triangle , therefore also as the triangle is to the triangle , so

the triangle is to the triangle . Therefore the triangle is equal to

the triangle .

Let the common area be subtracted, therefore as remainders, the

triangle is equal to the triangle .

[Proposition] 2

cone or the circumference of a circle, and through it parallels to the tangents

are drawn as far as the diameters, then the quadrangle under one of the tangents, and one of the diameters will be equal to the triangle constructed on the

same tangent and the other diameter 2 .

100

let and be tangents, and and diameters, and let some point be

taken on the section, and and be drawn parallel to the tangent.

I say that the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proof]. For the triangle [in Propositions I.42 and I.43] has been

shown that it is equal to the quadrangle , let the common quadrangle be

added or subtracted, and the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 3

With the same suppositions if two points are taken on the section or the

circumference of a circle, and through them parallels to the tangents are drawn

as far as the diameters, the quadrangles under the straight lines drawn, and

standing on the diameters as bases, are equal to each other 3.

Let there be the section and tangents and diameters as said before, and

let two points at random and be taken on the section, and through let the

straight lines and be drawn parallel to the tangents, and through

the straight lines and .

I say that the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the

quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proof]. For since it has already been shown [in Proposition III.2] the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the triangle is equal to the

quadrangle , and the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangle and

the quadrangle PM therefore also the quadrangle is equal to the sum of the

quadrangles and , and so the quadrangle is equal to the sum of the

quadrangles and .

Let the common quadrangle be subtracted, therefore as remainders

the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

And therefore as wholes the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 4

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet each other, and

diameters are drawn through the points of contact meeting the tangents, then

the triangles at the tangents will be equal 4 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and let the tangents to

them, and , meet at , and let be the center of the hyperbolas, and let

101

and continued to and .

I say that the triangle is equal to the triangle , and the triangle

is equal to the triangle .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through tangent to the section, therefore

[according to Proposition I.44] it is parallel to . And since [according to

Proposition I.30] is equal to , and [according to Proposition VI.19 of

Euclid] the triangle is equal to the triangle .

But [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to the

triangle , therefore also the triangle is equal to the triangle .

And so also the triangle is equal to the triangle .

[Proposition] 5

If two straight lines touching opposite hyperbolas meet, and some point is

taken on either of the hyperbolas, and from it two straight lines are drawn, one

parallel to the tangent, other parallel to the line joining the points of contact,

then the triangle constructed by them on the diameter drawn through the point

of meeting differs from the triangle cut off at the point of meeting of the tangents by the triangle cut off on the tangent and the diameter drawn through

the point of contact 5.

Let there be opposite hyperbolas whose center is , and let tangents

and meet at , and let and be joined, and let be continued, and let

and be joined and continued, and let some point be taken on the section, and through it let be drawn parallel to , and parallel to .

I say that the triangle differ from the triangle by the triangle .

[Proof].For since has been shown [in Propositions II.38 and II.39] to be

a diameter of the opposite hyperbolas and [according to Definition 5 and Proposition II.38] to be an ordinate to it, and has been drawn parallel to ,

and parallel to , therefore the triangle differs from the triangle

by the triangle [according to Propositions I.44 or I.45]. And so the triangle

differs from the triangle by the triangle . And it is evident that

the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 6

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on one of the opposite

hyperbolas, and from it parallels to the tangents are drawn meeting the tan102

gents and the diameters, then the quadrangle under one of the tangents and

one of the diameters will be equal to the triangle constructed on the same tangent and the other diameter 6.

Let there be opposite hyperbolas of which and are diameters,

and let and touch the hyperbola meeting each other at , and let

some point be taken on the section, and from it let and be drawn

parallel to the tangents.

I say that the quadrangle is equal to the triangle .

[Proof]. Now since and are opposite hyperbolas, and , meeting

, touches the hyperbola , and has been drawn parallel to , therefore

[according to Proposition III.2] the triangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 7

With the same suppositions if points are taken on each of the hyperbolas,

and from them parallels to the tangents are drawn meeting the tangents and

the diameter, then the quadrangles under the straight lines drawn and standing

on the diameters as bases, will be equal to each other 7.

With the mentioned suppositions let and be taken on both hyperbola,

and through them let and be drawn parallel to , and

and parallel to .

I say that what was said in the enunciation will be so.

[Proof]. For since [according to Proposition III.2] the triangle is equal

to the quadrangle , let the quadrangle be added to both, therefore the

whole triangle is equal to the quadrangle .

But also [according to Proposition III.5] the triangle is equal to the

quadrangle , and [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to

the triangle , therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

Let the common quadrangle be added, therefore as the whole quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , and also the quadrangle is equal to

the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 8

With the same suppositions instead of and let there be taken and

of which the diameters hit the hyperbolas, and through them the parallels to

the tangents be drawn 8 .

I say that the quadrangle H is equal to the quadrangle , and the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

103

[Proof]. For since it was shown [in Proposition III.1] the triangle is

equal to the triangle , and the straight line from to is parallel to the

straight line from to , therefore as is to , so is to , and convertendo as is to , so is to . And also as is to , so is to for

each is double the other, therefore ex as is to , so is to . And the

triangles are similar because of the parallels, therefore [according to Proposition

VI.19 of Euclid] as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is

to the triangle . And alternately [as the triangle is to the triangle ,

so the triangle is to the triangle ]. But [according to Proposition III.1]

the triangle is equal to the triangle , therefore the triangle is equal

to the triangle .

As parts of these it was shown that the triangle is equal to the

triangle , therefore also as remainders of the quadrangle is equal to the

quadrangle . And so also the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

And since is parallel to , the triangle is equal to the triangle .

And likewise also the triangle is equal to the triangle .

But [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to the triangle ,

therefore also the triangle is equal to the triangle . And also the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

Therefore as wholes the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 9

With the same suppositions if one of the points is between the diameters

as and other is the same with one of and , for instance , and the parallels

are drawn. I say that the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the

quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle 9.

And this is evident for since it was shown that the triangle is equal to

the triangle , and [according to Proposition III.5] the triangle is equal to

the quadrangle ,therefore also the triangle is equal to the quadrangle

And so also the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the quadrangle

is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 10

With the same suppositions let and be taken not as points at which

the diameters hit the hyperbolas. Then it is to be shown that the quadrangle

is equal to the quadrangle 10.

104

through the points of contact, and and KI are parallel to the tangents, [according to Proposition I.44] the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles

and . And likewise also the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangle and .

But [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal to the

triangle , therefore the triangle without the triangle is equal to the

triangle without the triangle .

Therefore the sum of the triangles and is equal to the sum of

the triangles and .

Let the common area be added, therefore the quadrangle

is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 11

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on either of the hyperbolas, and from it parallels are drawn, one parallel to the tangent and other parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact, then the triangle constricted by them on the diameter drawn through the point of meeting of the

tangents differs from the triangle cut off on the tangent and the diameter

drawn through the point of contact by the triangle cut off at the point of meeting of the tangents11.

Let there be the opposites hyperbola and , and let the tangents

and meet at , and let the center be , and let and be joined, and

let some point be taken at random on the hyperbola , and through it let

has been dropped to parallel to , and parallel to .

I say that the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

[Proof]. For it is evident that is bisected by [according to Propositions II.29 and II.39], and that is a diameter conjugate to the diameter drawn

through parallel to [according to Proposition II.38], and so is an ordinate to [according to Definition 6].

Since then is a diameter, and touches, and is an ordinate, and

with the point taken on the hyperbola , let be dropped to parallel to

and parallel to , therefore it is clear that [according to Propositions

II.43 and II. 45] the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

by the triangle .

105

And so also the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

.

And it has been proved at the same time that the quadrangle is

equal to the triangle .

[Proposition] 12

With the same suppositions if of one hyperbola two points are taken and

parallels are drawn from each of them, likewise the quadrangles under them will

be equal 12.

Let there be the same suppositions as before, and let and be taken

at random on the hyperbola , and through them let and be

drawn parallel to , and and parallel to .

I say that the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

[Proof]. For since it has been shown [according to Proposition III.11] that

the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the triangle is equal

to the quadrangle , therefore, as remainder, either the quadrangle

without the quadrangle is equal to or the sum of the quadrangles and

is equal to the quadrangle .

And with the common quadrangle added or subtracted the quadrangle is

equal to the quadrangle .

[Proposition] 13

hyperbola meet, and diameters are drawn through the points of contact, then

the triangles whose common vertex is the center of the opposite hyperbolas

will be equal 13 .

Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas on which there are the points

, , , and , and let and meeting at touch the hyperbolas and ,

and let be the center, and let and be joined and continued to and .

I say that the triangle is equal to the triangle .

[Proof]. For let and be drawn through and parallel to .

Since then touches the hyperbola , and is a diameter through the

point of contact, and is parallel to , a diameter conjugate to the diameter , the so-called second diameter [according to Proposition II.20], and

therefore has been drawn as an ordinate to . And touches, therefore

[according to Proposition I.38] pl. is equal to sq. .

106

Therefore as is to , so is to . But as is to , so is to

, and is to , therefore also as is to , so is to ..

And the angles and are equal to two right angles, therefore the

triangle is equal to the triangle

[Proposition] 14

With the same suppositions if some point is taken on any one of the hyperbola, and from it parallels to the tangents are drawn as far as the diameters,

then the triangle constructed at the center will differ from the triangle constructed about the same angle by the triangle having the tangent as base, and

center as vertex 14.

Let the other be the same, and let some point be taken on the hyperbola , and through it let be drawn parallel to and parallel to . I

say that the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle

[Poof]. For let be drawn from parallel to . Since then, because of

the same reasons as before, is a diameter of the hyperbola , and is

a second diameter conjugate to it [according to Proposition II.2O] and is a

tangent at , and has been dropped parallel to , therefore [according to

Proposition I.40 the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to

and the latus transversum of the eidos corresponding to to the latus rectum.

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , and

is to , and [according to Proposition I.60] as the latus transversum of the

eidos corresponding to is to the latus rectum, so the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is to the latus transversum.

Therefore [the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] B to

and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to the latus transversum

or [the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to and the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to to the latus transversum.

And by the shown in the theorem 41 of Book I [that is Proposition I.41]

the triangle differs from the triangle by the triangle .

And so also [according to Proposition III.13] by the triangle .

[Proposition] 15

and diameters are drawn through the points of contact, and some point is taken

107

on one of the conjugate hyperbolas, and from it parallels to the tangents are

drawn as far as the diameters, then the triangle constructed by them at the hyperbola is greater than the triangle constructed at the center by the triangle

having the tangent as base and the center of the opposite hyperbolas as vertex15.

Let there be conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and whose center is and let and touch the hyperbola , and let the diameters

and be drawn through the points of contact and , and let some

point be taken on the hyperbola , and through it let be drawn parallel

to and parallel to .

I say that the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles and .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to , and through

parallel to , and parallel to , then it is evident that is a diameter conjugate to [according to Proposition II.20], and that is parallel to

dropped as an ordinate to , and that is a parallelogram.

Since then touches, and is through the point of contact, and is

another tangent, let it be contrived that as is to , so is to double ,

therefore is the so-called the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

[according to Proposition I.50]. Let be bisected at , therefore as is to

, so is to .

Then let it be contrived that as is to , so is to , then also will

be so-called the latus rectum of the eidos applied to [according to Propositions I.16 and I.60].

Since then as is to , so is to , but as is to , so sq. is

to pl., and as is to , so pl., is to pl., therefore as sq. is to

pl., so pl., is to pl.. And pl., is equal to sq. because as

sq. is to pl., so pl., is to pl.. And pl., is equal to sq.,

because [according to Proposition I.16] sq. is equal to pl.,, and

pl., is equal to the quarter of pl., ,and sq. is equal to the quarter

of sq., therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.. And

correspondingly sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl. . But as sq. is to

sq., so the triangle is to the triangle for they are similar, and as

pl. is to pl., so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore as the

triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle .

Therefore the triangle is equal to the triangle .

Again since [the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to , but as is to , so is to , and to , and as

is to , so is to , therefore [the ratio] to is compounded of [the

108

is similar to the triangle , and as is to , so is to , therefore

[the ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to or [the

ratio] to is compounded of [the ratios] to and to I.

Since then is a hyperbola having as a diameter, and as the

latus rectum, and from some point let be dropped as an ordinate, and the

figure let be described on the radius , and the figure let be described on the ordinate or its equal , and on the straight line between

the center and the ordinate, or on , its equal, the figure let be described

similar to the figure described on the radius, and there are compounded ratios as already given, therefore the triangle is equal to the sum of the triangles and [according to Proposition I.41].

[Proposition] 16

If two straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meet, and from some point on the section a straight line is

drawn parallel to one tangent and cutting the section and the other tangent,

then as the squares on the tangents are to each other, so the plane under the

straight lines between the section and the tangent will be to the square cut off

at the point of contact 16.

Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle

, and let and meeting at touch it, and let some point be taken on

the section , and through it let be drawn parallel to .

I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

[Proof]. For let the diameters and be drawn through and

, and through parallel to , it is at once evident that [according to

Propositions I.46 and I.47] is equal to , and [according to Proposition III.2]

the triangle is equal to the quadrangle , and [according to Proposition

III.1] the triangle is equal to the triangle . Since then is equal to

and added, as the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq.. And since the

triangle is similar to the triangle , as sq. is to sq., so the triangle

is to the triangle . And alternately as the whole sq. is to the whole

triangle , so the sum of the subtracted part of sq. is to the subtracted

part of the triangle .Therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . But as sq. is

to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle , therefore also as pl. is

to the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . But the quadrangle is

109

therefore also as pl. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle

.Alternately [as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.].

[Proposition] 17

If two straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meet, and two points are taken at random on the section, and

from them in the section are drawn parallel to the tangents straight lines cutting each other and the line of the section, then as the squares on the tangents

are to each other, so will the rectangular planes under the straight lines taken

similarly 17.

Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle

, and tangents to , and meeting at , and let and be taken at

random on the section, and through them at and be drawn parallel

to and .

I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

[Proof]. For let the diameters and be drawn through

and , and let the tangents and parallels be continued to the diameters, and let

and be drawn from and parallel to the tangents, then it is evident

that [according to Propositions i.46 and i.47] is equal to , is equal to

. Since then has been cut equally at I and unequally at [according to

Proposition II.5 of Euclid] the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq. . And

since the triangles are similar because of the parallels, as the whole sq. is to

the whole triangle , so the subtracted part of sq.IZ is to the subtracted part

of the triangle . Therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so the whole sq. is to the whole triangle . But

as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle . Therefore as

pl. is to the quadrangle ZM, so sq. is to the triangle . But the triangle

is equal to the triangle [according to Proposition III.1] and the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle [according to Proposition III.3], therefore as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . Then

likewise it could be shown that as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to

the triangle . Since then as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to

the triangle , and inversely as the quadrangle is to pl., so the triangle

is to sq., therefore ex as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

[Proposition] 18

110

point is taken on either one of the hyperbolas, and from it some straight line is

drawn parallel to one of the tangents cutting the section and the other tangent,

then as the squares on the tangents are to each other, so will the rectangular

plane under the straight lines between the section and the tangent be to the

square on the straight line cut off at the point of contact 18.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , the tangents

and , and through the points of contact the diameters and , and let

some point be taken at random on the hyperbola , and through it let

be drawn parallel to .

I say that as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to . Since then

is a hyperbola and BN its diameter and a tangent and parallel to ,

therefore [according to Proposition I.48] is equal to . And is added,

therefore [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid] the sum of pl. and sq. is

equal to sq.. And since is parallel to , the triangle is similar to the

triangle . Therefore as the whole sq. is to the whole triangle , so the

subtracted part of sq. is to the subtracted part of the triangle , therefore

also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so

sq. is to the triangle . But as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to

the triangle , therefore also as pl. is to the quadrangle , so sq. is to

the triangle . And [according to Proposition III.6] the quadrangle is equal

to the triangle , and [according to Proposition III.1] the triangle is equal

to the triangle , therefore as pl. is to the triangle , so sq. is to

the triangle . But also as the triangle is to sq., so the triangle is

to sq., therefore ex as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

[Proposition] 19

the tangents are drawn cutting each other and the section, then as the squares

on the tangents are each other, so will the rectangular plane under the

straight lines between the section and the point of meeting of the straight lines

be to the rectangular plane under the straight lines taken similarly 19.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas whose diameters are and

and the center at , and let the tangents and meet at , and let

and be drawn from any points parallel to and .

111

[Proof]. Let and be drawn through I and parallel to and . And

since as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle , and sq.

is to the triangle , therefore as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder

of the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle . But [according to

Proposition III.4] the triangle is equal to the triangle , and [according to

Proposition III.7] the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , therefore also as sq. is to the triangle , so pl. is to the quadrangle .

But [likewise] as the triangle is to sq., so the quadrangle is to

pl., and therefore ex as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

[Proposition] 20

through the point of meeting some straight line is drawn parallel to the straight

line joining the points of contact and meeting each of the hyperbolas, and some

other straight line is drawn parallel to the same straight line and cutting the

hyperbolas and the tangents, then as the rectangular plane under the straight

lines drawn from the point of meeting to cut the hyperbolas is to the square on

the tangent, so is the rectangular plane under the straight lines between the

hyperbolas and the tangent to the square on the straight line cut off at the

point of contact 20.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is

and tangents and , and let be joined, and let and be joined and

continued, and let be drawn through parallel to , and let the point be

taken at random, and through it let be drawn parallel to .

I say that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

[Proof]. For let and be drawn from and B parallel to .

Since then as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the triangle , so

sq. is to the triangle , and as sq. is to the triangle , so the remainder of pl. [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid] is to the remainder of the

quadrangle [according to Proposition V.19 of Euclid] and is equal to

pl. [according to Propositions II.38 and II 39] and the triangle is equal

to the triangle [according to Proposition III.11], therefore as pl. is to

the triangle , so pl. is to the triangle .

And as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

[Proposition] 21

112

With the same suppositions if two points are taken on the section,

and through them straight lines are drawn, one parallel to the tangent, other

parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact and cutting each other

and the hyperbolas, then as the rectangular plane under the straight lines drawn

from the point of meeting to cut hyperbola is to the square on the tangent, so

will the rectangular plane under the straight lines between the section and the

point of meeting 21.

Let there be the same suppositions as before, and let and be

taken, and through them let and be drawn parallel to , and

and parallel to .

I say that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

[Proof]. For since as sq. is to the triangle , so sq. is to the

triangle , and sq. is to the triangle , and as sq. is to the triangle

, so sq. is to the triangle , therefore the whole sq. is to the whole

triangle , so the subtracted part of sq. is to the subtracted part of the

triangle , therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of

the quadrangle , so sq. is to the triangle .

But [according to Proposition III.11] the triangle is equal to the

triangle and [according to Proposition III.12] the quadrangle is equal

to the quadrangle , therefore as sq. is to the triangle , so pl. is

to the quadrangle . But it was shown [in Proposition III.20] as the triangle

is to sq. or pl. [according to Propositions II,38 and II.39], so the

quadrangle is to pl., therefore ex as sq. is to pl., so

pl. is to pl.. And inversely as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to

pl..

[Proposition] 22

straight lines are drawn cutting each other and the hyperbolas, one parallel to

the tangent, other parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact, then

as the latus transversum of the eidos corresponding to the straight line joining

the points of contact is to the latus rectum, so the rectangular plane under the

straight lines between the section and the point of meeting will be to the

rectangular plane under the straight lines between the section and the point of

meeting 22.

113

parallel and tangent to them, and let be joined. Then let be drawn

across parallel to and parallel to .

I say that as is to the latus rectum of the eidos, so pl. is to pl..

[Proof]. Let and be drawn through and parallel to for

since and are parallels tangent to the hyperbolas, is a diameter

[according to Proposition II.31], and , , and are ordinates to it [according to Proposition I.32]. Then [according to Proposition I.21] as is to the

latus rectum, so pl. is to sq., and so pl. is to sq. or sq.. Therefore the whole pl. is to the whole sq., so the subtracted part of pl. is

to the subtracted part of sq., or as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.

for [according to Proposition I.21] is equal to , therefore also as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of pl., so is to the latus rectum.

But pl. is equal to pl., therefore as , that is the latus transversum of

the eidos, is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to pl..

[Proposition] 23

If in conjugate opposite hyperbolas two straight lines touching contrary hyperbolas meet in a hyperbola at random, and two straight lines are

drawn parallel to the tangents and cutting each other and the other of opposite

hyperbolas, then as the squares on the tangents are to each other, so the rectangular plane under the straight lines between the section and the point of

meeting will be to the rectangular plane under the straight lines similarly taken

23.

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and

and their center , and let and , tangents to the hyperbolas and

meet at , and let and be joined and continued to and , and let

be drawn from H parallel to , and from parallel to .

I say that at sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to , and from

parallel to . Since then is a diameter of the conjugate opposite hyperbolas

, , , and , and touches the section, and has been drawn parallel

to it, [according to Proposition II.20 and Definition 5] is equal to , and

for the same reasons is equal to . And since as sq. is to the triangle

, so sq. is to the triangle , and so sq. is to the triangle , also

as the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of the quadrangle , so

sq. is to the triangle . But [according to Proposition III.4] the triangle

114

is equal to the triangle , and [according to Proposition III.15] the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , therefore as sq. is to the triangle , so pl. is to the quadrangle . But as the triangle is to

sq., so the quadrangle is to pl., therefore ex as sq. is to sq.,

so pl. is to pl..

[Proposition] 24

from the center to the hyperbolas, one of them is taken as the transverse diameter and other as the upright diameter, and two straight lines are drawn parallel to two diameters and meeting each other and the hyperbolas, and the point

of meeting of the straight lines is the place between four hyperbolas, then the

rectangular plane under the segments of the parallel to the transverse diameter

together with the plane under the segments of the parallels to the upright diameter has the ratio which the square on the upright diameter has to the

square on the transverse diameter, will be equal to the double square on the

half of the transverse diameter 24 .

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and whose

center is , and from let the transverse diameter and the upright diameter be drawn through, and let and be drawn parallel to

and and meeting each other at , and first let be within the angle or

the angle .

I say that pl. together with pl. has the ratio sq. to sq.

is equal to the double sq..

[Proof]. For let the asymptotes of the hyperbolas and be

drawn, and through let tangent to the hyperbola be drawn. Since then

[according to Propositions I.60 and II.1] pl. is equal to sq., therefore as

pl. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

And [the ratio] pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to .

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to

; therefore [the ratio] sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratio] to

and to .

But [the ratio] to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to , therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

Therefore also as [sq. is to sq.] , so the sum of sq. and

pl.

25

115

is to the sum of sq. and pl.. And sq. is equal to pl. [according to

Proposition II.11] and is equal to pl. [according to Proposition II.16], and

sq. is equal to pl. [according to Proposition II.11] and is equal to pl.

[according to Proposition II.16], therefore as sq. is to sq., so the sum of

pl. and pl. is to the sum of pl. and pl.. And the sum of pl.

and pl. is equal to pl., therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to

the sum of pl. and pl..

Then it must be shown that the sum pl. and pl. and pl. is

equal to the double sq..

Let the common sq., that is pl. be subtracted, therefore is

remains to be shown that the sum of pl. and pl. is equal to sq..

And this is so four the sum pl. and pl. is equal to pl., and

the sum pl. and pl. is equal to [according to Proposition II.16] and

is equal to sq. [according to Proposition II.11].

Then let and meet on one of the asymptotes at . Then

pl. is equal to sq., and pl. is equal to sq. [according to Propositions II.11 and II.16], therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to pl..

And so we want the double pl. to be equal the double sq., and

it does.

And let be within the angle or the angle . Then likewise by

the composition of ratios as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl.. And

sq. is equal to pl.,, so is equal to pl., and sq. is equal to pl.,

therefore as pl. is to pl., so the subtracted part of pl. is to the subtracted part of pl.. Therefore also as pl. is to pl., so the remainder

of pl. is to the remainder of sq. without pl..

Therefore it must shown that pl. together sq. without pl.

are equal to the double sq..

Let common sq., that is pl., be subtracted, therefore it remains to be shown that pl. together with sq. without pl. are equal to

sq..

And this is so for pl. together with sq. without pl. is equal

to sq..

[Proposition] 25

With the same suppositions let the point of meeting of the parallels

to and be within one of the hyperbolas and , as set out for instance

at 26.

116

I say that the rectangular plane under the segment of the parallels to

the transverse diameter, that is pl., will be greater than the plane to which

the plane under the segments of the parallels to the upright diameter, that

is pl., has the ratio that the square on the upright diameter has to the

square on the transverse diameter by the double square on the half of the

transverse diameter.

[Proof]. For the same reason as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to

pl., and sq. is equal to pl., and [according to Proposition II.11] sq.

is equal to pl., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

And since [according to Proposition II.22] the whole pl. is to the

whole pl., so the subtracted part of pl. is to the subtracted part of

pl. or pl., therefore also the remainder of pl. is to the remainder of

pl., so sq. is to sq..

Therefore it must be shown that pl. is equal to the sum of

pl. and the double sq..

Let the common pl. be subtracted, therefore it must be shown

that pl. [according to Proposition III.24] is equal to the double sq..

And it is [according to Proposition II.23 ] the mentioned equality.

[ Proposition ] 26

hyperbolas and , as set out before then the rectangular plane under the

segments of the parallels to the transverse diameter, that is pl. , will be less

than the plane to which the plane under the segments of the other parallel, that

is pl. has the ratio which the square on the upright diameter has to the

square on the transverse diameter by the double square on the half of the

transverse diameter.

[Proof]. For, since for the same reasons as before as sq. is to

sq., so pl. is to pl., therefore also as the whole pl. is to the whole

pl. together with sq., so square on the upright diameter is to square on

the transverse diameter. Therefore it must be shown that as the sum of pl.

and the double sq. is equal to the sum of pl. and sq..

Let the common sq. be subtracted, therefore it remains to be

shown that the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to pl. or the sum of pl.

and pl. is equal to pl. [according to Propositions II.11 and II.16].

And it is for the sum of pl. and pl. is equal to pl..

117

[Proposition] 27

If the conjugate diameters of an ellipse or the circumference of a circle are drawn, and one of them is called the upright diameter, and other the

transverse diameter, and two straight lines meeting each other and the line of

the section are drawn parallel to them, then the squares on the straight lines

cut off on the straight line drawn parallel to the transverse diameter between

the point of meeting of the straight lines and the line of the section increased

by the figures described on the straight lines cut off on the straight line drawn

parallel to the upright diameter between the point of meeting of the straight

lines and the line of the section, figures similar and similarly situated to the eidos corresponding to the upright diameter will be equal to the square on the

transverse diameter 27.

Let there be the ellipse or the circumference of a circle , whose

center is , let two of its conjugate diameters be drawn, the upright diameter

and the transverse diameter , and let and be drawn parallel

to and .

I say that sq. and sq. increased by the figures described on

and similar and similarly situated to the eidos corresponding to will be

equal to the sq..

[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to , therefore it has

been dropped as an ordinate to . And let be the latus rectum. Now since

[according to Proposition I.15] as is to , so is to , therefore as

is to , so sq. is to sq.. And sq. is equal to the eidos corresponding to

, therefore as is to , so sq. is to the eidos corresponding to . And

as sq. is to the eidos corresponding to , so sq. is to the figure on

similar to the eidos corresponding to [according to Proposition VI.22 of

Euclid], therefore also as is to , so sq. is to the figure on similar to

the eidos corresponding to . And also as is to , so sq. is to pl.

[according to Proposition I.21], therefore the figure on or similar to the

eidos corresponding to is equal to pl..

Then likewise we could show that the figure on similar to the eidos corresponding to is equal to pl..

And since has been cut equally at and unequally at the sum

of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of the double sq. and the double

sq. is equal to the sum of the double sq. and the double sq. [according

to Proposition VI.9 of Euclid].

118

Then for the same reasons also the sum of sq. and sq. is equal

to the double sq. and the double sq., and the figures on and similar

to the eidos corresponding to are equal to the double similar figures on

and . And the sum of the figures on and is equal to the sum of pl.

and pl.. And the sum of the figures on and is equal to pl. and

pl., and the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.,

therefore the sum of sq. and sq. and the figures on and similar to

the eidos corresponding to is equal to the sum of the double pl. and the

double pl. , and the double sq. and the double sq.. And since has

been cut equally at and unequally at , the sum of pl. and sq. is equal

to sq. [according to Proposition II.5 of Euclid].

Likewise also the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq..

And so the sum of pl. and pl. and sq. and sq. is equal to

the double sq..

Therefore sq. and sq. together with the figures on and on

similar to the eidos corresponding to are equal to the double of sq..

But also sq. is equal to the double of sq., therefore sq. and sq.

together the figures on and similar to the eidos corresponding to are

equal to the sq..

[Proposition] 28

one of them is so-called the upright diameter, and other the transverse diameter, and two straight lines are drawn parallel to them and meeting each other

and the hyperbolas, then the squares on the straight lines cut off on the

straight line drawn parallel to the upright diameter between the point of meeting of the straight lines and the hyperbolas have to the squares on the straight

lines cut off on the straight line drawn parallel to the transverse diameter between the point of meeting of the straight lines and the hyperbolas the ratio

which the square on the upright diameter has to the square on the transverse

diameter 28.

Let there be the conjugate opposite hyperbolas , , , and , and

let be the upright diameter and the transverse diameter, and let

and be drawn parallel to them and cutting each other and the hyperbolas.

I say that as the sum of sq. and sq. is to the sum of sq. and

sq., so sq. is to sq..

119

therefore they are parallel to and . And from let the latera recta

corresponding to and be drawn, then it is evident that as is to ., so

sq. is to sq. [according to Proposition I.15] , so sq. is to sq., and as

sq. is to pl. [according to Proposition I.21], so pl. is to sq. [according to Propositions I.21 and I.60].

Therefore as one of the antecedents is to one of consequents, so are

all of the antecedents to all of the consequents [according to Proposition

V.12 of Euclid], therefore as sq. is to sq., so the sum of pl. and sq.

and sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq. and sq. or as sq. is to sq.,

so the sum of pl. and sq., and sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq.

and sq..

But the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq., and the sum of

pl. and sq. is equal to sq. [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid],

therefore as sq. is to sq., the sum of sq. and sq. is to the sum of

sq. and sq. so the sum of sq. and sq. is to the sum sq. and

sq..

And as has been shown, the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the

sum of the double of sq. and the double of sq., and [according to Proposition II.7 of Euclid]the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of the double sq. and the double sq., therefore also as sq. is to sq., so the sum

of sq. and sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq..

[Proposition] 29

cuts the asymptotes, then the squares on the straight lines cut off on the

straight line drawn parallel to the upright diameter between the point of meeting of the straight lines and the asymptotes together with the half of the square

on the upright diameter has to the squares on the straight lines cut off on the

straight line drawn parallel to the transverse diameter between the point of

meeting of the straight lines and the hyperbolas the ratio which the square on

the upright diameter has the square on the transverse diameter 29.

Let there be the same construction as before, and let cut the asymptotes at and . It is to be shown that as the sum of sq. and sq. and

the half of sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq.HK, so sq. is to sq. or

as the sum of sq. and sq., and the double sq. is to the sum of sq.

and sq., so sq. is to sq..

120

,the sum of sq. and sq. and the double pl. is equal to the sum of

sq. and sq., therefore the sum of sq. and sq. and the double sq. is

equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. And as the sum of sq. and sq. is to

the sum of sq. and sq., so sq. is to sq. [according to Proposition

III.28], therefore also as the sum of sq. and sq. and the double sq. is to

the sum of sq. and sq., so sq. is to sq..

[Proposition] 30

points of contact a straight line is continued, and through the point of meeting

a straight line is drawn parallel to one of the asymptotes and cutting both

the hyperbola and the straight line joining the points of contact, then the

straight line between the point of meeting and the strait line joining the points

of contact will be bisected by the hyperbola 30.

Let there be the hyperbola , and let and be tangents and

and asymptotes, and let be joined, and through parallel to let

be drawn.

I say that is equal to .

[Proof].For let be joined and continued both ways, and let

be made equal to , and through and let and KN be drawn parallel to

. Therefore they have been dropped as ordinates. And since the triangle

is similar to the triangle , therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to

sq.. And as sq. is to sq., so is to the latus rectum [according to

Proposition II.1], therefore also as sq. is to sq., so is to the latus rectum.

But as is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to sq. [according to

Proposition I.21], therefore also as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

Therefore pl. is equal to sq.. And also [according to Proposition i.37]

pl. is equal to sq. because touches and has been dropped as an

ordinate, and so also the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to the sum of pl.

and sq..

But the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq. [according to

Proposition II.6 of Euclid], and therefore the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to

sq.ZN. Therefore has been bisected at with added [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid]. And and are parallel, therefore is equal

to .

121

[Proposition] 31

straight line is continued through the points of contact, then and through the

point of meeting a straight line is drawn parallel to the asymptote and cutting

both the section and the straight line joining the points of contact, then the

straight line between the point of meeting and the straight line joining the

points of contact will be bisected by the section 31.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and tangents and

, and let be joined and continued, and let be an asymptote and

through let be drawn parallel to .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to , and through and

let and be drawn parallel to , and through and let and

be drawn parallel to . Since the triangle is similar to the triangle , as

sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. And it has been shown that as sq. is

to sq., so pl. is to sq. [according to Proposition III.30] .

Therefore pl. is equal to sq.. Let sq. be added to each

[side of this equality], therefore the sum of pl. and sq. is equal to sq.,

that is sq., is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. And [according to Propositions V.12 and VI.4 of Euclid] as sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq., so

sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq., therefore sq. is equal to the sum of

sq. and sq,. And sq. is equal to sq., and sq. is equal to the square

on the half of the second diameter [according to Proposition II.1], and is equal

to pl. [according to Proposition I.38], therefore sq. is equal to the sum of

sq. and pl..

Therefore has been cut equally at and unequally at , and we

use the Proposition II.5 of Euclid.

And is parallel to , therefore is equal to . 32 33 .

[Proposition] 32

If two straight lines touching a hyperbola meet, and a straight line is

continued through the points of contact, and a straight line is drawn through

the point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line joining the

points of contact, and a straight line is drawn through the midpoint of the

straight line joining the points of contact parallel to one of asymptotes, then

122

the straight line cut off between this midpoint and the parallel will be bisected

by the hyperbola 34.

Let there be the hyperbola whose center is ,and asymptote

, and let and touch, and let and be joined and continued to

and , then it is evident that is equal to . Then let be drawn through

parallel to , and through it parallel to .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof] . For let and be drawn through and parallel to ,

then, as has been already shown [in Proposition III.30], as sq. is to sq., so

sq. is to sq., and pl. is to sq., therefore pl. is equal to sq..

And also pl. is equal to sq. because touches, and has been

dropped as an ordinate [according to Proposition I.37], therefore the sum of

pl. and sq. is equal to the sum of pl. and sq. equal to sq. [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid].

Therefore has been bisected at with added .

And and are parallel, therefore is equal to .

[Proposition] 33

straight line is drawn through the points of contact, and another straight line is

drawn through the point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line

joining the points of contact, and still another straight line is drawn through the

midpoint of the straight line joining the points of contact parallel to one of asymptotes and meeting the section, and the parallel drawn through the point of

meeting, then the straight line between the midpoint and the parallel will be bisected by the section 35.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and tangents

and and center , and asymptote , and let be joined and continued,

and also let be joined, then it is evident that it is bisected at [according

to Proposition II.30]. Then let and be drawn through and parallel

to , and through parallel to .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let and be dropped from E and parallel to ,

and through parallel to .

Since then through already shown [in Proposition III.30] that as

sq. is to , so pl. is to sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so the sum

123

of pl. and sq. is to the sum of sq. and sq. [according to Proposition

V.12 of Euclid] or as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to the sum of sq. and

sq. [according to Proposition II.6 of Euclid].

But it has been shown [in Propositions I.38 and II.1] that sq. is

equal to pl., and sq. is equal to sq., therefore as sq. is to sq., so

sq. for sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq.. And [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid} as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore as

sq. is to sq., so sq. is to the sum of pl. and sq.. Therefore

sq. is equal to the sum of pl. and sq..

Therefore, has been cut equally at and unequally at [and we

use Proposition II.5 of Euclid]. and are parallel, therefore is equal to

.

[Proposition] 34

straight line from it touches the hyperbola, and through the point of contact a

parallel to the asymptote is drawn, then the straight line drawn from the taken

point parallel to other asymptote will be bisected by the section 36.

Let there be the hyperbola , and asymptotes and , and let a

point be taken at random on , and through it let be drawn touching the

section, and through let be drawn parallel to , and through let

be drawn parallel to .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let be drawn through parallel to , and

through parallel to . Since then [according to Proposition II.3] is equal to

, therefore also is equal to , and is equal to .

And since [according to Proposition II,12] pl. is equal to pl.,

and is equal to and is equal to , and is equal to , therefore

pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so is to , and is

equal to the double , therefore also is equal to the double .

Therefore is equal to .

[Proposition] 35

With the same suppositions, if from the taken point some straight

line is drawn cutting the section at two points, then as the whole straight line is

124

to the straight line cut off outside, so will the segments of the straight line cut

off inside be to each other 37.

Let there be the hyperbola and the asymptotes and , and

touching and parallel to , through let some straight line be

drawn across cutting the section at and .

I say that as is to , so is to .

[Proof]. For let , , and be drawn through ,, ,

and parallel to , and and through and parallel to .

Since then [according to Proposition II.8] is equal to , therefore

also [according to Proposition VI.4 of Euclid] is equal to .

But is equal to , therefore also is equal to . And so also

is equal to . And since is equal to , also is equal to , therefore

as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to , and as is to

, so is to , and [according to Proposition VI.1 of Euclid] as is to

, so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , and as is to , so

the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , therefore also as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram KN.

But the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram [according

to Proposition II.12] and is equal to the parallelogram for [according to

Proposition II.3] is equal to and is equal to , therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram . And as the remainder of the parallelogram is to the remainder

of the parallelogram , so the whole parallelogram is to the whole parallelogram . And since the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram ,

let the common parallelogram be subtracted, therefore the parallelogram

is equal to the parallelogram .

Let the common parallelogram be added, therefore the whole

parallelogram is equal to the whole parallelogram . Therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the

parallelogram .

But as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so is to

, and so is to , and as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram ,

and so is to , and so is to , therefore as is to , so is to

, therefore also as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 36

125

With the same suppositions if the straight line drawn across from the

point neither cuts the section at two points nor is parallel to the asymptote, it

will meet the opposite hyperbola, and as the whole straight line is to the

straight line between the section and the parallel through the point of contact,

so will the straight line between the opposite hyperbola and the asymptote be

to the straight line between the asymptote and the other hyperbola 38.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is and

asymptotes and , and let some point H be taken on , and from it let

be drawn tangent, and neither parallel to nor cutting the section at

two points [according to Proposition I.26].

It has been shown that continued meets and therefore also

the hyperbola . Let it meet at , and let be drawn through parallel to

.

I say that as AK is to , so is to .

[Proof}. For let and be drawn from and parallel to ,

and , , and from , , and parallel to . Since then [according to

Proposition II.16] is equal to , as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to .

And therefore as is to , so is to . But as is to , so

the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , and as is to , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , therefore also as the parallelogram

is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram .

And as one is to one, so are all to all, therefore the parallelogram is to

the parallelogram , so the whole parallelogram is to the sum of the whole

parallelogram and the parallelogram . And since is equal to , also

is equal to , and the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram .

And [according to Proposition II.12] the parallelogram is equal to

the parallelogram , therefore also the parallelogram is equal to the

parallelogram .

Therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the

whole parallelogram is to the sum of the whole parallelogram and the

parallelogram or as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the

parallelogram is to the parallelogram .

But the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram , since also

[according to Proposition II.12] the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram , and the parallelogram is equal to the parallelogram .

Therefore as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram , so the parallelogram is to the parallelogram .

126

, and so is to , and as the parallelogram is to the parallelogram ,

so is to ,and so is to , therefore also as is to ,so is to

[Proposition] 37

If two straight lines touching a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle or opposite hyperbolas meet, and a straight line is joined to the

points of contact, and from the point of meeting of the tangents some straight

line is drawn across cutting the line [of the section] at two points, then as the

whole straight line is to the straight line cut off outside, so will the segments

continued by the straight line joining the points of contact be to each other 39.

Let there be the section of a cone and tangents and and

let be joined and let be drawn across.

I say that as is to , so is to .

[Proof]. For let the diameters and be drawn through and

,and through and let , , , and parallel to and be

drawn. Since then is parallel to as is to , so is to , and so

is to , and so is to , and therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq.

is to sq..

But as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle

[according to Proposition VI.19 of Euclid], and as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore also as the triangle is to the

triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle , and so the remainder of

the quadrangle is to the remainder of the quadrangle .

But [according to Propositions III.2 and III.11] the quadrangle is

equal to the triangle , and the quadrangle is equal to the triangle

, therefore as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle .

But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as the triangle

is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq., and so sq. is to , therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

And therefore as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 38

the point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line joining the

points of contact and a straight line drawn through the midpoint of the straight

127

line joining the points of contact cuts the section at two points and the straight

line through the point of meeting parallel to the straight line joining the points

of contact, then as the whole straight line drawn across is to the straight line

cut off outside between the section and the parallel, so will the segments continued by the straight line joined to the points of contact be to each

other 40.

Let there be the section and tangents and and is the

straight line joining the points of contact, and and are diameters, then it

is evident that AB has been bisected at [according to Propositions II.30 and

II.39]. Let be drawn from parallel to , and let be drawn across

through

I say that as is to so is to .

[Proof]. For let and be drawn through and parallel

to , and through and let and be drawn parallel to . Then likewise

as before [in Proposition III.37] it will be shown that as sq. is to sq., so

sq. is to sq.. And as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and so sq.

is to sq., and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., therefore as sq. is

to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 39

straight line is drawn through the points of contact, and a straight line drawn

from the point of meeting of the tangents cuts both hyperbolas and the

straight line joining the points of contact, then as the whole straight line drawn

across is to the straight line cut off outside between the section and the

straight line joining the points of contact, so will the segments of the straight

line drawn by the segments and the point of meeting of the tangents be to

each other 41.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is ,and

tangents and , and let and be joined and continued, and through

let some straight line be drawn across.

I say that as is to , so is to .

[Proof]. For let be joined and continued, and through and let

and be drawn parallel to , and parallel to , , and .

Since then and are parallel, and , , and have been

drawn through them, as is to , so is to . And alternately as is to

, so is to , therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

128

and as sq. is to sq. , so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore

also as the triangle is to the triangle , so the triangle is to the triangle . And [according to Proposition III.11] the triangle is equal to the

sum of the triangles and , and the triangle is equal to the sum of

the triangles and , therefore as the triangle is to the triangle ,

so the sum of the triangles and is to the sum of the triangles and

, and the remainder of the triangle is to the remainder of the triangle

, so the triangle is to the triangle .

But as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq., and so

sq. is to sq., and as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to

sq., and so sq. is to sq.. Therefore also as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 40

point of meeting of the tangents parallel to the straight line joining the points of

contact, and if a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the straight line joining the points of contact cuts both hyperbolas and the straight line parallel to

the straight line joining the points of contact, then as the whole straight line

drawn across is to the straight line cut off outside between the parallel and the

hyperbola, so will the straight lines segments drawn by the hyperbolas and the

straight line joining the points of contact be to each other 42.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is , and

tangents and , and let and be joined, therefore [according to

Proposition II.39] is equal to . And from let be drawn parallel to ,

and from let be drawn at random.

I say that as is to , so is to .

[Proof]. From and let and be drawn parallel to ,

and and parallel to , and let be drawn through.

Since then and have been drawn across the parallels

and , as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to

because of the similarity of the triangles and , therefore as is to

, so is to , therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

But as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle ,

and as sq. is to sq., so the triangle is to the triangle , therefore

129

And [according to Proposition III.11] the triangle is equal to the

sum of the triangles and , and the triangle is equal to the sum

of the triangles and , therefore also as the sum of the triangles is

and is to the sum of the triangles and , so the triangle is to

the triangle , therefore also as the remainder of the triangle is to the

remainder of the triangle , so the whole is to the whole.

But as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq.,

and as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to sq., therefore

also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as sq. is to

sq., so sq. is to sq., and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.,

therefore also as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

Therefore as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 41

If three straight lines touching a parabola meet each other, they will

be cut in the same ratio 43.

Let there be the parabola , and tangents , and .

I say that as is to , so is to , and so is to .

[Proof]. For let be joined and bisected at . Then it is evident

[according to Proposition II.29] that the straight line from to is a diameter

of the parabola. If then is goes through is parallel to [according to

Proposition II.5] and will be bisected by , and therefore [according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , and is equal to , and what was sought is apparent.

Let it not go through , but through , and let be drawn

through parallel to , therefore it will touch the parabola at [according to

Proposition I.32], and because of already said [in Proposition I.35] is equal

to , and is equal to .

Let be drawn through parallel to , and and through

and parallel to . Since then is parallel to , is a diameter

[according to Propositions I.40 and I.51], and touches at , therefore

and have been dropped as ordinates [according to Proposition II.5 and Definition 4]. And since is a diameter, and a tangent, and an coordinate

[according to Proposition I.35] is equal to , and so also is equal to .

130

, and corresponding as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore also as is to , so

is to . And as is to , so is to , therefore ex as is to , so

is to , and convertendo as is to , so is to , and separando as

is to , so is to .

Again since is a diameter and a tangent and an ordinate

[according to Proposition I,35] is equal to , and is equal to . And

also is equal to , therefore as is to , so is to , and

correspondingly as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore also as is to , so

is to . And also an is to , so is to , therefore ex aequa as

is to , so is to , and separando as is to , so is to .

And it was also shown that as is to , so is to , therefore

as is to , so is to .

Again since as is to , so is to , and is equal to the

double , and is equal to the double , and is equal to the double ,

and is equal to the double , therefore as is to , so is to , and

so is to , and so is to .

[ Proposition ] 42

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle or opposite hyperbolas straight lines are drawn from the vertices of the diameter

parallel to an ordinate, and some other straight line at random is drawn tangent,

it will cut off from them straight lines under which the rectangular plane equal

to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to the same diameter 44 .

Let there be some of the mentioned sections, whose diameter is ,

and from and let and be drawn parallel to an ordinate, and let some

other straight line be tangent at .

I say that pl., is equal to the mentioned part of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. For let its center be , and through it let be drawn parallel to and . Since then and are parallel, and is also parallel,

[to them], therefore [according to Definition 6] it is the diameter conjugate to

, and so sq. is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to [according to Definition 11].

If then goes through in the case of the ellipse and circle

131

to and it is immediately evident that pl., is equal to sq. or the quarter of the eidos corresponding to .

Then let it not go through it, and let and continued meet at ,

and let be drawn through parallel to , and parallel to .

Since then pl. is equal to sq. [according to Proposition I.37],

as is to , so is to , and [according to Proposition V.18 of Euclid] as

is to , so is to or , inversely as is to , so is to KA,

componendo or separando as is to ,so is to .

Therefore also as is to , so is to . Therefore pl., is

equal to pl., , which is equal to pl..

But [according to Proposition I.38] pl. is equal to sq., which is

equal [according to Definition 11] to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to

, therefore also pl., is equal to the quarter of the eidos corresponding to

.

[Proposition] 43

If a straight line touches a hyperbola, it will cut off from the asymptote beginning with the center of the section straight lines containing a rectangular plane equal to the plane under the straight lines cut off by the tangent at

the vertex of the hyperbola at its axis 45.

Let there be the hyperbola , and asymptotes and , and the

axis , and let be drawn through tangent, and some other tangent

be drawn at random.

I say that pl. is equal to pl..

[Proof]. For let and be drawn from and parallel to , and

and parallel to . Since then touches[according to PropositionII.3]

is equal to , and so is equal to the double , and is equal to the

double , and is equal to the double .

Therefore pl. is equal to the quadruple pl..

Then likewise it could be shown that pl. is equal to the quadruple pl..

But [according to Proposition II.12] pl. is equal to pl..

Therefore also pl. is equal to pl., then likewise it could be

shown, even if were some other diameter and not the axis.

[Proposition] 44

132

meet the asymptotes, then the straight lines drawn to the section will be parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact 46.

Let there be either the hyperbola or the opposite hyperbolas , and

asymptotes and , and tangents and , and let , , and

be joined.

I say that they are parallel.

[Proof]. For since [according to Proposition III.43] pl. is equal to

pl., therefore as is to , so is to , therefore is parallel to .

And therefore as is to , so is to . And as is to , so is to HB.

For each is the double [according to Proposition II.3], therefore ex as is to

, so is to . Therefore is parallel to .

[Proposition] 45

opposite hyperbolas straight lines are drawn from the vertex of the axis at right

angles, and a rectangular plane equal to the quarter of the eidos is applied to

the axis on each side and increased in the case of the hyperbola and the opposite hyperbolas, but decreased in the case of the ellipse, and some straight line

is drawn tangent to the section, and meeting the perpendicular straight lines,

then the straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to the points of the

beginnings of application make right angles at the mentioned points 47.

Let there be one of the mentioned sections whose axis is , and

and are drawn at right angles, and is tangent, and let pl. and

pl. equal to the quarter of the eidos be applied on each side [of ] as it

has been said, and let , , , and be joined.

I say that the angles and are right .

[Proof]. For since it has been shown that pl., is equal to the

quarter of the eidos corresponding to , and since also pl. is equal to the

quarter of the eidos corresponding to , therefore pl., is equal to pl..

Therefore as is to , so is to . And the angles at and

are right, therefore [according to Proposition VI.6 of Euclid] the angle is

equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle . And since

the angle is right, therefore the sum of the angles and is equal to

one right angle.

And it has also been shown that the angle is equal to the angle

, therefore the sum of the angles and is equal to one right angle.

133

Then likewise it could also be shown that the angle is equal to

one right angle 48 .

[Proposition] 46

With the same suppositions, the joined straight lines make equal angles with the tangents 49.

For with the same suppositions I say that the angle is equal to

the angle and the angle is equal to the angle .

[Proof]. For since it has been shown [in Proposition III.45] that both

angles and are right, the circle described about as a diameter will

pass through and , therefore the angle is equal to the angle for

they are on the same arc of the circle. And it was shown that the angle is

equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.45], and so the angle is

equal to the angle .

And likewise also the angle is equal to the angle 50.

[Proposition] 47

With the same suppositions the straight line drawn from the point of

meeting of the joined straight lines to the point of contact will be perpendicular

to the tangent 51.

For let the same as before be supposed and let and meet each

other at , and let continued and meet at , and let be joined.

I say that is perpendicular to .

[Proof]. For if not, let be drawn from perpendicular to . Since

then [according to Proposition III.46] the angle is equal to the angle ,

and also the right angle is equal to the right angle , therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle ..Therefore as is to , so is to

.

But as is to , so is to because the angles at and are

right [according to Proposition III.45] and the angles at are equal, but as is

to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles and

[according to Proposition III.46], therefore as is to , so is to , and

alternately as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore also as is to , so

is to . Let be drawn from parallel to , therefore it will have been

134

, so is to [according to Proposition I.36]. And as is to , so

is to , therefore also as is to , so is to , and this is impossible.

Therefore is not perpendicular, nor is any over straight line except 52.

[Proposition] 48

With the same suppositions it must be shown that the straight lines

drawn from the point of contact to the points produced by the application make

equal angles with the tangent 53.

For let to same suppositions, and let and be joined.

I say that the angle is equal to the angle .

[Proof]. For since [according to Propositions III.45 and III.47] the angles and are right the circle described about as a diameter

will pass through and [according to Proposition III.31 of Euclid ] , and so

the angle is equal to [according to Proposition III.21 of Euclid] for they

are in the same arc. Likewise then also the angle is equal to the angle .

But the angle is equal to the angle for they are vertical angles, therefore also the angle is equal to the angle 54 .

[Proposition] 49

With the same suppositions if from one of the points [of the beginnings of application] a perpendicular is drawn to the tangent, then the straight

lines from that point to the ends of the axis make a right angle 55.

For let the same be supposed, and let the perpendicular be drawn

from to , and let and be joined.

I say that the angle is right.

[Proof]. For since the angle is right, and the angle also

[is right], the circle described about as a diameter will pass through and ,

and the angle is equal to angle .

But it was shown [in Proposition III.45] that the angle is equal to

the angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle ,which is

equal to the angle [according to Proposition III.21 of Euclid]. And so also

the angle is equal to the angle .

But the angle is right, therefore the angle also is right 56 .

[Proposition] 50

135

With the same suppositions if from the center of the section there

falls to the tangent a straight line parallel to the straight line drawn through the

point of contact, and one of the points [of the beginning of application] , then

it will be equal to the half of the axis 57 .

Let there be the same as before, and let be the center, and let

be joined, and let and meet at , and through let be drawn parallel

to .

I say that is equal to .

[Proof]. For let , , be joined, and through let be drawn

parallel to . Since then [according to Proposition III.45] pl. is equal to

pl., therefore is equal to .

But also is equal to , therefore also is equal to . And so

also is equal to .

And since it was shown [in Proposition III.48] that the angle is

equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle , therefore

also the angle is equal to the angle . And therefore is equal to .

But it was also shown that is equal to , therefore is perpendicular to . And so through what was shown before [in Proposition III.49]

that the angle is right, and the circle described about as a diameter will

pass through . And is equal to , therefore also, since is a radius of

the semicircle, is equal to 58-59 .

[Proposition] 51

from both sides to the axis of a hyperbola or opposite hyperbolas and in

creased and straight lines are deflected from the points of beginning of application to either one of the hyperbolas, then the greater of two straight lines increases the less by exactly as much as the axis 60.

Let there be a hyperbola or opposite hyperbolas whose axis is and

the center , and let each of pl. and pl. be equal to the quarter of the

eidos, and from and let and be deflected to the line of the section.

I say that is equal to the sum of and .

[Proof]. For let be drawn tangent through , and through

parallel to , therefore the angle is equal to the angle for they are

alternate. And [according to Proposition III.48] the angle is equal to the

angle , therefore is equal to . But is equal to , since also is

136

is equal to the double .

And since it as been shown [in Proposition III.50] that is equal to

, therefore is equal to the sum of the double and double .

But is equal to the double , and is equal to the double ,

therefore is equal to the sum of and . And so is greater than by

.

[Proposition] 52

is applied from both sides to the major axis and decreased , and from the points

of beginnings of application straight lines are deflected to the line of the section, then they will be equal to the major axis 61.

Let there be an ellipse whose major axis is , and let each of

pl. and pl. be equal to the quarter of the eidos, and from and let

and have been deflected to the line of the section.

I say that the sum and is equal to .

[Proof]. For let be drawn tangent, and be the center and

through it let be drawn parallel to . Since then [according to Proposition

III.48] the angle is equal to the angle ,and the angle is equal to the

angle , therefore also the angle is equal to the angle .

Therefore is equal to . And since is equal to , and is

equal to , therefore also is equal to , and so also is equal to .

And for this reason is equal to the double , and is equal to

the double .

But also [according to Proposition III.50], is equal to the sum of and .

[Proposition] 53

If in a hyperbola or an ellipse or the circumference of a circle or opposite hyperbolas straight lines are drawn from the vertex of a diameter parallel

to an ordinate, and straight lines drawn from the same ends to the same point

on the line of the section cut the parallels, then the rectangular plane under the

straight lines cut off is equal to the eidos corresponding to the same diameter

62.

137

, and let and be drawn parallel to an ordinate, and let and be

drawn across.

I say that pl., is equal to the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to an ordinate. Therefore

[according to Proposition I.21 the ratio] pl. to sq. is compounded of

[the ratios] the latus transversum to the latus rectum and sq. to the eidos.

But [the ratio] pl. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to , therefore [the ratio] the eidos to sq. is compounded of

[the ratios] to and to ,

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to ,

therefore [the ratio] the eidos to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to .

And also as pl., is compounded of [the ratios] to and

to , therefore as the eidos is to sq., so pl., is to sq..

Therefore pl., is equal to the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 54

circle meet and through the points of contact parallels to the tangents are

drawn, and from the points of contact, to the some point of the line of the section straight lines are drawn across cutting the parallels, then rectangular plane

under the straight lines cut off to the square on the straight line joining the

points of contact has a ratio compounded of the ratio which the inside segment

joining the point of meeting of the tangents and the midpoint of the straight

line joining the points of contact is equal in square to the remainder, and of the

ratio which the plane under the tangents has to the quarter of the square on

the straight line joining the points of contact 63 .

Let there be a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle

and tangents and , and let be joined and bisected at , and let be

joined, and let be drawn from parallel to , and from parallel to ,

and let some point on the section be taken, and let and be joined and

continued to and .

I say that [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]

sq. to sq. and pl. to the quarter of sq. or pl..

[Proof]. For let be drawn from parallel to , and from

let be drawn parallel to , then it is evident that is tangent [accord138

ing to Propositions II.5 , II,6 , and II.29]. Since then is equal to , also is

equal to , and is equal to , and [according to Proposition II.7] is

equal to , and is equal to .

Since then and are tangents and has been drawn parallel

to [according to Proposition III.16] as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to

pl. or as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..

And [according to Propositions V.18 and VI.2 of Euclid] as pl.,

is to sq., so pl., is to sq., therefore ex as pl., is to

pl., so pl., is to pl..

But [the ratio] pl., to pl. is compounded of [the ratios]

to and to or [the ratio] pl., to pl. is compounded of [the

ratios] to and to , which is the same as pl., to sq.. Therefore as pl., is to pl., so pl., is to sq..

But with pl. taken as a mean,[the ratio] pl., to pl., is

compounded of [the ratios] pl., to pl. and pl. to pl., therefore [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] pl., to

pl. and pl. and pl..

But as pl., is to pl., so sq. is to sq., and as pl. is

to pl., so pl. is to pl., therefore [the ratio] pl., to sq., is

compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl. to pl..

[Proposition] 55

the point of meeting a straight line is drawn parallel to the straight line joining

the point of contact, and from the points of contact parallels to the tangents

are drawn across, and straight lines are drawn from the points of contact to the

some point of one of the hyperbolas cutting the parallels, then the rectangular

plane under the straight lines cut off will have to the square on the straight line

joining the points of contact the ratio which the plane under the tangents is

equal to the square of the straight line drawn through the point of meeting parallel to the straight line joining the points of contact as far as the section 64.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and tangents to

them and , and let be joined, and from let be drawn parallel to

, and from let be drawn parallel to , and from let be drawn parallel to , and let some point be taken on the hyperbola , and let and

be joined.

I say that as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl.,.

139

has been shown that [according to Proposition III.20] as sq. is to sq., so

pl. is to sq., and [according to Proposition II.38] is equal to and

is equal to , therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.. And also

[according to Propositions VI.1 and VI.2 of Euclid] as sq. is to pl., so

sq. is to pl., ,therefore ex as sq. is to pl. , so pl.

is to pl.,.

But [the ratio] pl. to pl., is compounded of [the ratios]

to and to . But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so

is to , therefore [the ratio] sq. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios]

to and to . And also [the ratio] sq. to pl., is compounded

of [the ratios] to and to , therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq.

is to pl.,.

[Proposition] 56

and parallels to the tangents are drawn through the points of contact, and

straight lines cutting the parallels are drawn from the point of contact to the

some point of the other hyperbola, then the rectangular plane under the

straight lines cut off will have to the square on the straight line joining the

points of contact the ratio compounded of the ratio of the part of the straight

line joining the point of meeting and the midpoint between the midpoint and the

other hyperbola equal in square to the part between the same hyperbola and

the point of meeting, and of the ratio of the plane under the tangents to the

quarter of the square on the straight line joining the points of contact 65.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and whose center is ,

and tangents and , and let be joined and be bisected at . And

let be joined and drawn across to , and let be drawn from parallel to

, and from parallel to , and let some point be taken on the hyperbola , and let and be joined.

I say that [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl. to quarter of sq. or pl..

[Proof]. For let and be drawn from and parallel to ,

then it is evident that is equal to , and is equal to , and also is

equal to , and so also is equal to .

140

tangents, and is parallel to , therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to

pl. [according to Proposition III.18].

But sq. is equal to pl., pl. is equal to pl., therefore as

sq. is to pl., so sq.BK is to pl.. And also as pl., is to sq., so

pl., is to sq., therefore ex as pl., is to pl., so pl., is to

pl..

And with pl. taken as a mean, [the ratio] pl., to pl.

is compounded of [the ratios] pl., to pl. and pl. to pl., and as

pl., is to pl., so sq. is to sq., and as pl. is to pl., so pl.

is to pl., therefore [the ratio] pl., to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl. to pl.. And [the ratio] pl., to pl.

is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

But as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to

, therefore [the ratio] pl., to sq. is compounded of [the ratios]

to and to , that is the same as [the ratios] sq. to sq. and pl.

to pl..

141

BOOK FOUR

Apollonius greets Attalus 1.

Earlier, I presented the first three books of my eight books treatise

on conics to Eudemus of Pergamum, but with his having passed away I decided

to write out the remaining books for you, because of your earnest desire to

have them. To start, then, I am sending you the fourth book. This book treats

of the greatest number of points at which sections of a cone can meet one another or meet a circumference of a circle, assuming that these do not completely coincide, and, moreover, the greatest number of points at which a section of a cone or a circumference of a circle can meet the opposite hyperbolas.

Besides these questions, there are more that a few others of a similar character

Conon of Samos presented the first mentioned question to Thrasydaeus without

giving a correct proof, for which he was rightly attacked by Nicoteles of Cyrene

2. As for the second question, Nicoteies, in replying to Conon only mentions

that it can be proved, but I have found no proof either by him or by anyone

else. Regarding the third and similar questions, however, I have not found them

even noticed by anyone. And all these things just spoken of, whose demonstrations I have not found any where, require many and various striking theorems,

of which most happen to be presented in the first three books of my treatise on

conics, and the rest in this book. The investigation of these theorems is also of

considerable use in the synthesis of problems and limits of possibility . So,

Nicoteles was not speaking truly when, for the sake of his argument with Conon,

he said that none of the things discovered by Conon were of any use for limits

of possibility, but even if the limits of possibility are able to be obtained completely without these things yet, surely, some matters are more readily perceived by means of them, for example, whether a problem might be done in

many ways, and in how many ways, or again, whether it might not be done at

all. Moreover, this preliminary knowledge brings with it a solid starting point for

investigations, and the theorems are useful for the analysis of limits of possibility. But apart from such usefulness, these things are also worthy of acceptance

for the demonstrations themselves: indeed, we accept many things in mathematics for this and no other reason.

[Proposition] 1

142

a circle, and from this point two straight lines are drawn towards the section,

of which one touches the section and other cuts the section at two points, and

if the straight line cut off inside the section is divided in that ratio which the

whole straight line cut off has to the part outside bounded between the point

and the section, so that homologous straight lines are at the same point, then

the straight line drawn from the point of contact to the point of division will

meet the line of the section, and the straight line drawn from the point of meeting to outside point will touch the section 3.

Let there be the section of a cone or the circumference of a circle

and let be taken outside the section, from let touch the section at

and let cut the section at and , and let as is to , so is to .

I say that the straight line from to will meet the section, and the

straight line drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the section.

[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the section, and let

be joined cutting , if possible, not at , but at . Now since and , touch

the section, is drawn from the point of contact, and goes through

cutting the section at and and meeting at , [according to Proposition

III.37] as is to , so is to . But this is impossible for it was assumed

that as is to , so is to . Therefore does not cut at a different

point from , therefore it cuts at .

[Proposition] 2

This is proved for all sections together. However regarding the hyperbola only, if touches the hyperbola and cuts it at two points and

,.and if the point of contact, , is between and , and is inside the angle

between the asymptotes, then the proof is carried out similarly for from it is

possible to draw another straight line touching the hyperbola and the rest of

the proof is done similarly 4.

[Proposition] 3

With the same suppositions if and do not contain the point of

contact, , between them, and let be inside the angle between the asymptotes. Therefore from it is possible to draw another straight line touching

the section, and rest is proved as before 5.

143

[Proposition] 4

With the same suppositions if the points of the meeting and

contain the point of contact, , and is in the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, then the straight line from the point of contact to the

point of division meets the opposite hyperbola, and the straight line drawn from

the point of meeting to will touch the opposite hyperbola 6.

[Proof]. For let and be opposite hyperbolas, let and be

asymptotes, and let be in the angle . Furthermore let be drawn from

touching, and cut one of the hyperbolas, let the points of meeting and

contain the point of contact , and let as is to , so is to . It is to be

shown that the straight line joined from to will meet the hyperbola , and

that the straight line from the point of meeting to will touch the hyperbola B.

Let be drawn from touching the hyperbola, and let the straight

line all fall, if possible, not at , but at . Therefore [according to

Proposition III.37] as is to , so is to . But it is impossible for it was

assumed that as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 5

drawn from to will be parallel to the asymptote 7 .

[Proof]. For let the same be supposed, let be on one of the asymptotes, . It is to be shown that the straight line drawn from parallel to

will fall on . For if not, let the straight line, if possible, be . But then

[according to Proposition III.35] as is to , so is to , but it is impossible.

[Proposition] 6

straight lines are drawn to the hyperbola, one of which touches the hyperbola,

and the other is parallel to one of the asymptotes, and if the segment of the

latter straight line inside the hyperbola is equal to the segment cut off between

the hyperbola and the point, then the straight line joined from the point of contact of the former straight line to the taken point will meet the hyperbola, and

144

the straight line drawn from the point of meeting to the point outside will touch

the hyperbola 8.

Let there be the hyperbola , let be some point taken outside it,

and, to start, let be inside the angle between the asymptotes, and from let

be drawn touching the hyperbola, let be parallel to the other of the asymptotes, and let be equal to .

I say that the straight line joining from and will meet the hyperbola and the straight line from the point of meeting to will touch the hyperbola.

[Proof]. For let be drawn touching the hyperbola, and let be

joined and cutting , if possible, not at but at some other point . Then

[according to Proposition III.30] will be equal to . But it is impossible for it

was assumed that is equal to .

[Proposition] 7

between the asymptotes.

I say that the same will come to pass 9.

[Proof]. For let be drawn touching the hyperbola and let be

joined and let, if possible, fall not on but on . Therefore [according to Proposition III.31] is equal to . But it is impossible for it was assumed that

is equal to .

[Proposition] 8

the remaining constructions be the same.

I say that the straight line drawn from the point of contact to the

end of the straight line cut off will be parallel to the asymptote on which is

situated 10.

[Proof]. Let there be the construction just mentioned, and let be

equal to , and from let be drawn, if possible, parallel to . Therefore

[according to Proposition III.34] is equal to . But it is impossible for it was

assumed that is equal to .

[Proposition] 9

145

If from the some point two straight lines are drawn each cutting a

section of a cone or the circumference of a circle at two points ,and if the segments cut off inside are divided in the same ratio as the wholes are to the

segments cut off outside, so that the homologous straight lines are at the same

point, then the straight line drawn through the points of division will meet the

section at two points, and straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to

the point outside will touch the section 11.

Let there be the section described by us , and from a point

[outside it] let and be drawn cutting the section at and and at and

, respectively. Furthermore let as is to , so is to , and at is to

, so is to .

I say that the straight line joining to will meet the section at

both ends, and the straight lines joining the points of meeting will touch the

section.

[Proof]. For since and both cut the section at two points, it is

possible to draw a diameter of the section through , and with that also straight

lines touching the section on either side. Let straight lines and be drawn

touching section, and let be joined not passing through , if possible, but

through only one of these two, or through neither. First, let it pass through

only and let it cut at M. Therefore [according to Proposition III.37] as is

to , so is to , but this is impossible for it has been assumed that as

is to , so is to .

If passes through neither nor then, the absurdity occurs with

regards to each straight line and .

[Proposition] 10

The reasons above are common for all sections. However regarding

the hyperbola only, if the other reasons are assumed, and if the points of meeting of the one straight line are between the points of meeting of the other

straight line, and if is inside the angle between the asymptotes, the same reasons said above will happen as we said above in Theorem 2 [Proposition IV.2]

12.

[Proposition] 11

With the same suppositions if the points of meeting of one of the

straight lines do not contain the points of meeting of the other straight line,

146

then is in the angle between the asymptotes and the diagram and the proof

will be the same as in Theorem 9 [Proposition IV.9] 13.

[Proposition] 12

straight lines contain those other straight lines, and if the chosen point is in the

angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, then the straight line

drawn through the points of division and continued will meet the opposite hyperbola, and the lines drawn from the points of meeting to will touch the opposite hyperbolas 14.

Let there be the hyperbola , and its asymptotes and , and

its center be . Furthermore let be in the angle , let and be drawn

cutting the hyperbola each at two points, let and be between and , and

let be that is to , so is to , and that as is to , so is to .

It is to be shown that the [straight line] through and will meet

both [the hyperbola] and also the opposite hyperbola, and the lines from the

points of meeting to will touch the hyperbolas.

[Proof]. For let M be the opposite hyperbola, and from let and

be drawn touching the hyperbola, let be joined, and, if possible, let it not

pass through and , but rather through only one of these two points for

through neither.

First let it pass through and cut at . Therefore [according to

Proposition III.37] as is to , so is to . But this is impossible for it has

been assumed that as is to , so is to .

If passes through neither nor , then the impossibility occurs

with regards to each straight line and .

[Proposition] 13

remaining constructions are assumed to be the same, then the straight line

drawn through the points of division will be parallel to the asymptote on which

the point is situated and continued will meet the hyperbola. Moreover the

straight line drawn from the point of meeting to the point situated on the asymptote will touch the section 15.

147

one of the asymptotes. Let straight lines be drawn and divided as we have said

above, and let a straight line be drawn from touching the hyperbola.

I say that the straight line drawn from parallel to passes

through and .

[Proof]. For let if not so, then surely it will pass through one of these

points for two neither.

Let it pass through only, therefore [according to Proposition III.35]

as is to , so is to . But it is impossible. Therefore the straight line

drawn through parallel to will not pass through only. Therefore it will

pass through both points [ and ].

[Proposition] 14

In the same suppositions if is on one of the asymptotes, and cuts the hyperbola at two points, and parallel to the other asymptote cuts the hyperbola at only, and if as is to , so is to , and is equal to is

situated in a straight line with , then the straight line drawn through and

will be parallel to the asymptote, and will meet the hyperbola, and the straight

line drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the hyperbola for similarity

to what was said above, will touch the hyperbola.

I say that the straight line drawn from parallel to the asymptote

will pass through and .

[Proof]. Indeed, if it passed through only, will not be equal to

[according to Proposition III.34], which is impossible. And if it passes

through only then it will not be that [according to Proposition III.35] as is

to ., so is to , and if it passed neither through nor through , the impossibility will occur in both ways .Therefore it will pass through both points.

[Proposition] 15

and if a straight line from this point touches one of opposite hyperbolas, and

another straight line cuts each of opposite hyperbolas, and if as the straight line

between the point and the one hyperbola which the first straight line does not

touch is to the straight line between the point and the other hyperbola, so the

greater straight line between the hyperbolas is to its excess over the latter, set

in a straight line with it and with the homologous lines being at the same ends,

148

then the straight line drawn from the end of the greater straight line to the

point of contact will meet the section, and the straight line drawn from the

point of meeting to the taken point will touch the section 17.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and let some point

be taken between the hyperbolas and in the angle between the asymptotes, and

from this point let be drawn touching the section and be drawn cutting

the section. Furthermore as is to , so is to . It is to be shown that

the straight line drawn from to will meet the section, and the straight line

drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the section.

[Proof]. For let since is situated in the angle containing the section, it is possible to draw from another straight line touching the section [according to Proposition II.49]. Let be drawn, let be drawn and let it pass, if

possible, not through , but through . It will then [according to Proposition

III.37] that as is to , so will be to , which is impossible for it was assumed that as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 16

f is situated in the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, and let the remaining construction be the same 18.

I say that the straight line joining to will then continued to meet

the opposite hyperbola, and the straight line from the point of meeting to will

touch the opposite hyperbola.

[Proof]. For let the same reason be as before, and let be in the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes, and let be drawn from

touching the hyperbola , let be joined and when continued let it not pass

through , but through , if possible. Then it will be that [according to Proposition III.39] as is to , so will be to , which is impossible for it was assumed that as is to , so is to .

[Proposition] 17

With the same suppositions let be on an asymptote 19.

I say that the straight line drawn from to will be parallel to the

asymptote on which is situated.

Let there be the same as before, let be on one of asymptotes let a

straight line be drawn through parallel to the asymptote, and , if possible,

149

is to , so will be to , which possible. Therefore the straight line from

parallel to the asymptote will fall on .

[Proposition] 18

from this point two straight lines are drawn cutting each of hyperbolas, and if

as the straight lines between one of hyperbolas and the point are two those

between the other hyperbola and the same point, so are straight lines greater

than those cut off between the opposite hyperbola to their excess over the latter, then the straight line drawn through the ends of the greater straight lines

will meet the hyperbolas, and the straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to the original taken point will touch the hyperbolas 20.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be between

the hyperbolas. Let it be assumed first that be in the angle between the asymptotes, and through let , be drawn. is greater than , and

is greater than since [according to Proposition II.16] is equal to .

Furthermore let as is to , so is to , and let as is

to , so is to .

I say that the straight line through and meets the hyperbolas,

and the straight lines from to the points of meeting will touch the section.

[Proof]. For since is inside of the angle between the asymptotes, it

is possible to draw two straight lines touching the section [according to Proposition II.49]. Let and be drawn, and let be joined. It will, thus, pass

through and for if it passes through one of these points only the other

straight line will be cut in the same ratio by another point, which is impossible. If

it passes through neither point, the same impossibility will occur in both straight

lines.

[Proposition] 19

Let be taken then in the angle adjacent to the angle between the

asymptotes and let straight lines be drawn cutting the section and divided as

said above21.

I say that the straight line drawn through and will meet each of

opposite hyperbolas, and the straight lines from the point of meeting to will

touch the section 21.

150

[Proof]. For let and be drawn from touching each of the hyperbolas. Therefore the straight line through and will pass through and

for if not so, it will surely go through one of two, or through neither, and again

one will similarly inter from this an absurdity.

[Proposition] 20

are the same, then the straight line drawn through the ends of the greater

straight lines will be parallel to the asymptote on which the point is situated,

and the straight line drawn from the point of meeting of the section and the

straight line drawn through the ends of the greater straight lines will touch the

section 22.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be on one of

the asymptotes, and let the remaining construction be the same.

I say that the straight line through and meets the section, and

the straight line from the point of meeting to will touch the section.

[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the section, and a

straight line be drawn from parallel to the asymptote on which is situated, it

will then pass through and for if not so, it will either pass through one of

two or neither, and the same impossibilities will occur as before [according to

Proposition III.36]

[Proposition] 21

Again let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be on

one of the asymptotes, let be parallel to one of two asymptotes, meet the

section at one point B only, but let meet both of hyperbolas.

Furthermore let as be to , so be to , and let be equal to .

I say that the straight line through and will meet the section and

will be parallel to the asymptote on which is situated, and that the straight

line drawn from the point of meeting to will touch the section 23.

[Proof]. For let be drawn touching the section, and let a straight

line be drawn parallel to the asymptote on which is situated. If will thus pass

through and for if not so, the absurdity said before will occur [according to

Proposition III.36]

151

[Proposition] 22

Similarly, let there be the opposite hyperbolas and their asymptotes,

and let be similarly taken. Let be taken cutting the hyperbolas, and be

taken parallel to one of two asymptotes.

Moreover as is to , let be to , and let be equal to .

I say that the straight line through and will meet each of the

opposite hyperbolas, and the straight lines from the points of meeting to will

touch the section 24.

[Proof]. For let and be drawn touching the section, let be

joined, and, if possible, let it not pass through and , but through one of

these two points or neither. If, on the one hand, it passes through only,

will not be equal to , but to some other straight line which [according to

Proposition III.31] is impossible. If, on the other hand, it passed through only,

it will not be that as is to , so is to , but, some straight line to some

other straight line [according to Proposition III.36]. If yet it passes through neither of and , then both impossibilities will occur.

[Proposition] 23

Again let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let be in

the angle adjacent to the angle between the asymptotes. Let be drawn cutting the hyperbola at one point only, and thus parallel to one of two asymptotes, and let be drawn similarly to the hyperbola A, and let be equal to

and to .

I say that the straight line through and meets the hyperbolas

and the straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to will touch the hyperbolas.

[Proof]. For let and be drawn touching the hyperbolas, let

be joined, and, if possible, let it not pass through . So, either it will pass

through one of these two points or through neither of them, and either will

not be equal to AK, but some other straight line, which is impossible, or will

not be equal to , or neither will be equal to neither, and again the same impossibility will occur in both cases [according to Proposition III.31]. Therefore

will pass through and .

[Proposition] 24

152

A section of a cone will not meet a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle in such way that a part of them will be the same and another

part will not be common 26.

`

[Proof]. For let, if possible, let the section of a cone meet

[other section of a cone or] the circumference of the circle , let the same

part of these sections be common and let and not be common.

Let be taken on this part, let be joined, and through an arbitrary point

draw parallel to . Moreover bisect at , and through draw the diameter . Therefore the straight line through parallel to touches each

of the sections, and also will be parallel to . Also in one section will be

equal to , and in other section [according to Propositions I.46 and I.47]

will be equal to , so that also and are equal, but this is impossible 27.

[Proposition] 25

A section of a cone does not cut a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle at more than four points 28.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, them cut at five points , , , , , and

let the points of meeting , , , , be taken in succession so the no point of

meeting between them is left out, and let and be joined and continued.

So, these straight lines will meet out side the section in the cases of the parabola and the hyperbola [according to Propositions II.24 and II.25]. Let them meet

at , and let as be to , so be to , and as be to , so be to

.

Therefore the straight line from to joined and continued will

meet the section on each side and the straight lines joining the points of meeting and [according to Proposition IV.9] will touch the section. Let the points

of contact are and and let and be joined. Hence they touch the section.

Therefore since there is no point of meeting between and the

straight line cuts each of the sections. Let it cut them at and . Therefore

in one hyperbola as is to , so is to , and in the other hyperbola as

is to , so is to . But it is impossible, so that also what was assumed

at the start is impossible.

If and are parallel, the sections will, of course, be the ellipses

or the circumference of a circle. Let and be bisected at and , and let

be joined and continued on each side. Then it will meet the sections. So let

it meet them at and . Then will be a diameter of the sections, and

153

drawn from parallel to and . Therefore cuts each of the sections because there is no other meeting besides , , , . Then in one of the

sections will be equal to , and in other section will be equal to [according to Definition 4], so that is equal to , but this is impossible 29-30 .

[Proposition] 26

If the lines [of the sections] mentioned above some touch at one

point, then they will not meet each other at more than two other points 31.

Let two of the above mentioned lines touch at the point .

I say that they will not meet each other at more than two other

points.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, them meet at , , , and let the points

of meeting be taken in succession with no point of meeting between them be

left out. Let be joined and continued, and from let be drawn touching

the section. Thus will touch both sections and meet . Let it meet it at .,

and let it be that as is to , so is to .

Let be joined and continued. Thus it will meet the section and the

straight lines drawn from the points of meeting to will touch the section

[according to Proposition IV.1] . Let it meet it at and , and let and

be joined. These straight lines will touch the section. Therefore the straight line

joining to will cut each of sections, and the earlier mentioned absurdity will

occur. The section will not cut one another at more than two points.

If in an ellipse or the circumference of a circle is parallel to ,

the proof will be similar to that given above once is shown to be a diameter.

[Proposition] 27

If the lines [of the sections] mentioned above some touch one

another at two points, they will not meet one another at another point 32.

Let two of lines mentioned above touch one another at two points

and . I say that they will not meet one another at another point.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, them meet also at , and to start let be

outside of the points of contact and , and let straight lines be drawn from

and touching the sections. Therefore they will touch both lines. Let them

touch and be continued to , as in the first diagram, and let be drawn. Then

it cuts each of the sections . Let it cut them at and , and let be joined.

154

the other section as will be to , so [according to Proposition III.37] will

be to , but this is impossible.

[Proposition] 28

If is parallel to the straight lines touching the sections at and

as in the ellipses in the second diagram 33 , then joining we conclude that

it is a diameter [according to Proposition II.27], so that each of and are

bisected at [according to Definition 4], but it is impossible. Therefore the

lines [of the sections] do not meet one another at another point, but only at

and

[Proposition] 29

Let be between the points of contact, as in the third diagram 34 .

It is evident that the lines [of the sections] do not touch one another at

since it has been assumed that the lines [of the sections] touch at two points

only. Indeed, let them cut one another [point] at . Let and be drawn

from

and touching the sections, let be joined and bisected at . Therefore

the straight line drawn from to [according to Proposition II.29] will be a diameter. The diameter will surely not pass through for if it did pass through it

,then the straight line drawn through parallel to will touch each of the sections [according to Propositions II.5 and II.6] , and this is impossible.

So from let be drawn parallel to , then in the one section

will be equal to , and in the other section will be equal to , so that

is equal to , but this is impossible.

Similarly if the straight lines touching the sections are parallel, the

absurdity will be proved in the same way as above.

[Proposition] 30

[Proof]. For let, if possible, the parabolas and touch at

and , and let and be drawn touching the parabolas. They will, thus,

touch both sections and will meet at . Let be joined and bisected at , and

let be drawn.

155

[according to Propositions IV.27, IV.28, and IV.29] they will not meet each

other at another point, so that cuts each of sections. Let it cuts them at

and . In one section [according to Proposition I.35] will be equal to ,

and in the other section will be equal to , but it is impossible. Therefore a

parabola cannot touch a parabola at more points than one.

[Proposition] 31

A parabola falling outside of a hyperbola will not touch the hyperbola

at two points 36 .

[Proof]. For let there be the parabola and the hyperbola ,

and, if possible, let them touch at and . Let the straight lines be drawn from

and touching each of sections that touch at and , and let these straight

lines meet at . Let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined.

Now since the sections and touch at A and , they will

not meet at another point, therefore cuts the sections at one and then another point. Let it cut them at and and let be continued. It will [according to Proposition II.29] fall on the center of the hyperbola. According to the

properties of the hyperbola as is to , so is to and the remainders

to [according to Proposition I.37] .Therefore is greater than

But according to the properties of the parabola [proved in Proposition I.35] is equal to , but this is impossible.

[Proposition] 32

will not touch the ellipse or the circumference of the circle at two points 37.

[Proof]. For let there be the ellipse or the circumference of a circle

and the parabola , and, if possible, let them touch at two points and

, and let straight lines be drawn from and touching the sections and meeting at , let be joined and bisected at , and let be joined. will cut

each section at one point and then at another [point],as we said above. Let it

cut them at and , and let be continued to , which is the center of the

ellipse or of the circle. Therefore according to the properties of the ellipse and

of the circle as is to , so is to , and [according to Proposition I.37]

that ratio is equal to the ratio of the remainders to , and is greater

than . Therefore is greater than . But according to the properties of

156

[Proposition] 33

A hyperbola will not touch a hyperbola with the same center at two

points

38.

same center touch at and . Let and be drawn from and touching the hyperbolas and meeting one another, and let be joined and continued. Moreover let be joined. Therefore bisects at . Then [according to Proposition IV.29] cuts the hyperbolas at and . According to the

properties of the hyperbola pl. will be equal to sq., and according to

the properties of the hyperbola pl. will be equal to sq. [according

to Proposition I.37]. Therefore sq. is equal to sq., but this is impossible.

[Proposition] 34

the same center at two points, then the straight line joining the points of contact passes through falls on the center 39.

[Proof] . For let the above mentioned lines touch one another at

and . Let be joined, and let straight lines touching the sections be pass

through and , and, if possible, meeting at . Let be bisected at , and let

be joined. Therefore [according to Proposition II.29] is a diameter of the

sections. If possible, let the center be . Therefore pl. will be equal to sq.

according to the properties of one section, but to sq. according to the properties of other section, so that [according to Proposition I.37] sq. is equal to

sq., but this is impossible. Therefore the straight lines from and touching

the sections do not meet. Therefore they are parallel, and for the same reason

is a diameter [according to Proposition II.27], so that it passes through the

center, what was to prove 40 .

[Proposition] 35

section of a cone or the circumference of a circle not having its convexity in the

same direction at more than two points 41.

157

of a circle meet a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle

not having its convexity in the same direction at more points than two, , , .

Since three points , , have been taken on the line , if

and are joined, they will contain an angle having concavity in the same direction as the line . For the same reason contain an angle whose concavity is in the same direction as the line . Therefore the lines we have

been speaking of have both their concave and convex parts in the same direction, but this is impossible.

[Proposition] 36

opposite hyperbolas at two points and the lines between the points of meeting

have their concavity in the same direction, then the line drawn at the points of

meeting will not meet the other opposite hyperbola 42.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let there be a

section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meeting one of two opposite hyperbolas at two points and , and let the sections and have

their concavity in the same direction.

I say that continued ABZ will not meet the section .

[Proof]. For let be joined. Since and are opposite hyperbolas

and cuts a hyperbola at two points, so continued it will not meet the opposite hyperbola [according to Proposition II.33]. Neither therefore will the line

meet the hyperbola .

[Proposition] 37

If a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle meets one of

the opposite hyperbolas it will not meet the remaining hyperbola at more points

than two 43 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas A and , and let a section of a

cone or the circumference of a circle meet the hyperbola , and let

cut the opposite hyperbola at and .

I say that it will not meet at another point.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet at . Therefore meets the

section not having its concavity in the same direction at more points than

two, but [according to Proposition IV.35] it is impossible.

This is will be shown similarly if the line touches the opposite hyperbola.

158

[Proposition] 38

opposite hyperbolas at more points than four 44.

This is evident from the fact that meeting one of the opposite hyperbolas it [according to Proposition IV.37] cannot meet the remaining hyperbola at more than two points.

[Proposition] 39

If a section of a cone or the circumference of a circle touches one of

the opposite hyperbolas in the concave part of the latter it will not meet the

other opposite hyperbola 45.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let touch the

hyperbola [from the direction of its concavity].

I say that will not meet the hyperbola .

[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the hyperbola .

Then it touches each of the sections [ and ] at , hence [according to

Proposition II.30] it will not meet [the hyperbola] , so that neither will

meet .

[Proposition] 40

of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, it will not meet the opposite hyperbolas at other point 46.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let a section of a

cone or the circumference of a circle touch each of the hyperbolas and at

the points A and B.

I say that the line will not meet the hyperbolas and at another point.

[Proof]. Indeed since the line touches the hyperbola A and

meets [the hyperbola] at one point, therefore it will not touch in the direction of its concavity. Similarly it will be shown that neither will it touch in the

direction of its concavity. Let and be drawn touching the hyperbolas

and , then they will touch the line . For, if possible, let one of them cut the

line [of the section] and let it be . Therefore between touching the hyperbola , and the hyperbola , a straight line is situated, but this is impos159

not meet the opposite hyperbolas at another point.

[Proposition] 41

having its convexity in the opposite direction to the concavity of the touching

hyperbola, then the opposite hyperbola of the mentioned hyperbola will not

meet the other opposite hyperbola 47 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , let the hyperbola

meet at and , the former [of them] has its convexity in the opposite direction to the concavity of the latter, and let be the opposite hyperbola

of .

I say that will not meet .

[Proof]. For let be joined and continued to . Since indeed the

straight line cuts the hyperbola and continued it falls outside of each

section, it [according to Proposition II.33] will not meet the hyperbola .

Similarly because cuts the hyperbola , it will not meet the opposite hyperbola , therefore neither will meet .

[Proposition] 42

hyperbola will meet neither of the opposite hyperbolas at two points 48 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas A and B, and let the hyperbola

meets each of the opposite hyperbolas and B.

I say that the opposite hyperbola of will not meet the hyperbolas and at two points.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet one of the opposite hyperbola at

and , and let be joined and continued. Because of the hyperbola the

straight line [according to Proposition II.33] will not meet the hyperbola ,

and on the other hand because of the section [ the straight line] will not

meet the hyperbola since it passed through the three places [according to

Proposition II.33], but this is impossible. Similarly it will be shown that will

not meet B at two points.

For the same reasons neither will it touch either of the opposite hyperbolas for drawing touching it will touch each of the hyperbolas, so that,

because of the hyperbola it will not meet the hyperbola , whereas because

160

of the hyperbola will it not meet the hyperbola B, so that neither will

meet B, but this is contrary to what was assumed.

[Proposition] 43

having its convexity in the opposite direction to each of them, the opposite hyperbola of the mentioned hyperbola will meet neither of the mentioned opposite hyperbolas 49.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola

cut each of the hyperbolas and at two points containing convexities

in the opposite directions.

I say that the opposite hyperbola [of ] meets neither of the

hyperbolas and .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet the hyperbola at , and let

and be joined and continued, then these straight lines will meet one another

[according to Proposition II.25]. Let them meet at situated in the angle between the asymptotes of the hyperbola [according to PropositionII.25].

And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the straight line joining

to will fall in the angle . Again since is a hyperbola and and

meet, and the points of meeting and do not contain , the point will be

between the asymptotes of the hyperbola . And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the straight line from to falls inside of the angle

, but this is impossible for it also fall in the angle .

Therefore will not meet one of the opposite hyperbola and .

[Proposition] 44

the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet the other of the two opposite hyperbolas 50.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let a hyperbola cut at four points , , , , and let its opposite hyperbola be . I

say that will not meet .

[Proof]. For let , if possible, it meet it at . Let and be joined

and continued, then they will meet one another. Let them meet at , and let as

be to , so be to , and let as be to , so be to .

161

Therefore the straight line through and will meet the hyperbolas

on each side, and the straight lines from L to the points of meeting will touch

the hyperbolas [according to Proposition IV.9]. Let be joined and continued.

It will cut the angle and the hyperbolas at one and then another point. Let

it cut them at and [according to the properties of the opposite hyperbolas

and as is to , so is to , but this is impossible. Therefore

and will not meet one another.

[Proposition] 45

having its concavity in the same direction as the hyperbola, and it meets the

other of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, then the opposite hyperbola of

the mentioned hyperbolas will meet neither of the opposite hyperbolas 51.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola

meet at the points and and let it meet the hyperbola at one

point, and let be the opposite hyperbola of .

I say that will meet neither of the hyperbola and .

[Proof]. For let and be joined and continued. Therefore and

will not meet the hyperbola [according to Proposition II.33]. Neither will

they meet the hyperbola at another point besides for if they meet the hyperbola at another point they will not meet the opposite hyperbola

[according to Proposition II.33], where it is assumed that they do meet.

Therefore the straight lines and meet the hyperbola at one point , and

they do not meet at all. Therefore will be in the angle , so that the hyperbola will not meet and .

[Proposition] 46

the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet the other opposite hyperbola at more than one point 52.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola meet at three points , , and let be opposite hyperbola

of .

I say that will not meet at more point than one.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, them meet at and , and let and

be joined. Now they will either be parallel or not.

162

and let be joined, therefore is a diameter for all these hyperbolas

[according to Proposition II.36], and and are drawn as ordinates. Let

be drawn from parallel to , then it will be drawn as an ordinate to the

diameter, and it will cut the hyperbolas, one and then other for if it were to cut

them at the same point, the hyperbolas would no longer meet at three points,

but as four. In the hyperbola then will be equal to , and in then

will be equal to . And therefore is equal to , but this is impossible.

So let straight lines and not be parallel, but be continued. Let

them meet at . Let be drawn parallel to and let it meet continued at

.And let and be bisected at and , through and let diameters

and be drawn, and from , , and let , , and be drawn touching the hyperbola, then will be parallel to , and and will be parallel to

and [according to Proposition II.5]. Since as sq. is to sq., so pl.

is to pl. [according to Proposition III.19], but as pl. is to pl., so

sq. is to sq., and therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

For the same reasons as sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl., as

sq. is to sq., so pl. is to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to pl., but

this is impossible.

[Proposition] 47

the other at two points, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will meet

neither of the opposite hyperbolas. 53

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and some hyperbola

cut at A and B, and touch the hyperbola at the point , and let

be the opposite hyperbola of .

I say that meets neither of the opposite hyperbolas and .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, let meet at , and let be

joined, and let a straight line be drawn through touching the hyperbola

and meeting at .

Therefore [according to Proposition II.25] will be inside of the angle

between the asymptotes of the hyperbola . And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the straight line from to falls inside of the angle

. Again since is a hyperbola, and and meet, and the points of

meeting and B do not contain , the point is between the asymptotes of

the hyperbola . And is the opposite hyperbola of . Therefore the

163

straight line from falls inside of the angle , but it is impossible for it fell in

the angle . Therefore does not meet one of the opposite hyperbolas

and .

[Proposition] 48

and it meets it at two points, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will

not meet the other opposite hyperbola 54.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let some hyperbola touch at , and let it meet at and , and let be the

opposite hyperbola of .

I say that will not meet .

{Proof]. For let, if possible, meet it at , let be joined and continued to , and let be drawn from touching the hyperbola. As in the

earlier proof it will be shown that is inside of the angle between the asymptotes [according to Proposition II.25]. Moreover will touch both hyperbolas,

and continued will cut the sections at and between and . Let as is

to , so is to , and let be joined and continued, it will cut the hyperbolas, one and then other [according to Proposition IV.1]. Let it cut them at

and . Therefore the straight lines from to and will touch the hyperbolas

[according to Proposition IV.1] ,and as in the earlier proof [according to the

Proposition III.37] according to the properties of the one hyperbola as is to

, so is to , and according to the properties of the other hyperbola as

is to , so is to , but this is impossible. Therefore it does not meet the

opposite hyperbola.

[Proposition] 49

same hyperbola at another point, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola

will not meet the other opposite hyperbola at more points than one 55.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let some hyperbola touch at , and let it cut at , and let be the opposite hyperbola of .

I say that it will not meet the other opposite hyperbola at more points

than one.

164

[Proof]. For let, if possible, let it meet it at two points and , and

let be joined and through let be drawn touching the hyperbolas. Now

and will be parallel or not parallel.

To start let them be parallel, and let the diameter bisecting be

drawn, therefore it will pass through and it will be the diameter of two conjugate hyperbolas [according to Proposition II.34]. Let be drawn through

parallel to and . Therefore it will cut the hyperbolas at one and then at

another point. Then in the one hyperbola will be equal to , and in the remaining hyperbola will be equal to LB, but this is impossible.

So, let and not be parallel, let them meet at , and let

drawn parallel to meet at . Let bisecting cut the hyperbolas at

and , and let and be drawn from and touching the hyperbolas.

Therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and for this reason as

pl. is to pl., and as pl. is to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to

pl., but this is impossible.

[Proposition] 50

the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola

at more points that two 56 .

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let a hyperbola touch at , then let be the opposite hyperbola of .

I say that will not meet at more points than two.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, meet at three points , , and

, let be drawn touching hyperbolas and , let be joined and continued, and, start, let and be parallel. Let be bisected at , and let

be joined. Then be a diameter for two conjugate hyperbolas [according to

Proposition II.34] , and will cut the hyperbola between and at and . Let

be drawn from parallel to . Then in the one section will be equal to

, and in the other section will be equal to , so that also is equal to

, but this is impossible.

So let and not be parallel, but let them meet at , and let the

remaining constructions be the same. Let be continued and let it meet at

. As before we will show that [according to Proposition III.19] in the hyperbola

as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., and in the hyperbola as

pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.. Therefore pl. is equal to

pl., but this is impossible. Therefore does not meet at more points

than two.

165

[Proposition] 51

If a hyperbola touches two opposite hyperbolas, the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will meet neither of the opposite hyperbolas 57.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola

touch each of them at the points and , and let the opposite hyperbola of

be . I say that E will meet neither of the hyperbolas and .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet at , and let straight lines be

drawn from A and B touching the hyperbolas, they will meet one another hyperbola in the angle between the asymptotes of the hyperbola [according to

Proposition II.25]. Let them meet at , and let be joined. Therefore will be

in the place between and . But it is between and , it is impossible.

Therefore does not meet and .

[Proposition] 52

If each of two opposite hyperbolas touch each of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, each having its concavity in the same direction, then

they will not meet at another point 58.

Let the opposite hyperbolas touch one another at and .

I say that they will not meet at another point.

[Proof]. For let , if possible, them meet at . Since, indeed, a hyperbola touching one of the opposite hyperbolas meets at , therefore the hyperbola will not meet the hyperbola at more points than one [according to

Proposition IV.49]. Let and be drawn from and touching the hyperbolas, let be joined, let be drawn through parallel to , and let the

second diameter of the opposite hyperbolas be drawn from [according

to Proposition II.38]. Then it will bisect at . And therefore and will be

bisected at [according to Proposition II.39]. Therefore is equal to , but

it is impossible. Therefore the hyperbolas will not meet at another point.

[Proposition] 53

If a hyperbola touches one of two opposite hyperbolas at two points,

the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola

59.

166

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and let the hyperbola touch at two points and , and let be the opposite hyperbola

of .

I say that will not meet .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it meet it at , and let and be

drawn from and touching the hyperbolas, let and be joined, and let

be continued, it will cut the hyperbolas at one and then at another point, let

it be as . Since and indeed touch the hyperbola, and joins the

points of contact in one of the conjugate hyperbolas as is to , so is to

, and in other hyperbola as is to , so is to , but it is impossible.

Therefore the hyperbola does not meet the hyperbola .

[Proposition] 54

convexities in the opposite directions, then the opposite hyperbola of the hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola 60.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and some hyperbola

touch the hyperbola at the point , and let the opposite hyperbola of

be . I say that will not meet .

[Proof]. For let be drawn from touching the hyperbolas, therefore

because of the properties of the hyperbola [the straight line] will not

meet , and because of the properties of the hyperbola A [according to Proposition II.33] it will not meet , so that falls between the hyperbolas and .

Then it is evident that will not meet .

[Proposition] 55

points than four 61.

Let there be one pair of opposite hyperbolas and , and let another pair of opposite hyperbolas be and , and, to start let cut

each of and at four points , , , and containing convexities in opposite directions, as in the first diagram. Therefore the opposite hyperbola of

, that is , will not meet and [according to Proposition IV.43].

But let cut at and and at one point , as in the second diagram. Therefore does not meet the hyperbola [according to Proposition IV.41]. If meets , it will meet it at one point only for if it meets it at

167

two points, its opposite hyperbola will not meet other opposite hyperbola

[according to Proposition IV.43]. But it has been assumed that it meets it at

one point .

If, as in the third diagram, cuts at two points and , and

meets at one point, will not meet the hyperbola [according to

Proposition IV.41], where as meeting it will not meet at more points

than two.

If, as in the fourth diagram, cuts each of two opposite hyperbolas at one point, will meet neither at two points [according to Proposition

IV.42]. [So that according to already said and its converse, and will

not meet the opposite hyperbolas and at more points than four] 62. If

the hyperbolas have their concavities in the same direction and one cuts other

at four points , , , and , has in the fifth diagram, will not meet other

opposite hyperbola [according to Proposition IV.44]. Of course, will not meet

for again will not meet the opposite hyperbolas and at more

points than four [according to Proposition IV.38], neither will meet .

If, as in the sixth diagram, meets other hyperbola at three

points, will meet other hyperbola at one point only [according to Proposition

IV.46].

And we will say the same as before for the remaining cases.

So, since what was proposed is clear in all possible configurations,

opposite hyperbolas will not meet opposite hyperbolas at more points than four.

[Proposition] 56

will not meet at more than two other points 63.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and and others and

, let touch at , let their convexities in opposite directions, and, first,

let meet at two points and , as in the first diagram.

Indeed since cuts at two points having their convexities in

opposite directions, will not meet [according to Proposition IV.41]. Again

since touches at , and their convexities are in opposite directions,

will not meet [according to Proposition IV.54]. Therefore will not meet

either the hyperbolas and , therefore these hyperbolas will meet at two

points and only.

But let cut at one point , as in the second diagram. Therefore

will not meet [according to Proposition IV.54], whereas it will meet at

168

one point only for if meets at two points, will not meet [according

to Proposition IV.41]. But it was assumed that they meet at one point.

If does not meet the hyperbola , as in the third diagram, then

according to what has been said above, will not meet [according to Proposition IV.54], whereas will not meet at more points than two

[according to Proposition IV.37].

If the hyperbolas have their concavities in the same direction, the

same proof will applied.

So, from that proof, what was proposed is clear in all possible configurations.

[Proposition] 57

will not meet at another point 64.

Let there be the opposite hyperbolas and , and others and

, and first, let them touch at and , as in the first diagram.

Indeed since touches each of the hyperbolas and at and

, therefore will meet neither on the hyperbolas and [according to

Proposition IV.51].

So, let them touch as in the second diagram. It will be proved similarly that will not meet [according to Proposition IV.53].

So, let touch at and let touch at , as in the third

diagram. Indeed, since touches having their convexities in opposite directions, will not meet . Again, since touches , will not meet .

If touches at , and touches at , and their concavities

are in the same direction, as in the fourth diagram, they will not meet at another point [according to Proposition IV.52]. will not even meet .

So, from the proposed proof it is clear in all possible configurations 65 .

169

BOOK FIVE

Apollonius greets Attalus

In fifth book I have composed propositions on the maximal and minimal

straight lines. You should realize that our predecessors and contemporaries paid

(a little) attention only to the minimal straight lines : they proved thereby which

straight lines are tangent to the section and also the reverse, that is what properties are possessed by the tangents to the section1 such that when those

properties are possessed by straight lines they are tangents. But as for us, we

have proven those things in Book 1 without making use, in our proof of that, of

the topic of minimal straight lines, for we wanted to make the place where

those [things] were put near to our discussion of the derivation of the three

sections, in order to show in this way that in each of the sections there may occur an indefinite number 2 of properties and necessities of these things, as is

the case with the original diameters. As for the propositions in which we speak

of the minimal straight lines, we have separated them out and treated them

individually, after much investigation, and have attached the discussion of them

to the discussion of the maximal straight lines which we mentioned above,

because of our opinion that students of this science need them for the knowledge of analysis and determination of problems and their synthesis, not to

speak of the fact that they are one of the subjects which deserve investigation

in their own right. Farewell.

[Proposition] 1

one of its diameters the half of the latus rectum to that diameter at right angles, and a straight line is drawn from its end to the center of the section, and

from a place on the section is drawn a straight line as an ordinate to the diameter, then that straight line will be equal in the square to the double quadrangle

formed on the half of the latus rectum as it is described in the example 3.

Let there be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose the diameter and

the center and the latus rectum for the section , and the half of is .

Let be joined, and the ordinate be drawn, and from the straight line

parallel to BE be drawn.

I say that sq. is equal to the double quadrangle .

170

and are bisected at and [respectively]. Let be continued to [meet

at] . Then is parallel to ,and is equal to .

But is equal to , therefore is equal to .

We make common, then is equal to the sum of and . Therefore pl. is equal to pl., the sum of and .

But pl. is equal to sq., therefore pl., the sum and is equal

to sq., as is proved in Theorems 12 and 13 of Book I.

And pl., the sum and is equal to the double quadrangle .

Therefore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle 4 .

[Proposition] 2

But if the straight line drawn as an ordinate falls on which is the center

in the ellipse, and is made double , and is joined, then sq. is equal to

the double triangle 5.

[Proof]. For let be joined, then is equal to .

But is equal to , which is parallel to . Therefore pl. is equal to

the double triangle .

But pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 13 of Book I.

Therefore sq. is equal to the double triangle ..

[Proposition] 3

But if the straight line drawn as an ordinate in the ellipse falls on the other

side of which is the center as , and is made the half of

which is the latus rectum, and is joined and continued in a straight line, and

there is drawn from a straight line parallel to , to meet , then sq.

is equal to the double triangle without the double triangle 6.

[Proof]. For let from be drawn a straight line parallel to , and

be continued until meets at , and the section be completed, and be

continued in a straight line to [meet it at] L. Then sq. is equal to the double

quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem I of this Book.

But is equal to , so sq. is equal to the double quadrangle .

And the quadrangle is equal to the triangle without the triangle .

But the triangle is equal to the triangle because is equal to .

Therefore sq. is equal to the double triangle without the double triangle

.

171

[Proposition] 4

the vertex of the section is equal to the half of the latus rectum, and the

straight lines are drawn from that point to the section, then the minimal of

these [straight lines] if the straight line drawn to the vertex of the section, and

those closer to this [straight line] will be smaller than those farther [from it],

and their squares will greater than the square on it by the equal to the square

on the segment cut off on the axis towards the vertex by the perpendiculars

[drawn] to the axis from the end of each of them 7 .

Let the axis of the parabola be and let be equal to the half of the

latus rectum, and let from to the section be drawn , , , and .

I say that the least of the straight lines drawn from Z to the section

is , and that those [straight lines] which are nearer to it are smaller than

those which are farther [from it], and that the square on the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular from it [the end of the straight line].

{Proof]. For let the perpendiculars , and be drawn. Let the half

of the latus rectum be , then is equal to .

And the double pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 11 of

Book I. But the double pl. is equal to the double pl.. Therefore the sum

of the double pl. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq..

But these two squares are equal to sq.. Therefore the sum of the double

pl. and sq. is equal to sq.. Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by

sq.. And it will be proved from this that is greater than and is

greater than .

So is the shortest and those [straight lines] that are closer to it are

shorter than those which farther. And it is proved that the excess of the square

on each of them over the square on the shortest straight line is of the another

of the square on the segment cut off from the axis towards the vertex of the

section by the perpendiculars from the ends of the straight lines.

[Proposition] 5

But is taken on the axis of a hyperbola such that its distance from the

vertex of the section is equal to the half of the latus rectum, then in this case

the same result will obtain as happened in the parabola, except that the increments of the square on the straight lines over the square on the minimal

straight line will be equal to the rectangular plane on the straight line joining the

foot of [each of] the perpendiculars to the vertex of the section which is similar

172

to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and a straight line equal

to the sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum where the transverse diameter corresponds to straight line joining [the foot of] each of the

perpendicular and the vertex of the section 8.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis be , and let the half of the

latus rectum be . From the straight lines , , , , and .

To the section , as many as we please.

I say that is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section,

and that those which are closer to it are shorter than those farther, and that for

each of the straight lines , , , and the square on is smaller than the

square on it by an amount equal the rectangular plane on the segment between

the foot of the corresponding perpendicular and which similar to the rectangular plane under which is the transverse diameter of the section and a straight

line equal to the sum of and the latus rectum. So let the latus rectum. So let

the latus rectum be , and the half of it be , and the center of the section

be .

[Proof]. For let the perpendiculars , , and , to be drawn

and continued, and the perpendicular be continued to , and and parallel to be drawn. Then sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is

proved in Theorem I of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double the triangle

because is equal to for is equal to . Therefore sq. is equal to

the sum of double triangles and for sq. is equal to the sum of sq.

and sq.. But sq. is equal to the double triangle because is equal to

. And the quadrangle is equal to the double triangle .Therefore sq.

is less than sq. by the quadrangle . And pl. is equal to pl. and as

is to , so is to . But is equal to because is equal to [for

is equal to ]. Therefore pl. is equal to , and invertendo as is ,

so is to . And componendo as the sum of and is to , so is to .

But is equal to , therefore as is to , so the sum and is to

. Let be continued to , and let be equal to . Then as is to

, so is to , and these sides that are in the same ratio and close the

equal angles. Therefore the rectangular planes and o are similar, and

, which is equal , corresponds to , which is equal to . Therefore the

rectangular plane on similar to the rectangular plane under and a straight

line equal to the sum of and the latus rectum is the quadrangle . Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on

similar to the rectangular plane under and the segment equal to the sum

of and the latus rectum.

173

amount equal to rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

And I say that sq. is greater than sq. by an amount corresponding to

the mentioned plane for sq. is equal to the double area , as is proved in

Theorem I of this Book.

But sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is greater

than sq. by the double triangle .

And similarly we will prove that the rectangular plane that the double triangle is the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane. Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the double rectangular

plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

But I also say that sq. is in the same case as we mentioned for

sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem I of this

Book. But sq. is equal to the double triangle .

Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangles and ,

for sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the double triangle is

sq.. Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .

And similarly too we will prove that the rectangular plane equal to the

double triangle is the rectangular plane on GE similar to the mentioned t

plane.

And because the increments of the squares on these straight lines over

the square on are the rectangular planes on , , , and , and these

rectangular planes differ from each other, the rectangular plane on is greater

than that on , and that on is greater than that on , and that on than

that on , and is the least of the straight lines [so] drawn, and those of the

other straight lines which are closer to it are smaller than those which are farther.

And the square on each of straight lines [so] drawn is equal to the square

on the least of these straight lines together with the rectangular plane on the

segment between the foot of the perpendicular and similar to the rectangular

plane under and a segment equal to the sum of and the latus rectum 910.

[Proposition] 6

But if the same conditions as we mentioned hold, except that the section

is an ellipse, and the axis is its major axis, then least of the straight lines drawn

from that point is the one equal to the half of the latus rectum, and the great174

est of them is the remainder of the axis. As for the other straight lines, those of

them that are closer to the minimal straight line are less than those that are farther from it. And each of them is greater than it by an amount equal to rectangular plane on the segment between the foot of the perpendicular from it and

the vertex of the section similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse

diameter and the difference between the transverse diameter and the latus rectum, where the transverse diameter corresponds to the segment between the

foot of the perpendicular and the vertex of the section .

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis be , and let be equal

to the half of the latus rectum. And let from to the section , , and

are drawn.

I say that is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from , and

that is the longest of them, and that of the remaining straight lines those

which are closer to are shorter than those which are farther, and that the

square on each of them is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the foot of its perpendicular and similar to the rectangular plane under to together with excess of it over the

latus rectum.

[Proof].For let be made the half of the latus rectum, and the center

be , and the perpendiculars , , and [to the major axis] be drawn, and

[from ] a straight line parallel to the ordinates is drawn , and and

parallel to are drawn. Than sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as

is proved in Theorem I of this Book.

And sq. is equal to the double triangle for is equal

to [because is equal to ]. Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the

double triangles and .

But sq. is equal to the double triangle . And the quadrangle is

equal to the double triangle , therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an

amount equal to the quadrangle . And as is to , so is to latus rectum, which is is to . Therefore as is to the latus rectum, so is

to .

But is equal to therefore as is to the latus rectum, so is to

. And convertendo as is to without the latus rectum, so is to .

But is equal to UT because is equal to . Therefore as is to ,

so is to without the latus rectum.

And corresponds to , which is equal to . Therefore the rectangular plane is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the rectangular

plane under and its excess over the latus rectum.

175

plane . Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

I also say that sq. is in the same case as the mentioned straight line

[] for sq. is equal to the double quadrangle . And sq. is equal to the

double triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double

triangle .

But the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane is equal to

the double triangle . Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is

equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

I also say that sq. is grater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane for sq. is equal to the

double area , as is proved in Theorem I of this Book. And sq. is equal

to the double triangle because is equal to [for is equal to ].

Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and the double

area .

But the triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. is equal

to the sum of the double triangle and the double area . And these [latter] are equal to the sum of the double triangles and .

But sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. without

sq. is equal to the double triangle . And the rectangular plane

on similar to the mentioned plane is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the

mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle . But the triangle

is equal to the triangle , so sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangles and . But sq. is equal to the double triangle . And the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned rectangular plane is equal to the

double triangle . Therefore sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal

to the rectangular plane on together with the excess of it over the latus rectum. And the rectangular plane on is greater than that on , and that on

is greater than that on , [and that is greater than that on , and that

on is greater than that on ].

Therefore is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and is the greatest of them. And as for the other straight lines those of

them drawn closes to shortest straight line are smaller than those drawn farther

from it. And the square of each of them is greater than the square on the

shortest straight line by an amount equal to the mentioned plane.

176

[Proposition] 7

section, and straight lines are drawn from it to the section, then the shortest of

them is the straight line between the point and the vertex of the section, and

those of other straight lines drawn in that half of the section closer to it are

shorter than those drawn farther 11.

Let there be of a cone whose axis be . Let the minimal straight

line be . Let there be an arbitrary point on . From it to the section

straight lines , , and are drawn.

I say that is the shortest of them, and that those [of them] drawn

closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let be drawn . Then is greater than . Therefore the

angle is greater than the angle . By how much the more is the angle

greater than the angle , so is greater than .

Furthermore is greater than , so the angle is greater than the

angle . So by how much the more is the angle less than the angle ,

therefore is greater than .

Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than . So is the

shortest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and as for other

straight lines those of them drawn closer to are shorter than those drawn

farther.

[Proposition] 8

If a point is taken on the axis of a parabola, the distance of which from the vertex of the section is greater than the half of the latus rectum, and there is cut

off on the axis from the point witch was taken on it towards the vertex of the

section a straight line equal to the half of the latus rectum, and from the

[other] end of that straight line which was cut off there is drawn a perpendicular to the axis, and that perpendicular is continued to meet the section, and

there is drawn from the place there it meets the section a straight line to the

taken point, then that straight line is the shortest of the straight lines drawn

from the taken point on the axis to the section, and of all other straight lines on

both sides [of it] those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther,

and the square on each of them is greater than thee square on the shortest

straight line by an amount equal to the square on the segment between the

feet of the perpendiculars to the axis from two of them. 12

177

Let there be the parabola whose axis , and let be longer than

the half of the latus rectum, and let the half of the latus rectum be . The perpendicular to is drawn and is joined.

I say that is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and as for other straight lines drawn from [ to] those of them

drawn closer to are shorter than drawn farther on both sides. From to the

section , , , and are drawn.

I say also that the square on each of these straight lines are greater than

sq. be an amount equal to the square on the segment between the foot of

the perpendicular from it and .

[Proof]. For let the perpendiculars [, , , and ] be drawn and let

be a perpendicular [to the axis],and let be the half of the latus rectum.

Then the double pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 11 of Book I,

and the double pl. is equal to the double pl., .

We make the sum of the double pl., sq., and sq. common. Then

the sum of the double pl., ,the double pl., sq., and sq. is equal to

the sum sq. and sq. which sq. .But the sum of the double pl., and

the double pl. is equal to the double pl.. Therefore sq.KE is equal to the

sum of the double pl., sq., and sq.. But the double pl. is equal to

sq. because is equal to . Therefore the sum of sq., sq., and sq.

is equal to sq.. But the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to sq..

Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the amount

by which sq. is greater than sq. is equal to sq. .

Similarly also it will be proved that the difference between sq. and

sq. is equal to sq.. And since the double pl. is equal to sq. [because

is equal to ], therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to

sq.. And is smaller than , which is smaller than .

Therefore EH is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section

on the side of .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double pl. and is equal to the double pl.. And the double pl. is equal to sq.. Therefore sq. is equal to

the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore amount by which sq. is greater than

sq. is equal to sq..

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double pl., because is equal to

. We make sq. common. Then the sum of the double pl., the double

sq., and the double sq. is equal to sq.. But the sum of the double

pl., and the double sq. is equal to sq.. Therefore sq. without sq. is

equal to sq..

178

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to sq.DZ.

But is greater than , which is greater than .

Therefore is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and those drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther, and the

difference between them and it is equal to the square on the segment between

the foot of the perpendicular from it and .

[Proposition] 9

If a point is taken on the axis of a hyperbola such that the distance between it

and the vertex of the section is greater than the half of the latus rectum, and

the segment between the taken point and the center is cut in two parts such

that as one is to other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and

the segment next to the center is one corresponding to the transverse diameter, and there is drawn from the point at which that segment was cut a perpendicular to the axis so as to meet the section and the segment between the

point of its meeting and the taken point is joined, then that joined straight line

is the least of thee straight lines drawn from the taken point to the section,

and as for the other straight lines on either side of it those of them drawn

closer [to it] are smaller than those drawn farther, and the amount by which the

square on each of them is greater than the square on it is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the foot the perpendiculars from two of

them similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and a segment equal to the sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum when

the side corresponding to the transverse diameter is the segment between two

perpendiculars 13.

Let there be the hyperbola whose external axis and center . Let

be greater than the half of the latus rectum. Let as is to , so transverse diameter is to the latus rectum [Then falls between and ] from a

perpendicular to the axis is drawn, and is joined.

I say that is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and that [other straight lines] on both sides those drawn closer to it are

smaller than those drawn farther, and that the difference between the square

on each of them and the square on it is equal to rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of their two perpendiculars similar to the rectangular

plane under the transverse diameter and a segment equal to the sum of the

transverse diameter and the latus rectum, when the transverse diameter corresponds to the segment between two perpendicular.

179

[Proof]. For let the half of the latus rectum be made , and let the perpendicular and and other perpendicular [, , and ], be drawn and

continued in a straight line. Let be joined [to meet the perpendicular at ,

, , , and ] and be joined and continued in both directions [to meet

at , , and at ] . Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to

the latus rectum. But as is to , so is to ,and as is to . Therefore is equal to .

But sq. is equal to the double area , as is proved in Theorem 1 of

this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is

equal to the double area .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double area , as is proved in Theorem 1 of this Book, and sq. is equal to thee double triangle .

Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double area and the double triangle .

But it was proved that sq. is equal to the double area . Therefore

sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .

Let the straight lines , , and be drawn parallel to . Then as

HG is to , so is to because is equal to .

So as is to so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

Therefore as is to , so transverse diameter is to a segment

equal to the sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum.

But is equal to . Therefore the rectangular plane is similar to

the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and a segment equal to the

sum of the transverse diameter and the latus rectum.

And the quadrangle is equal to the double triangle , which is the difference between sq. and sq..

And is equal to . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane when the transverse diameter corresponds to .

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane when again the transverse diameter corresponds to .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and sq. is equal

to the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 of this Book.

Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .

But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar

to the mentioned . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular

plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

180

, which is smaller than , which is smaller than .

Therefore is the least of the straight lines drawn from to the section

on the one side that towards .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in

Theorem 1 of this Book, and it was proved that sq. is equal to the double

quadrangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double

triangle , and the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane is

equal to the double that triangle.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in

Theorem 1 of this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore

sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and the double quadrangle

.

But it was proved that sq. is equal to the double quadrangle . And

the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane is equal to the double triangle .

Similarly also it can be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane. And is smaller than

which is smaller than . Therefore is smaller than which is smaller

than which is smaller . Therefore is the least of the straight lines

drawn from to the section, and of the straight lines on either side of those

of them drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther, and the

square on each of them is greater than the square on by an amount equal to

the rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of their perpendiculars

and the foot of its perpendicular similar to the mentioned rectangular plane.

[Proposition] 10

If a point is taken on the major axis of an ellipse such that the distance

between that point and the vertex of the section is longer than the half of the

latus rectum, and as the segment between the vertex of the section and the

taken point on the axis is cut at a point such that the segment between the

center of the section and the point at which the cut was made is to the segment between that [latter] point and the first taken point, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and from the point at which the cut was made a

perpendicular is drawn to the axis to meet the section, and from the point

where it meets [the sections] a straight line is drawn to the first taken point,

then this straight line is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from the taken

point to the section, and of the remaining straight lines [drawn from that point

181

to the section] those of them drawn closer to that straight line are smaller than

those drawn farther, and the amount by which [each of] the squares on them is

greater than the square on it is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment

between feet of the perpendiculars from them and the foot of the perpendicular

from it which is similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter

and the excess of the transverse diameter over the latus rectum when the

transverse diameter corresponds to that segment 14.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis be , and center . Let

be greater than the half of the latus rectum, and as is to , so is to

the latus rectum. From a perpendicular to the major axis is drawn, namely ,

it is continued to , and is joined.

I say that is the smallest of the straight lines, drawn from to the

section, and that of thee other straight lines [drawn from to the section]

those of them drawn closer to that straight line are smaller than those drawn

farther and that the amount by which their are squares are greater than its

square is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of

the perpendiculars from them and similar to the rectangular plane under the

diameter and the excess of that diameter over the latus rectum then the diameter corresponds to the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular.

[Proof]. For let the straight lines [, , , and ] and the perpendiculars [, , , , and ] be drawn as in the diagram, and let be

perpendicular to , and let be the half of the latus rectum. , are

joined and continued [and is continued to meet them at and , and is

continued at ].

Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum

therefore as is to , so is to . But as is to , so is to ,

therefore as is to so is to . Therefore is equal to .

Let , , and be drawn parallel to . Then sq. is equal to the

double triangle , and sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is

proved in Theorem 1 of this Book. Therefore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in

Theorem 1 of this Book, and esq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore

sq. is equal to the sum of the double quadrangle and the double triangle .

But sq. was shown to be equal to the double quadrangle .

182

Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the quadrangle .

Furthermore as is to , so is to . But is to . Therefore

is equal to . And as is to , so is to .

Therefore as is to ,so is to .

But as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

Therefore as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

Convertendo as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the excess

of the transverse diameter over the latus rectum;

But is equal to , so the quadrangle is similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and its excess over the latus rectum.

Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to

the mentioned one where corresponds to the transverse diameter.

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane, and that sq. without

sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

But is smaller than , which is smaller than . Therefore is smaller

, which is smaller than , which is smaller than .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved

in Theorem 1 of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double quadrangle ,

as we moved above. Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double

triangle .

But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar

to the mentioned plane, and that will proved in the way described previously.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , as is proved in

Theorem 2 of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double triangle .

Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and the double

quadrangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle

.

But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar

to the mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved

in Theorem 3 of this Book.

And sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal

to the sum of the double triangle and the double quadrangle .

But the triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq.ME is equal

to the sum of the double quadrangle and the triangle . Therefore

183

sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle

is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle

is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the

double triangle and the quadrangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is

equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

And is smaller than which , which is smaller than . Therefore

is smaller than which is smaller than which is smaller than .

Therefore is the least of the straight lines drawn from to section

, and as for the rest of the straight lines on both sides [of ] those drawn

closer to are smaller than those drawn farther, and the amounts by which

the squares on them are greater than the square on it are equal to the rectangular planes on the segments between the feet of their perpendiculars and the

foot of its perpendicular similar to the mentioned plane 15.

[Proposition] 11

The smallest of the straight lines drawn from the center of an ellipse to

the boundary of the section is the half of the minor axis, and the graters of

them is the half on the major axis, and those straight lines drawn [from the center] closer to the longest straight line are greater than those drawn farther, and

the amount by which the square on each of those straight lines is greater than

the square on the shortest straight line is equal to the rectangular plane on the

segment between the foot of the perpendicular [from that straight line] and the

center similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and the

excess of it and over the latus rectum 16.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis be and minor axis .

I say that the longest of the straight lines drawn from the center to the

section is , and the shortest of them is , and that of the other the straight

lines between and those of them drawn closer to are greater than

those drawn farther from it, and that the amounts by which the squares on

them are greater the square on are equal to the rectangular planes on the

segments between the feet of the perpendiculars from them onto and

similar to the rectangular plane under and the excess of over the latus

rectum.

[Proof]. For let and be drawn, and the perpendiculars and are

dropped. Let the half of the latus rectum be . Then is smaller than

184

. So let be equal to . Let and be joined, and and are continued to and , and and be drawn parallel to . Then pl. is equal

to . But is equal to , therefore is equal to . And sq. is equal to

the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 of this Book.

And sq.IE is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to

the sum of the double triangles and . And sq. is equal to the double

triangle , as is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.

And the double triangle is equal to the quadrangle . Therefore

sq. without sq. is equal to the quadrangle . And as is to , so the

transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and as is to , so is to ,

and convertendo as is to so the transverse diameter is to the excess of

the transverse diameter over the latus rectum.

But is equal to . Therefore thee quadrangle is similar to the

rectangular plane under the transverse diameter and its excess over the latus

rectum. But is equal to . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and sq. is equal

to the double triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double

triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on

similar to the mentioned plane.

And is greater than which is greater than . Therefore is

greater than which is greater than , which is greater than .

Therefore the longest on the straight lines drawn from is , and the

shortest of them is , and as for the other straight lines [from ] between

and those of them drawn closer to are longer than those drawn farther,

the amount by which the square on each of then is greater than the square on

is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the foot the perpendicular from it onto and the center similar to the mentioned plane.

[Proposition] 12

If a point is taken on one of the straight lines which has been proved to

be minimal on straight lines drawn from some point on the axis to one of the

[three] sections and straight lines are drawn from that [first] point to the section on one side, then the shortest of them is the segment of the minimal line

185

adjoining the section, and those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn

farther 17.

Let there be the conic section whose axis and the minimal straight

line drawn from some point on it be . On it an arbitrary point is taken. I say

that is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from in that part of the

section.

[Proof]. For let , , and be drawn, and , , , , and be

joined then is greater than , so the angle is greater than the angle

. But the angle is greater than the angle , therefore the angle

is mush greater than the angle . Therefore is greater than .

Furthermore is greater than , therefore the angle is greater

than the angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the angle

. Therefore is greater than .

Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than . Therefore is

the smallest of the straight lines drawn in this part of the section, and those

drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther.

Similarly also it will proved concerning those straight lines where they are

drawn in the other part of the section.

[Proposition] 13

If there is drawn from a point from the axis of a parabola the minimal of

the straight lines drawn from that point to the section, so as to form an angle

with the axis, then that angle which it forms with the axis will be acute,

and if a perpendicular is dropped from its [other] end to the axis, then [that

perpendicular] cuts off from it segment equal to the half of the latus rectum18.

Let there be the parabola whose axis , and the minimal straight line

drawn [from ] in the parabola, .

I say that the angle at is acute, and that the perpendicular drawn from

to cuts off from it a segment equal to the half of the latus rectum.

[Proof]. For is minimal, so is greater than the half of the latus rectum. For if it were not greater than it, would be either equal to it or less

than it.

But if it were equal to it, would minimal, as is proved in Theorem 4 of

this Book. But that is not so for the minimal is . And if were less than the

half of the latus rectum, then where a straight line equal to the half of the latus

rectum was cut off from the axis the point at which the cut was made would be

beyond . Therefore it could be proved from Theorem 4 of this Book that is

smaller than . Therefore is not smaller than the half of the latus rectum.

186

And we have proved that it is not equal to it. Therefore it is greater than it.

Therefore let the [straight line] equal to the half of the latus rectum be .

Then I say that the perpendicular drawn from meets .

[Proof]. For let if that is not so the perpendicular be . Then is the

shortest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, as is proved in Theorem 8 of this Book. But was the minimal. That is impossible.

Therefore the perpendicular drawn from meets , and is equal to the

half of the latus rectum, and the angle is acute.

[Propositions] 14

minimal of the straight lines drawn from that point, so as to form with the axis

two angles, then that angle of two which is towards the vertex of the section is

acute, and if there is drawn from the [other] end of the minimal straight line a

perpendicular to the axis, it cuts the straight line between the center of the

section and the point on the axis from which the minimal line is drawn into two

parts such that as that part adjacent to the center is to the other part, so the

transverse diameter is to the latus rectum 19.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis , and the minimal straight

line drawn from , and the center .

I say that the angle is acute, and that the perpendicular falling from

onto axis cuts into two parts such that as one part of two is to the

other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

[Proof]. For is longer than the half of the latus rectum, as is proved

from Theorem 4 of this Book. And is the half of the transverse diameter.

Therefore the ratio to is less than the ratio of the transverse diameter to

the latus rectum.

Therefore we cut into two parts at such that as one of them is to

the other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

Then I say that the perpendicular drawn from to reaches for if that

is not so, let it be as perpendicular let be joined then GZ is the minimal

straight line drawn from , as is proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.

But the minimal straight line was AG, that impossible. Therefore the perpendicular drawn from reaches , therefore the angle is acute, and the

perpendicular drawn from cuts into two parts such that as one of them is

to the other, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

[Proposition] 15

187

straight line that is minimal of the straight lines drawn from that point, then

that minimal straight line, if it was drawn from the center, is a perpendicular to

the major axis 20.

Let there be the ellipse whose the major axis is and the center .

Let first from the minimal straight line be drawn to the section.

I say that is perpendicular to .

[Proof]. For let it be not so, let be perpendicular to . Then, as is

proved in Theorem 11 of this Book, is minimal straight line drawn from I to

the section. But this straight line is , and this impossible, therefore is perpendicular to .

Furthermore let other point is taken on the major axis. Then the minimal

straight line drawn from to the section is .

I say that the angle is obtuse, and that the perpendicular dropped

from to is such that as the segment between the foot of the perpendicular

and is to the segment between the foot of the perpendicular and , so the

transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. If is the minimal straight line

drawn from [to the section] then as is proved in Theorem 10 of this Book,

then the ratio of to is less than the ratio of the transverse diameter to

the latus rectum.

Let be divided at so that as is to , so the transverse diameter

is to the latus rectum. I say that the perpendicular drawn from passes

through for if that is not so, let it be as , then is minimal of the straight

lines drawn from , as is proved in Theorem 10 of this Book. But the minimal of

those straight lines was , and that is impossible. Therefore the perpendicular

drawn from passes through , and the angle is obtuse. So the perpendicular drawn from to is , and as is to , so the transverse diameter is

to the latus rectum.

[Proposition] 16

If a point is taken on the minor of two axes of an ellipse such that the

segment of the minor axis between it and the vertex of the section is equal to

the half of the latus rectum, then of the straight lines drawn from the point to

the section the greatest is the part of the minor axis which is equal to the half

of the latus rectum, and the smallest is the complement of the minor axis and

of the other straight lines [so drawn] those of them drawn closer to the maximal straight line are longer than those drawn farther, and the excess of the

188

the segment between the foot of the perpendicular from it and the end of the

minor axis similar to the rectangular plane under the minor axis and the excess

of the latus rectum over it 21.

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis and center , let on

the axis be taken such that is equal to the half of the latus rectum.

I say that the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section

is , and the smallest of them is , and that of the remaining straight

lines those drawn nearer to are longer than those farther, and that sq. is

greater than the square on each of them by an amount equal to the rectangular

plane on the segment between the foot of the perpendicular from it and similar to the mentioned plane.

[Proof]. For let , , , and be drawn. Let be perpendicular to

, and let the half of the latus rectum be , and and be joined and

continued, and let the perpendiculars , , and be dropped, and parallel to the ordinates be drawn, and , [] parallel to be drawn. Then

is equal to . Therefore sq. is equal to the double triangle .

But sq. is equal to the double triangle , and sq. is equal to the

double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 in this Book. Therefore

sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle .

But the double this triangle is the quadrangle , and as is to ,

so the transverse diameter is to the excess of the latus rectum over it [because

as the half of the transverse diameter is to the half of the latus rectum, so the

transverse diameter is to the latus rectum], and as is to , so is to ,

that is to . Therefore as is to , so the transverse diameter is to

the excess of the latus rectum over it.

And is equal to . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved

in Theorem 3 of this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle , and

the triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is

equal to the double triangle .

But the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar

to the mentioned plane.

Therefore is greater than , which is greater than , which is

greater than .

189

in Theorem 3 of this Book.

And sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to

the sum of the double quadrangle and the double triangle .

But sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle is

equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double

triangle .

But the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar

to the mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle

is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the

double triangle .

But the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on similar

to the mentioned plane.

Therefore is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and is the shortest of them, and of the other straight lines those drawn

nearer to are greater than those drawn farther, and the excess of sq. over

the squares on the other straight lines is equal to the rectangular plane on the

segment between the foot of the perpendicular from [each of] them and similar to the mentioned plane.

[Proposition] 17

Furthermore if [which is the minor axis of the ellipse] equal to the half

of the latus rectum and the center be made , then I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and those [straight lines

drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther, and the difference between the square on it and the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the feet of the perpendiculars from [each of]

them and similar to the mentioned plane in the previous theorem 22.

[Proof]. For let the straight lines set up this diagram like the set up of the

previous diagram be drawn. Then it will proved in the way proved there

that sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane

on similar to the mentioned plane.

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an

amount equal to the rectangular plane on .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in

Theorem 3 of this Book. And sq. is equal to the double triangle .

190

equal to the double triangle , because is equal to , and the triangle

is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the

double triangle . And the double this triangle is equal to the rectangular

plane on similar to the mentioned plane, that will be proved as in the preceding theorem. Therefore is greater than , which is greater than , which is

greater than .

Therefore the greatest of the straight lines drawn from [to the section]

is , and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater

than those drawn farther, and the excess of sq. over the square on [each of]

them is equal to the rectangular plane under the segment between the foot of

the perpendicular from [each of] them and similar to the mentioned plane.

[Proposition] 18

Furthermore if the minor axis of the ellipse is made , the center , and the

straight line equal to the half of the latus rectum [which is greater than ],

then I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and the smallest of them is , and that of the others straight lines which

cut the section those drawn closer to are greater than those drawn farther,

and for those straight lines which fall outside [the section] those drawn closer

to are smaller than those drawn farther, and that sq. is greater than the

square on each of them by the amount of the rectangular plane under the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular [from the end of the segment] similar to the plane mentioned in two preceding theorems23.

[Proof] . For let , , be drawn and set up like in the preceding

diagram. Then it will also be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an

amount equal to the rectangular plane under similar to the mentioned plane,

and that sq. is greater than sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular

plane on similar to the mentioned plane , and that sq. is greater than

sq. by an amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle [because is

equal to ], and sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the triangle

is equal to the triangle , therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the

double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the rectangular

plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

191

than , which is greater than .

Furthermore sq. is equal to double quadrangle , as is proved in

Theorem 3 of this Book, and sq. is equal to the double triangle .

Therefore sq. s equal to the sum of the double quadrangle and

the double triangle . And sq. is equal to the double triangle , and the

triangle is equal to the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is

equal to the double triangle . But the double triangle is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the plane mentioned in two preceding theorems.

Similarly too it will be proved that sq. is greater than sq. by an

amount equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane, and

that the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the rectangular plane

on similar to the mentioned plane.

And it has been shown that the difference between sq. and sq. is

equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane. Therefore

is smaller than which is smaller than which the smaller than .

Therefore is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from [to the

section] and is the least of them, and of the other straight lines which cut

the section those of them drawn closer to are grater than those drawn farther, and for those [straight lines] which do not cut the section, those of them

drawn closer to are smaller than those farther, and the difference between

the square on [one of those] straight lines and sq. or sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on the segment between [or ] and the foot of the perpendicular [from the other end of the segment] similar to the mentioned plane.

[Proposition] 19

If a point is taken on the minor of two axes on a ellipse such that its

difference from the vertices of the section is a distance greater than the half of

the latus rectum, then the greatest of the straight lines drawn from that point

to the section is the straight line drawn to the vertex of the section and of the

others straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther24.

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis , and let for it is taken

and let be greater than the half of the latus rectum,

192

I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and that of the other straight lines those drawn closer to are greater

than those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let the half of the latus rectum be , from , , and

are drawn and , and are joined, and , , , and are joined.

Then is greater than , because it was proved in three preceding theorems.

Therefore the angle is greater than the angle , and is greater than

.

Furthermore is greater than . Therefore the angle is greater

than the angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the angle

. Therefore is greater than .

Similarly it will be proved that is greater than .

Therefore is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than

those drawn farther.

[Proposition] 20

If a point is taken on the minor of two axes on a ellipse such that the

segment between that point and the vertex of the section is smaller than the

half of the latus rectum, but greater than the half of the [transverse]

diameter, and the segment between the vertex of the section and its center

is divided at a point such that as the segment between the center and that

point at which the segment was divided is to the segment between that point

and the first taken point, so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, and

there is drawn from this last point which was taken a perpendicular to the axis

to meet the section, and a straight line id drawn from the point where it

reaches [the section] to the first taken point, then the greatest of the straight

lines drawn to the section from that first taken point is the straight line which

was joined, and of the other straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater

than those drawn farther, and the amount by which the square on it is greater

than the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment between the second taken point and the foot of the perpendicular from

[the end of] the segment similar to the rectangular plane under the transverse

diameter and the amount by which the latus rectum is greater than it 25.

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis , and let there be on it

a point such that is greater than the half of the transverse diameter which

is , but smaller than the half of the latus rectum. Let the center be , and let

be divided at such that as is to , so the transverse diameter which

193

is is to the latus rectum. [that is possible because the half of the latus rectum is greater than ]. Let from a perpendicular to is drawn, namely ,

and let be joined.

I say that is the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and that of the straight lines drawn on both sides [of ] those drawn

nearer to it are greater than those drawn farther, and that the amount by which

sq. is greater than the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular

plane under the segment between and the foot of the perpendicular from it

similar to the mentioned plane.

[Proof]. For let , , , and arbitrary positions be drawn, let be

a perpendicular to the axis, and let the half of the latus rectum be , and let

perpendiculars , , , be drawn and, be joined and continued, and

the perpendiculars and the straight lines parallel to , as we did in the preceding theorems, be drawn. Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to

the latus rectum, that is is to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore is equal to , and sq. is equal to the double be triangle . And

sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 1 of

this Book. Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the double triangle and

the double quadrangle .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , and sq. is

equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq. is equal to the sum of the

double triangle and the double quadrangle , and sq. without sq. is

equal to the double triangle .

But this double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on , which is

equal to the mentioned plane [that will be proved in a way similar to that described in the proof of Theorem 16 of this Book].

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double triangle . Therefore sq.

without sq. is equal to the double triangle , which is equal to the rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Therefore is greater than which greater than which is greater

than .

Furthermore sq. is equal to the double quadrangle , as is proved

in Theorem 3 of this Book. And it has already been shown that sq. is equal to

the sum of the double triangles and . But the triangle is equal to

the triangle . Therefore sq. without sq. is equal to the double triangle

. And the double triangle is equal to the rectangular plane on simi194

lar to the mentioned plane [that will be proved in a way similar to the way

which was in the proof of Theorem 16 of this Book].

Similarly also it will be proved that sq. without sq. is equal to the

rectangular plane on similar to the mentioned plane.

Therefore is the longest of the straight lines drawn from to the section, and for the others straight lines those of them drawn closer to are

longer than those drawn farther, and the amount by which sq. is greater than

the square on each of them is equal to the rectangular plane on the segment

between and the foot of the perpendicular from it [the other end of the segment] similar to the mentioned plane.

Similarly also it will be proved that the half of the latus rectum is greater

than the [transverse] diameter is equal to the minor axis, or if it is greater than

it, then of the straight lines drawn from the point of first diagram, or from

the point of the second diagram, or from a point such as the point outside

the point of the third diagram, the greatest is the mentioned straight line.

That will be proved in the second and third diagrams by a method similar to the

one stated for the first diagram.

[Proposition] 21

theorem in the ellipse such that the distance between it and that

end of the maximal straight line which lies on the section is greater than the

maximal straight line, then the greatest of the straight lines drawn from that

point [to the section] in one part of the section is the straight line of which the

maximal is a part, and as for the straight line on either side of it, those of them

nearer to the straight line are greater than those drawn farther 26.

Let there be the ellipse whose [minor] axis , and let be the

maximal straight line drawn from , that is one mentioned in the theorem preceding this. Let be drawn and be taken on it in such a way that is

greater than the maximal straight line .

I say that the greatest of the straight lines drawn from to the section is

, and that of the other straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than

those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let and be drawn, and , , and [also] , , ,

and be joined.

Then is greater than . Therefore the angle is greater than the

angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the single , and

is greater than .

195

than the angle . Therefore the angle is much greater than the angle

, and therefore is greater than .

Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than .

Therefore is the longest of the straight lines drawn from to the section in this part of the section, and of the others straight lines those drawn

closer to are greater than those drawn farther.

Similarly also what we asserted will be proved if the maximal straight line

proceeds from or from one of the other points which lie on the continued axis

.

[Proposition] 22.

straight line such that it encloses together with the axis an angle, and that the

straight line is maximal of the straight lines drawn from that point to the section, then, if that point is the center of the section, the maximal straight line is

perpendicular to the minor axis, but if it is not the center, then the angle enclosed between it and that part of the axis towards the center is acute, and if

there is drawn from the [other] end of the straight line a perpendicular to the

axis, then as the segment between the foot of its perpendicular and the center

of the section is to the segment between the foot and the taken point, so the

transverse diameter is to the latus rectum 27.

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis . First let the maximal

straight line come from the center, and be , then I say that is perpendicular to .

[Proof]. For let if that is not so, the perpendicular be . Then is the

greatest straight line drawn from , as is proved in Theorem 11 of this Book.

But the greatest was , which is impossible. Therefore is perpendicular to

.

Now let the maximal straight line come from another point namely , and

let the straight line be . Then I say that the angle is acute, and that the

perpendicular drawn from to is such that as the length between its foot

and is to the length between its foot and , so the transverse diameter is to

he latus rectum.

[Proof]. For let be either greater than the half of the latus rectum, or

smaller or equal to it. But if it were equal to it, it would be the maximal straight

line, as we proved in Theorems 16 , 17, and 18 of this Book, and if it were

196

of this Book. Therefore is smaller than the half of the latus rectum.

Therefore if we make the ratio of a straight line adjoining to the sum

of and that adjoining straight line equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, then that adjoining straight line is less than ,

let it be . Therefore as is to , so transverse diameter is to the

latus

rectum.

Then I say that straight line drawn from perpendicular to meets .

[Proof]. For if it did not meet it, but fell like , then would be maximal, as is proved in Theorem 20 of this Book. But that is not so, therefore the

perpendicular drawn from meets , and as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum.

[Proposition] 23

If there is drawn from a point on the minor of two axes of an ellipse one

of the mentioned maximal straight lines, then that part of it intercepted between the section and the major axis is the smallest straight line that can be

drawn [to the section] from the point of its meeting with the major axis 28.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis .

And let be the maximal straight line drawn from K.

I say that is the shortest of the straight lines from Z to meet the section.

[Proof]. For let from a perpendicular to , and a perpendicular

to , be drawn.

Then as is to the latus rectum, so the latus rectum is to , as is

proved in Theorem 15 of Book I.

And as is to [its] latus rectum, so is to . Therefore as the latus

rectum [of ] is to , so is to , as is proved in Theorem 22 of this

Book. But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so

is to latus rectum [of ].

And is a perpendicular [to ], and has been joined, and is the

major axis. Therefore is the shortest straight line drawn from to the section, has is proved in Theorem 10 of this Book.

[Preposition] 24

If a point is taken on any conic section whatever, then only one of the

minimal straight lines drawn from the axis meets it 29 .

197

Let on thee section the point be taken.

I say that only one of the minimal straight lines can be drawn from the

axis to .

[Proof]. For let if possible, two [minimal] straight lines and . Let

from a perpendicular to , be drawn. Then is equal to the half of the

latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book. And similarly also is

equal to the half of the latus rectum, but that is impossible. Therefore only

one of the minimal straight lines can be drawn from the axis to .

[Proposition] 25

Furthermore let the section is the hyperbola or the ellipse whose the

axis and the center , and let on the section an arbitrary point be taken.

I say that only one of the minimal straight lines can be drawn from the

axis to 30 .

[Proof]. For if it is possible to draw more than one minimal straight line let

two [minimal] straight lines and be drawn, and from , a perpendicular

to , be drawn.

Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as

is proved in Theorems 14 and 15 of this Book.

Similarly also as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus

rectum, but that is impossible. Therefore two minimal straight lines cannot be

drawn from the axis to .

[Proposition] 26

If a point is taken on an ellipse not on the minor axis, then only one of the

maximal straight lines can be drawn from it to the minor axis 31 .

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis and a point on the

section.

I say that only one maximal straight line can be drawn from to .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, two [maximal] straight lines and be

drawn, and the perpendicular [to ] be drawn, and let the center be .

Then is one of the maximal straight lines drawn from the axis, therefore as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as is

proved in Theorem 22 of this Book.

198

Similarly also it will be proved that as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, but that is impossible. Therefore only one maximal straight line can be drawn from to the [minor] axis.

[Proposition] 27

The straight line drawn from the end of one of the mentioned minimal

straight lines tangent to the section is perpendicular to minimal of straight line

32.

Let the section be, first, a parabola whose axis .

I say that the straight line drawn from the end of a minimal straight line

tangent to the section is perpendicular to the minimal straight line.

[Proof]. If the minimal straight line is a part of , then what we said is

evidently true].

But if minimal straight line is , we draw a straight line tangent to the

section , namely , that the angle is right.

We draw the perpendicular . Then is equal to the half of the latus

rectum, as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book.

Furthermore is tangent to the parabola, and the perpendicular has

been drawn from [to the axis]. Therefore is equal to , as is proved in

Theorem 35 of Book I.

Therefore as is to the latus rectum, so is to , therefore pl. is

equal to the rectangular plane under and the latus rectum which is equal to

sq., therefore sq. is equal to pl..

And the angle is right, therefore the angle [also] is right.

[Proposition] 28

Furthermore let the section be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose axis

.

I say that the straight line drawn from the end of the minimal straight line

tangent to the section is perpendicular to the minimal straight line 33.

[Proof]. If the minimal straight line is a part of , then it is evident that

the straight line drawn from tangent to the section is perpendicular to the

minimal straight line because is the axis.

But if it is not a part of , let the minimal straight line be , and let the

tangent be . Then I say that the angle is right.

Let the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn, and let the center be .

Then since is the minimal straight line, and is a perpendicular, as is to

199

14 and 15 of this Book.

But as is to , so pl. is to pl.. Therefore as pl. is to

pl., so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. But as the transverse

diameter is to the latus rectum, so pl. is to sq., as is providing Theorem

37 of Book 1. Therefore pl. is equal to sq..

And is a perpendicular [to the axis]. Therefore the angle is right.

[Proposition] 29

That may be proved in another way, that is as follows : let the conic section be and its axis be . Then I say that the straight line drawn from the

end of the minimal straight line tangent to the section is perpendicular to the

minimal straight line 34 .

Let the minimal straight line be and the tangent . Then I say that

the angle is right.

[Proof]. For if that is not so, we draw the perpendicular to .

Then is greater than .

Therefore how much the greater is it than . [But] that is impossible for

is minimal straight line, therefore the angle is so right.

[Proposition] 30

If a straight line is drawn from the end of one of the maximal straight lines

drawn in the ellipse whichever one it may be, so as to be tangent to the section,

then it is a perpendicular to the maximal straight line 35.

Let the ellipse be whose minor axis , and let there be drawn from a

point on the axis to the section one of the maximal lines . Let from a

straight line tangent to the section be drawn.

I say that the angle is right.

[Proof]. For let from the center of the section a perpendicular to the

[minor axis], be drawn. Then is the half of the major axis, and is the minor axis. And since has cut one of the maximal straight lines, then the part

of that straight line which fails between the section and the major axis is one of

the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 23 of this Book.

Therefore is one of the minimal straight lines, and is tangent,

therefore is a perpendicular to it, as is proved in three preceding Theorems.

[Proposition] 31

200

If there is drawn from the end of a minimal straight line that is drawn in

one of the [conic] sections a straight line at right angles [to the minimal

straight line], and that end is one point on the section, then the drawn straight

line is tangent to the section 36.

Let there be the conic section with a minimal straight line .

I say that the straight line drawn from such that it is a perpendicular

to is tangent to the section.

[Proof]. For let, if it is possible for it not be tangent, let it cut it, as .

Let from a point outside the section, between it and , the straight line

be drawn, and from a perpendicular to , be drawn. Then the angle

is acute and the angle is right.

Therefore is smaller than , and is much smaller than . But

was minimal, that is impossible.

Therefore the straight line drawn from perpendicular to is tangent to

the section.

[Proposition] 32

If there is a tangent to one of [conic] sections and a perpendicular is

drawn to that straight line from the point of contact to meet the axis, then

that drawn straight line is the minimal straight line that reaches that point

[from the axis] 37.

Let there be the conic section , and let be a tangent to it.

Let the point of contact a perpendicular to , be drawn and continued until

it reaches the axis .

I say that is one of the minimal straight lines.

[Proof]. For let, if that is not so, the minimal straight line which reaches

[from the axis] be . Then the angle is right, as is proved in Theorems 27,

28, and 29 of this Book. But the angle also was right, that is impossible.

Therefore is one of the minimal straight lines.

[Proposition] 33

that and of it, which is on the section, then it is tangent to the section 38.

Let there be the conic section , and in it one of the maximal straight

lines .

I say that the straight line drawn from perpendicular to is a tangent

to the section.

201

[Proof]. For let if that is not so, if cut it as . Let from a straight line

cutting , be drawn. Then is greater than , and is greater than

.

Therefore is much greater than . But was one of the maximal

straight lines, and that is impossible. Therefore the straight line drawn from

perpendicular is tangent to the section.

[Proposition] 34

minimal straight line, then the smallest length intercepted between that point

and the section [on the straight lines drawn from that point on either side of

the section but not continued to cut the section at more than one point] is the

straight line which is the continued maximal or minimal straight line, and of the

other straight lines those drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther

39.

Let there be a conic section with a maximal or minimal straight line

in it. Let it be continued in a straight line, and let on it be taken, after it is

continued [outside the section] an arbitrary point . Let from to the section

, , and be drawn, let each of them cut the section in one point only.

I say that is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the

section, and that of the other straight lines those of them drawn closer to it

are smaller than those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let be drawn tangent to the section then the angle is

right because of what was proved in Theorems 27, 28, 29, and 30 of this Book.

Therefore is greater than and is much greater than .

Let and be joined. Then the angle is obtuse, and is greater

than .

Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than .

And similarly it is possible for us to prove the same concerning the

straight lines drawn to the other side of .

[Proposition] 35

In every conic section, when minimal straight lines are drawn, the angle

between a straight line drawn farther from the vertex of the section and the

axis is greater than the angle between the straight line drawn closer [to the vertex] and the axis 40.

Let the section be, first the parabola whose axis .

202

I say that the angle is greater than the angle .

[Proof]. For let two perpendiculars and [to the axis] be drawn.

Then is one of the minimal straight lines and [hence] is equal to the half

of the latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book.

Similarly also it will proved that is equal to the half of the latus rectum.

Therefore is equal to .

But the perpendicular is greater than the perpendicular . Therefore

the angle is greater than the angle .

[Proposition] 36

[Next] let the section [] be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose axis

and center . Let and be two of the minimal straight lines.

Then I say that the angle is greater than the angle 41 .

[Proof]. For let two perpendiculars and [to the axis] be drawn ,

and the straight line be joined.

Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as

is proved in Theorems 14 and 15 of this Book.

Similarly as is to [so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum]. Therefore as is to , so is to . And permutando as is to ,

so is to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is to

. And the angles and are right. Therefore the triangles and

are similar. Therefore the angle is greater than the angle .

[Proposition] 37

so as to make an angle with the axis, then that angle is smaller than the angle

between each of the asymptote to the section and the straight line drawn from

the vertex of the section perpendicular to the axis 42.

Let the hyperbola be whose axis . Let its asymptotes be and ,

and let the minimal straight line be let through B pass the perpendicular ZBH

to the axis.

I say that the angle is smaller than the angle .

[Proof]. For let the half of the latus rectum be made , so that falls

between and or beyond them. Let be joined.

203

and as is to , also so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as

was proved Theorem 14 of this Book. Therefore as is to , so is to .

And as is to , so is to . Therefore ex as is to , so is

to . But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to , and as is to

, so is to , as is proved in Theorem 3 of Book II . Therefore the ratio

to is smaller than the ratio to . And these

sides and close right angles. Therefore the angle is greater than the angle

.

[Proposition] 38

If there are drawn in one of conic sections two minimal straight lines ending at the axis, then, when they are continued in a straight line, they will meet

the other part of the section 44.

Let there be the conic section whose axis , and let there be in the

section two of the minimal straight lines and .

I say that and , when continued towards the other side [of the axis]

will meet each other 43.

[Proof]. The angle is greater than the angle , as is proved in

Theorems 35 and 36 of this Book. Therefore the sum of the angles and

is greater than two right angles.

For that reason two angles adjoining them are less than two right angles.

Therefore two minimal straight lines and , when continued towards

the other side of the section, will meet each other.

[Proposition] 39

Maximal straight lines drawn in an ellipse to the minor axis cut each other

in that part [of the ellipse] 44.

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis .

I say that the maximal straight lines drawn in the ellipse cut one another in the half of the section .

[Proof]. For let if it is possible, they not cut one another, as the maximal

straight lines and . Let the perpendiculars and be drawn, and let

the center be . Then as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus

rectum, as is proved in Theorem 22 of this Book.

204

rectum. Therefore as is to , so is to ]. And dividendo as is to

, so is to , and permutando as is to , so is to .

But is smaller than . Therefore is smaller than also, but that

is impossible. Therefore and meet.

[Proposition] 40

within the angle between the half of the axis from which the minimal straight

lines are drawn and the other axis 45.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis . Let

and two of the minimal straight lines.

I say that and will meet within the angle .

[Proof]. For let these two straight lines be continued from and until

they meet at and . Then and are minimal straight lines, therefore

is one of the maximal straight line, as is proved from the reverse of Theorem

23 of this Book.

Similarly also when continued meets as , and [hence] is one

of the maximal straight lines.

But and , when continued, meet on the other side of the [major]

axis, as is proved in Theorem 38 of this Book. And when and are maximal

straight lines, then they cut each other on the side [of the minor axis] on which

they are, as is proved in Theorem 39 of this Book. Therefore, the place of meeting is within the angle between and .

[Proposition] 41

when continued, fall on the other side of the section 46.

Now as to the fact that that is the case in the ellipse, that is evident.

Therefore let there be the parabola [] whose axis , and minimal

straight line .

I say that , when continued, meets the part of the section.

[Proof]. The section is a parabola, and has been drawn from its

diameter, therefore , when continued falls on the section , as is proved in

Theorem 27 of Book 1.

[Proposition] 42

205

latus rectum, then none of the minimal straight lines drawn in it meet the other

side of the section, but if the transverse diameter is greater than the latus rectum, then some of the minimal straight lines in the section will, when continued

meet the section on the other side [of the axis] , and some of them will not

meet it 47.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center . Let the

minimal straight line be .

[First] let the transverse diameter be not greater than the latus rectum.

Then I say that will not meet the section when continued.

[Proof]. For let the asymptotes be and , and be a perpendicular

to , and let the half of the latus rectum be . Then, since the transverse diameter is not greater than the latus rectum is not greater than .

And as is to , so sq. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 3 of

Book II. Therefore is not greater than sq., and is not greater than .

Therefore the angle is not greater than the angle . But the angle is

greater than the angle , as is proved in Theorem 37 of this Book.

Therefore the angle is greater than the angle . And the angle

is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle is greater than the angle

. And the angle adjacent to the angle is made common [to both sides],

this angle together with the angle is equal to two right angles, and [hence]

the angle together with the angle adjacent to the angle is greater than

two right angles. Therefore and , when continued on the side , will not

meet each other. Therefore will not meet side of the section for if it met

it, would meet , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II .

[Proposition] 43

Next let the transverse diameter be longer than the latus rectum, then I

say that some of the minimal straight lines which occur in the section ,

when continued will meet the section on the other side [of the axis] and some

of them will not meet it 48.

[Poof]. For let the asymptotes and be drawn, and the transverse

diameter be longer than the latus rectum. Then is greater than [equal

to the half of the latus rectum, and [hence] as the ratio to is greater

than to .

206

continued, then it will meet the section, as is proved in Theorem 2 of Book II .

Let it meet it at . Let from the perpendicular to be drawn,

let as be to , so be to , and be joined . Then as is to , so

is to , that is so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. And the

perpendicular has been from , and is joined. Therefore is one of

the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.

Furthermore as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is

to . Therefore ex as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to

. And the angles and are equal since they are right, therefore the

triangles and are similar, therefore the angle is equal to the angle

, and [the angle ] is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle is

equal to the angle . Therefore and are parallel, and, when continued,

will not cut each other.

Therefore since they do not cut each other, will not meet the section

anywhere but at , even if it is continued in a straight line for if it did meet it,

it would meet and , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II .

But has been shown to be parallel to , which is impossible. Therefore does not meet the section at a point other than .

And as for the minimal straight lines drawn between and , the angles

which they form with are smaller than the angle , as is proved in Theorem 36 of this Book.

But the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the angles which

the minimal straight lines drawn between and form [with the axis] are

smaller than the angle , therefore when they are continued, they will not

meet or the section [for the reason mentioned above].

As for the other minimal straight lines, since they form with the axis the

angles greater than the angle , they will meet , and hence will meet the

section .

[Proposition] 44

If two of the minimal straight lines are drawn from the axis of one of the

conic sections, and continued until they meet, and another straight line is drawn

from their point of meeting cutting the axis and ending at the section, then the

part of it falling between the section and the axis is not one of the minimal

straight lines, and if the drawn straight line is not between two minimal straight

207

lines, and a minimal straight line is drawn from the point at which it reaches the

section, then [that minimal straight line] cuts off from the axis adjacent to the

vertex of the section a segment greater than that cut off by the drawn straight

line, but if the drawn straight line is between two minimal straight lines, then

the minimal straight line drawn from the point at it reaches [the section] cuts

off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment smaller than

the segment cut off [by the drawn straight line], and in the case of the ellipse

the above said holds when two minimal straight lines and the drawn straight

line all cut one and the same half of two halves of the major axis 49.

First let the section be the parabola whose axis . Let two minimal

straight lines that are in it be and , and let them meet at .

Let there be drawn from , first, a straight line outside and .

I say that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal

straight line which is drawn cuts of off from the axis next to the vertex of the

section, which is , a straight line longer than .

[Proof]. For let the perpendiculars , , , and be drawn. Let the

half of the latus rectum be . Then is one of the minimal straight lines, and

be is a perpendicular, therefore is equal to the half of the latus rectum,

as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book. Therefore is equal to , and is

equal to , and as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore pl. is equal to pl..

And similarly also we will prove that pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore

pl. is equal to pl.. And therefore as is to , so is to . So we

join and continue it until it meets at , and draw the perpendicular

and continue it to [meet at] .

Then as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is

to , and is to . Therefore is smaller than , and the ratio to

is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to

[equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to . Therefore

pl. is greater than pl..

Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..

But we have [already] proved that pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore

pl. is greater than pl., therefore the ratio to [equal to the ratio

to ] is greater than the ratio to , and is greater than .

But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller

than the half of the latus rectum, and [hence] the minimal straight line drawn

from cuts off from the axis adjacent to a straight line greater than .

208

Therefore it cuts off from the axis adjacent to a straight line greater than .

So is not one of the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 24

of this Book.

Furthermore we draw on the other side if and the straight line

[cutting at ], then I say that is not one of the minimal straight lines,

and that the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a

segment greater than .

[Proof]. For let be a perpendicular to . Now it has been proved that

is equal to . Therefore is greater than , and the ratio to is

smaller than the ratio to . And divedendo the ratio to is smaller

than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the

ratio to , and the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .

Therefore pl. is smaller than pl.. Therefore pl. is much smaller than

pl..

But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is smaller than pl.,

and the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is smaller than the ratio

to . Therefore is greater than .

But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller

than the half of the latus rectum, and the minimal straight line drawn from

cuts off a segment greater than . Therefore the segment cut off [by the

minimal straight line from ] adjacent to , which is the vertex of the section ,

is greater than , which is cut off by . Therefore is not one of the minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 24 of this Book.

Furthermore let the drawn straight line fall between and . Then

I say that is not one of the minimal straight lines, and that the minimal

straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to a straight line

smaller than .

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn. Then it has been proved

that is equal to . Therefore is greater than , and the ratio to

is smaller than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is

smaller than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is smaller

than ratio to , and the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .

Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .

But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is smaller than pl..

Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .

209

the ratio to . Therefore is smaller than . And H is equal to the half

of the latus rectum.

Therefore the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off next to a

straight line smaller than , and therefore it cuts next to the vertex of the

section [a segment] smaller than .

Therefore is not the minimal straight line, and the minimal straight line

cuts off next to the vertex of the section a segment smaller than .

[Proposition] 45

Furthermore let the section be the hyperbola or the ellipse whose

axis and center , and let there be drawn in the section two minimal

straight lines and , and let them meet at , and let be drawn from

to the section. Then I say that , which is between the axis and the section, is

not one of the minimal straight lines, but that the minimal straight line drawn

from cuts off the axis next to a segment longer than

50 .

[Proof]. For let be the perpendicular from to the axis, and there be

a straight line through parallel to , namely , and pass and through a

straight line parallel to , namely , and let be continued until it meets

and , let it meets them at b and q [respectively]. Let each of the ratios

to and to be equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the

latus rectum.

Let , , , and are drawn as perpendiculars to the axis, and let

be joined and continued in a straight line, and let through pass a straight

line parallel to , and let it be continued to [meet the continued at] .

Then since is one of minimal straight lines, and is a perpendicular,

as is to , so the transverse diameter is to the latus rectum, as is proved

in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book. Therefore as is to , so is to .

And componendo for the hyperbola and convertendo for the ellipse as is to

, so is to .

And when subtract two lesser from two greater, we set as is to ,

so is to . But is to , therefore as is to so is to .

And since the ratio to also is equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter, as is to , so is to .

And componendo in the case of the hyperbola and dividendo in the case

of the ellipse as is to , so is to .

210

And adding in the case of the hyperbola and subtracting the lesser from

the greater in the case of the ellipse as is to , so is to , that is the

ratio to . Therefore as is to so is to .

Furthermore the ratio of the quadrangle to the quadrangle is compounded of [the ratios] to and to .

But we have [already] proved that as is to , so is to , and we

have [already] proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio

of the quadrangle to the quadrangle is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to . But the quadrangle is equal to pl., , because as is

to so is to . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to pl..

Similarly also it will be proved that the quadrangle is equal to pl..

Therefore pl. is equal to pl., and as is to , so is to . But as Bs

is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to . And dividendo as is

to , so is to . Therefore is equal to , and is greater

than . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to , and

componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl.. Therefore pl. is

much greater than pl..

But pl. was equal to the quadrangle . Therefore the quadrangle

is greater than pl.. And the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle

because as is to , so is to . Therefore the quadrangle is

greater than pl.. But the quadrangle is equal to pl., therefore

pl. is greater than pl.. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the

ratio to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is

greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to . Therefore is greater than , and the ratio to is

smaller than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles.

Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to and

is equal to , and is equal to . Therefore the ratio to is

smaller than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to because

each of these two ratios to and to is equal to the ratio of the

transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is smaller

than the ratio to . And subtracting two lesser from two greater in the case

of the hyperbola and adding in the case of the ellipse the ratio

211

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the

triangles. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

And dividendo in the case of the hyperbola and componendo in the case

of the ellipse the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio on the transverse diameter

to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio of

the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

Therefore if we make the ratio of to another straight line equal to the

ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, that other straight line

will be longer than .

Therefore the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis

adjoining a straight line longer than , because of what is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book, and [hence] is not one of minimal straight lines,

because of what is proved in Theorem 25 of this Book.

Furthermore let be drawn. Then I say that is not one of minimal

straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the

axis a segment longer than .

[Proof]. For let to the axis the perpendicular be drawn and continued

to [meet continued at] . Then since is equal to , is greater than

, and the ratio to is greater the ratio to . And componendo the ratio

to is greater than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to .

Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio

to . Therefore the ratio to is much greater than the ratio to .

Therefore pl. is greater than pl..

But we have shown that pl. is equal to the quadrangle , therefore

the quadrangle is greater than pl..

But the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle because the ratio

to equal to the ratio to is equal also to the ratio to which is

equal to the ratio to . Therefore the quadrangle is greater than

pl. .

But the quadrangle is pl.. Therefore pl. is greater than pl.,

therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . But as is to

, so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to .

Therefore is greater than .

Let be common, then is greater than . Therefore the ratio to

is smaller than the ratio to .

212

than to .

But as for , that is equal to , and as for , that is equal to .

Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio is to . But as is

to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio

to .

So when we subtract two smaller from two greater in the case of the hyperbola, and add [them] in the case on the ellipse, the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio

to is greater than the ratio to .

And dividendo in the case of the hyperbola and componendo in the case

of the ellipse, the ratio two is greater than the ratio to .

But as is to , so transverse diameter is to the latus rectum. And we

make the ratio of to another straight line equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter to the latus rectum, that straight line is greater than . Therefore the

minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a segment longer than

, because of what is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book. And is not

one of minimal straight line because of what is proved in Theorem 25 of this

Book.

Furthermore let the straight line between two minimal straight lines

and , then I say that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the

minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a segment smaller

than .

[Proof]. For let as a perpendicular to the axis be drawn. Then since we

have proved that is equal to , is smaller than , and the ratio to

is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio

to is greater than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl..

But greater than . Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..

And we have proved that pl. is equal to the quadrangle , and that

the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is greater

than the quadrangle , therefore pl. is greater than the quadrangle .

But the quadrangle is equal to pl., therefore pl. is greater than

pl., and the ratio to is greaten than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore the ratio to is

greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to ,therefore is smaller than and the ratio to is

greater than the ratio to .

213

triangles. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

But is equal to and is equal to . Therefore the ratio to

is greater than the ratio to . But as is to , so is to .

Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

And when we subtract two lesser from two greater in the case of the

hyperbola, and add [them] in the case of the ellipse, the ratio to is

greater than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

And dividendo in the case of the hyperbola and componendo in the case

of the ellipse, the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

But as is to , so the transverse diameter

is to the latus rectum.

Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum is greater

than the ratio to .

And if we make the ratio of Nm to another straight line equal to the ratio

of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, that straight line is smaller than

.

Therefore the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a

segment shorten than , as is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book.

Therefore is not one of minimal straight lines because of what is proved in

Theorem 25 of this Book.

[Proposition] 46

lines to major axis, one of which passes through the center, and they are continued until they meet, then no [other] straight line can be drawn from the

point where they meet to that quadrant of the section such that part of it intercepted between the axis and the section is one of minimal straight lines, and

if straight lines are drawn from the point of meeting of two straight lines to the

section, then the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of those [straight

lines] to the axis cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a

segment greater than the segment cut off by the straight lines themselves 51.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and center . Let from

the center the perpendicular to the axis be drawn and continued. Let be

one of minimal straight lines, and let it meet at . Let [an arbitrary] straight

line be drawn.

214

I say that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal

straight line drawn from to cuts off a segment greater than .

[Proof]. As for [the statement] that is not one of minimal straight

lines, that is evident because is one of minimal straight lines, and the point

of meeting of the minimal straight lines [falls] within the angle , as is proved

in Theorem 40 of this Book.

And meets only at , therefore is not one of minimal straight

lines.

As for [the statement] that the minimal straight line drawn from meets

and cuts off from it a segment greater than , that will be proved from

the fact that the minimal straight line drawn from meets [being a minimal

straight line] within the angle , as is proved in Theorem 40 of this Book.

Therefore it is evident that its cuts off from the axis a segment greater

than .

[Proposition] 47

When minimal straight lines are drawn in a segment of an ellipse and are

cut off by the major axis, no four of them meet at a single point 52.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis .

I say that if there are drawn from the axis to the section four

minimal straight lines, they do not [all] meet at a single point.

[Proof]. For let, if possible there be drawn [minimal] straight lines , ,

, and meeting at . Then either one of these straight lines is perpendicular to or there is no perpendicular to among them.

First let one of them be perpendicular to it. Then since is one of

the minimal straight lines and is perpendicular to , then is the center, as is

proved in Theorem 15 of this Book. And since one of minimal straight lines,

has been drawn from the center, and is also one of minimal straight lines,

and these two straight lines have met at , and has been drawn from , then

is not one of minimal straight lines, has it proved in Theorem 46 of this

Book. But it was a minimal straight line, which is impossible.

Therefore let none of , , , and be a perpendicular to the axis

, and let the center be . Then if is between and , then three minimal

straight lines have been drawn from one of two halves of the axis, so

as to meet at a single point, but it is impossible, because of what is proved in

Theorem 45 of this Book. But if is between and , then we draw from it a

215

occurs within the angle , as is proved in Theorem

40 in this Book.

And similarly also two straight lines and must necessarily meet

within the angle . But the point of meeting of all [four] of them is , which

is impossible.

Therefore four drawn straight lines do not meet at a single point.

[Proposition] 48

When maximal straight lines are drawn in one of the quadrants of an ellipse, no three of them meet at a single point 53.

Let there be the ellipse whose minor axis and major axis .

I say that no three of maximal straight lines drawn in the section

from one of quadrants meet at a single point.

[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, let there be drawn the [maximal] straight

lines , , and , and let them meet at a single point .

Then since , , and are maximal, and , , and are minimal

straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 23 of this Book.

So there have fallen in one of quadrants of this section three minimal

straight lines so as to meet at a single point, that is impossible of what is

proved in Theorems 45 and 46 of this Book. Therefore it is not the case that

three maximal straight lines drawn from one of quadrants of the section

meet at a single point 54 .

[Proposition] 49

If there is a conic section, and there is drawn from its axis a perpendicular

to the axis such that that perpendicular cuts off from the axis on the side adjacent to the vertex of the section the segment no greater than the half of the

latus rectum 55 , and a point is taken on that perpendicular and any straight

line is drawn from it to the other part of the section between the perpendicular

and the vertex of the section, then the minimal straight line drawn from the extremity of the straight line is not a part of that straight line, but it cuts off from

the axis on the side of the vertex of the section a segment greater than that

cut off by the drawn straight line.

In the case of the ellipse it is necessary that it be the major axis on which

the perpendicular falls, and that the drawn straight line cut that the half of the

axis on which the perpendicular falls 56.

216

First let the section be the parabola whose axis , and the perpendicular . Let the segment cut from the axis by that perpendicular , be not

greater than the half of the latus rectum. We take on an arbitrary point ,

and draw from it the straight line .

I say that is not one of minimal straight lines.

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn. Now is not greater

than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller than the half of the

latus rectum. Let the segment equal to the half of the latus rectum be , and

be joined. Then is a minimal straight line, as is proved in Theorem 8 of

this Book.

And is not a minimal straight line, as is proved in Theorem 24 of this

Book.

Rather the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis a

segment greater than and falls on the side [of the perpendicular ] opposite to the vertex of the section.

[Proposition] 50

Furthermore let the section be the hyperbola or the ellipse 57 whose

axis and center , and let the perpendicular to the axis be drawn, and let

be not greater than the half of the latus rectum, and let be taken on

and from it the straight line [to meet the section at ] be drawn, then I say

that is not of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn

from cuts off from the axis a segment longer than 57.

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn. Then is

not greater of the half of the latus rectum, and is the half of the transverse

diameter. Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum is

not greater than the ratio to .

And the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . Therefore the

ratio to is greater than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum.

So we make the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Then is one of minimal straight lines, as is

proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of this Book. Therefore is not one of minimal

straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 25 of this Book.

[Proposition] 51

217

But if the mentioned perpendicular cuts off from the axis a segment

greater than the half of the latus rectum, then I say that it is possible to generate a straight line such that when the drawn perpendicular is measured against

it.

[1] if it is less than the perpendicular drawn to the axis then no straight

line can be drawn from the end of the perpendicular to the section such that

the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines,

but the minimal straight line drawn from it to the section cuts off from the axis

adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment greater than that cut off by

the straight line itself.

But [2] if the perpendicular is equal to the generated straight line, then it

is possible to draw from its end only one straight line such that the part of it

cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and the minimal straight

line drawn from the ends of the others straight lines drawn from that point cut

off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section straight lines greater

than those cut off by the straight lines themselves.

[3] if the perpendicular is less than the generated straight line, then it is

possible to draw from its end only two straight lines such that the part of each

of them cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and the minimal

straight line drawn from the ends of the other straight lines which fall between

two straight lines from which two minimal straight lines are cut off from the axis

adjacent to the vertex of the section segments less than those cut off by the

straight lines themselves, but those drawn from the ends of the straight lines

which are not between two minimal straight lines cut off from the axis straight

lines greater than those cut off by the straight lines themselves.

However in the case of the ellipse our statement requires that the axis on

which the perpendicular falls be the major axis 58.

First we make the section the parabola whose axis . We draw

the perpendicular to it, let the part cut off by it from the axis, namely , be

greater than the half of the latus rectum.

I say that, if a certain straight line is cut off from , and [another]

straight line is drawn from its end under the conditions stated above, what we

stated in the enunciation will necessarily occur.

[Proof]. is greater than the half of the latus rectum. So let the half of

the latus rectum be . We cut at such that is double , and draw

the perpendicular .

Let some straight line be to as to be to 59 .

We take on and, first, let be greater than .

218

Then I say that no straight line can be drawn from such that the axis

cuts off from it a minimal straight line.

We join [meeting at ]. [And I say that is not one of minimal

straight lines].

Then as is to , so is to . And is smaller than . Therefore

the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to

. And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

Therefore [equal to the half of the latus rectum] is greater than , and

is smaller than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore the minimal straight line

drawn from [to the axis] falls on the side of [from ], as is proved from

Theorem 8 of this Book. Therefore is not one of minimal

straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 24 of this Book.

Furthermore we draw [where is between and ], then I say that

is not of minimal straight lines.

[Proof]. For let from a straight line tangent to the section be drawn

and the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet at] .

Then since the section in a parabola, is equal to , as is proved in Theorem

35 of Book I . Therefore is equal to the double .

But had been [made equal to] the double . Therefore is equal to

. And [thus] turns out to be greater than . Therefore the ratio to

is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to

[equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to , and pl. is

greater than pl..

Therefore pl. is much greater than pl.. But pl. is greater than

pl. because the ratio to is greater than the ratio to , as we

have proved above. Therefore pl. is greater than pl., and the ratio to

[equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio to . And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . Therefore is

greater than .

But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller

than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is not one of minimal straight

lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls on the axis toward [from

I], as is proved from Theorems 8 and 24 of this Book.

Furthermore we draw the straight line [where is between and ],

then I say that is not one of minimal straight lines.

For let the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet the tangent at] . Then is equal to , as we said above. And [therefore turns

out to be greater than , therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ra219

to . But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is

smaller than the ratio to , and pl. is smaller than pl..

Therefore pl. is much smaller than pl..

But we have [already] proved that pl. is greater than pl..

Therefore pl. is smaller than , and the ratio to is smaller than

the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is smaller

than the ratio to , and the ratio to is greater than the ratio SH to

. And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

Therefore is greater than .

But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is smaller

than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is not one of minimal straight

lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls to the side of [from ],

as is proved from Theorems 8 and 24 of this Book.

Therefore when is grater than , no straight line can be drawn from

to the section such that the axis cuts off from it a segment, which is one of

minimal straight lines.

Furthermore [secondly] we make equal to . Then I say that only one

straight line can be drawn from such that a minimal straight line is cut off

from it [by the axis], and that other minimal straight lines drawn from the

points where the straight lines from meet the section fall on the farther side

[of the original straight lines] from .

[Proof]. As is to , so [equal to ] is to . But as is to ,

so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to , and is equal to .

But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore also is equal

to the half of the latus rectum, and is one of minimal straight lines,

as is proved in Theorem 8 of this Book.

Then I say that no other minimal straight line will be cut off [by the axis]

from other straight lines drawn from .

[Proof]. For let some straight line be drawn, and the perpendicular

be drawn and continued to [meet the section at] . Let be a tangent to

the section.

Then we will prove as we proved previously that pl. [equal to pl.]

is greater than pl..

And we will prove from that, as we proved above, that [equal to the

half of the latus rectum] is greater than . Therefore is not one of minimal

220

straight lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls towards [from

].

But it is drawn like , then is not of the minimal straight lines, but

the minimal straight line drawn from falls towards .

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet

the section at] .

Similarly too [to the above] it will be proved that pl. is smaller pl.

[equal to pl.].

Hence we will prove, as we proved previously that is smaller than .

But is smaller than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is not of minimal straight lines, but the minimal straight line drawn from falls towards

[from ].

Furthermore [thirdly] we make smaller than . Then I say that one can

draw from to the section two straight lines such that two minimal

straight lines can be cut off from them [by the axis] and that when minimal

straight lines are drawn from the ends of other straight lines which fall between

these two straight lines, they cut off from the axis segments smaller than the

segments cut off by the drawn straight lines, and as for other straight lines, the

minimal straight lines drawn from their ends cut of segments greater than those

cut off by the straight lines themselves.

[Proof]. is smaller than . Therefore the ratio to is smaller than

the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ], and pl. is smaller than

pl..

Let pl. be equal to pl., and let be a perpendicular to .

We pass through the hyperbola 60 whose asymptotes and ,

as we showed in Problem 4 of Book II.

Then it cuts the parabola, let it cut it at and . We join and and

draw the perpendiculars and then the section is a hyperbola and its

asymptotes are and , and , , and have been drawn from the

section at right angles [to an asymptote].

Therefore pl. is equal to pl., as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book

II, and pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is to .

And componendo as is to , so is to .

Therefore is equal to , which is equal to the half of the latus rectum.

Therefore is one of minimal straight lines as is proved in Theorem

8 of this Book.

Similarly also it will be proved that is one of minimal straight lines.

221

And since , and are minimal straight lines, and they meet at ,

therefore of the straight lines drawn from to the section for [any of] those

falling between and , if a minimal straight line is drawn from the place

where it reaches [the section] it falls towards the vertex of the section, and has

for the other straight lines falling outside and [the minimal straight lines

drawn from their ends] will fall on the side [of the straight lines] farther from

the vertex of the section, as was proved in Theorem 44 of this Book 61-63 .

[Proposition] 52

Furthermore we make the section the hyperbola or the ellipse whose

axis and center , and draw from the axis perpendicular , and let be

greater than the half of the latus rectum.

Then I say that in this case [too] the same property necessarily results

as in the parabola 64.

[Proof]. is the half on the transverse diameter, and is greater than

of the half of the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the

ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

Therefore if we make the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, the point falls between and .

We take two straight lines and in continuous proportion between

and .

Let be a perpendicular to the axis, and let the ratio of some straight

line , to be equal to the ratio compounded of the ratios to and to

65-66 .

In the first instance we make greater than .

Then I say that it is not possible to draw from to the section any

straight line such that what is cut off from it [by the axis] is one of minimal

straight lines, and that the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of the

straight lines drawn from to the section cut off from the axis adjacent to the

vertex of the section segments greater than those cut off by the straight lines

[from ] themselves.

[Proof]. For let the straight line be joined then I say that is not

one of minimal straight lines for we make the ratio to equal to the ratio

of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and draw the straight lines

and parallel to , and draw and parallel to . Then since is

greater than , the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

222

because is equal to .

And as for the ratio to we had made it equal to the ratio compounded of the ratios to and to , then the ratio compounded of

the ratios to and to is greater than the ratio compounded of the

ratios to and to .

But as is to , so is to , because both of the ratios to

and to are equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the remaining ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

Therefore pl. is greater than pl..

But pl. is the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is smaller than the

quadrangle .

We make the quadrangle that is pl. common [to both sides] then

pl. is smaller than the quadrangle . But the quadrangle is equal to the

quadrangle because as to , so is to . Therefore pl. is smaller

the quadrangle .

And we had proved in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that, when

that is the case, then is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the

minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex

of the section a segment longer than .

Furthermore we draw to a point other than , then I say that is not

one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn from

cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment longer

than .

[Proof]. We draw from a tangent to the section, and draw to the

axis the perpendicular and continue it to [meet the tangent at] . Then,

since the ratio to is greater than the ratio to , we make the ratio

to equal to the ratio to , and draw through a straight line

parallel to . Then since is tangent to the section, and is perpendicular to the axis, pl. is equal to sq., as is proved in Theorem 37 of

Book I . Therefore as is to , so is to .

Therefore the third proportional to and is . And the third proportional to and was . And as is to , so is to . Therefore, as

is to , so is to .

And when we subtract two lesser from two greater, the ratio of the remainders to is equal to the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to because the ratio to was made

equal to the ratio to . Therefore as is to , so is to .

223

is equal to .

But is equal to . Therefore is equal to , and is smaller than

, and the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . But as

is to , so is to , and the ratio to is greater than the ratio to

. Therefore pl. is greater than pl..

Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..

Furthermore as is to , so is to . Therefore pl. is equal to

pl..

We make pl. common [to both sides].

Then pl. is equal to pl., because is equal to . And pl.,

is the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is equal to the quadrangle .

But pl. was [shown to be] greater than pl., therefore the quadrangle is greater than pl..

In the case of the hyperbola we make pl.. Then pl. is smaller than

the sum of the quadrangles and .

In the case of the ellipse when we subtract pl. [from both sides] the

quadrangle without the quadrangle is greater than pl..

Thus pl. is much smaller than the quadrangle [in both cases].

But the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle because as is to

, so is to . Therefore pl. is smaller than the quadrangle .

But we showed in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that in that case

is not one of minimal straight lines, and that minimal straight line drawn from

cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section longer than .

Furthermore we draw [on the other side of ], then I say that

is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn

from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment

longer than .

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular be drawn and continued to [meet

the tangent at] . We have already proved that is equal to . Therefore

is smaller than . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to

. And componendo the ratio to is grater than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl..

And we will prove by the method that we followed previously that pl.

is smaller than the quadrangle .

224

And it will be proved from that as was shown in the proof of Theorem 45

of this Book, that is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the

minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex

of the section a segment longer than .

Furthermore [secondly] we make equal to , then I say that only one

straight line can be drawn from such that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is

one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight lines drawn from the

ends of the remaining straight lines cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex

of the section segments longer than those cut off by the straight lines themselves.

[Proof]. We proceed as we did in the first case for the construction of the

perpendicular , and join . Then the ratio to , is equal to the ratio

to . Now to is compounded of the ratios to and to for

is equal to , and the ratio to is compounded of the ratios to

and to according to our previous construction the ratio compounded of

the ratios to and to is equal to the ratio compounded of the ratios

to and to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the remaining ratio to

is equal to the ratio to .

Therefore pl. [which is the quadrangle ] is equal to pl..

We make pl. common [to both sides], by adding in the case of the

hyperbola and subtracting in the case of the ellipse, then pl. is equal to the

quadrangle . But the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

Therefore the quadrangle is equal to pl..

And we had shown in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that, when

that is the case, is one of minimal straight lines.

I say that no other straight line can be drawn from such that the part of

it cut off [by the axis] in one of minimal straight lines.

[Proof] For let and the perpendicular be drawn. Then we will prove

by the same method as before that is equal to . Therefore is smaller

than , and the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is greater

than the ratio to , and pl. is greater than pl..

Therefore pl. is much greater than pl..

And we had proved that pl. is equal to the quadrangle . Therefore

pl. is smaller than the quadrangle .

225

But we showed in the proof of Theorem 45 of this Book that, when that is

the case, is not one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal straight

line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a

segment greater than .

Similarly too it can be proved that is not one of two minimal straight

lines, and that the minimal straight line drawn from cuts off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section a segment longer than .

Furthermore [thirdly] we make smaller than . Then I say that only

two straight lines can be drawn from such that the part of [each of] these

two cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and that the minimal

straight lines drawn from the ends of the straight lines drawn between these

two minimal straight lines cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the

section segments smaller than those cut off by the straight lines themselves,

and that the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of the remaining

straight lines cut off from the axis adjacent to the vertex to the sections segments greater than those cut of by the straight lines themselves.

[Proof]. The ratio to is smaller than the ratio . And hence it will

be proved by a method similar to the preceding that the ratio to is

smaller than the ratio to , and that the quadrangle is smaller than

the ratio to . Therefore we make pl. equal to the quadrangle , and

draw a hyperbola 67 passing through I with asymptotes and , then it is

constructed as we showed Problem 4 of Book II, that is the section .

We draw the perpendiculars and . Then each of pl. and pl.

is equal to pl. because of what is proved in Theorem 12 of Book II .

And pl. was made equal to the quadrangle . Therefore pl. is

equal to pl., which is equal to the quadrangle .

And when that is the case, then it will be proved as we showed in the

preceding part of this Theorem, that each of two straight lines and is one

of minimal straight lines.

And they have been drawn, so as to meet at , and we have shown in

Theorem 45 of this Book, that when that is the case no other straight line can

be drawn from such that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal

straight lines, and that for the straight lines drawn from between and ,

when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends to the axis, they cut off

from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section segments smaller than the

segments cut off by the straight lines themselves, and that the minimal

straight lines drawn from the ends of the remaining straight lines are in the op226

posite case, that is they cut of segments greater [than those cut of by the

straight lines themselves].

In the case of the ellipse this enunciation depends on the axis, which is

used the major axis 68-73 .

[Proposition] 53

If a point is taken outside of one of two halves of an ellipse into which the

major axis divides it, such that the perpendicular drawn from it to the axis falls

on the center of the section, and [such that] the ratio of that perpendicular

together with the half of the minor axis to the half of the minor axis is not

smaller than the ratio on the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, then no

straight line can be drawn from that point to the section such that the part of it

falling between the axis and the section is one of straight lines, rather the minimal straight line drawn from its extremity falls on that side of the drawn

straight line which is farther from the vertex of the section 74.

Let there be the half of the ellipse with major axis . We take a

point outside of it [such that] when a perpendicular [to the major axis] is drawn

from it, it falls on the center, that [taken point] is . We draw from a perpendicular to . Let on which the perpendicular falls be the center of the

section, and let the ratio to be not smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

Then I say that no straight line can be drawn from such that the part of

it cut off between the section and is one of minimal straight lines, and that,

if a straight line is drawn from it, such as , then the minimal straight line

drawn from falls on the side [of ] towards .

[Proof]. For let two perpendiculars and be drawn. Then the ratio

to is not smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum.

But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the

ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is greater than the ratio of the

transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

So let the ratio to be equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter

to the latus rectum. Then is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in

Theorem 10 of this Book, therefore is not one of minimal straight lines, as is

proved in Theorem 25 of this Book, and the minimal straight line drawn from

falls on the side of from .

[Proposition] 54

227

If a point is taken outside of one of two halves of an ellipse into which the

major axis divides it, and a perpendicular is drawn from it to [the major axis]

such that it ends at the center, and the ratio of that perpendicular together

with the half of the minor axis to the half of the minor axis is smaller than the

ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, then amongst the straight

lines drawn from that point to the section in each of two quadrants [into which

the minor axis divides the half of the ellipse] there is only one straight line such

that the part of it cut of between the section and the major axis is minimal

straight line, and for other straight lines drawn on that side no minimal straight

line is cut off from them [between the axis and the section, but for those of

them drawn closer to the vertex of the section than the straight line from which

a minimal straight line is cut off, the minimal straight lines drawn from their

ends are farther [from the vertex]. And for those of them that are farther [from

the vertex of the section than is the minimal straight line], the minimal straight

lines drawn from their ends are drawn closer [to the vertex].

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis , and the let us take outside of it a point such that when a perpendicular is drawn from it, it falls on the

center, that is . We draw from it a perpendicular to let it fall on the

center, and let the ratio to be smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

I say that of straight lines drawn from in one of two quadrants only one

is such that the part of it cut off between and is a minimal straight line

and that for those of the remaining straight lines drawn closer to the minimal

straight line drawn from the end [of each] of them is farther [from ] and for

those of them drawn farther from the minimal straight line drawn from the

end [of each] of them is closer [to ].

[Proof]. The ratio to is smaller than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. We make the ratio to equal to the ratio of

the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and draw and parallel to

and , and join [cutting at ].

Then I say that , which is a part of , is a minimal straight line because the ratio to [equal to the ratio to ] is equal to the ratio of

the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and is the center of the section.

Therefore is one of minimal straight lines as is proved in Theorem 10 of this

Book.

And is also one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 11 of

this Book.

And both these straight lines meet at .

228

greater than the distance of [from ], the minimal straight line drawn from

the end of [each of] them is closer to than it, and for those of them whose

distance from is smaller [than that of ], the minimal straight line drawn

from the end of [each of] them is farther from than it, as is proved in Theorem 46 of this Book 75.

[Proposition] 55

If a point is taken outside of one of two halves of an ellipse into which the

major of its two axes divides it and a perpendicular is drawn from it to the axis,

so as not to fall on the center, then there can be drawn from that point to the

section a straight line such that the part of it cut off between the section and

the major axis is one of minimal straight lines, and it cuts the other of two

halves of the major axis on which the perpendicular does not fall, and no other

straight line can be drawn from that point cutting that half [of the axis] such

that the part of it cut off is a minimal straight line76.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and center , and let

the taken point be , and the perpendicular drawn from it to the axis be the

perpendicular , where the center is not .

I say that there can be drawn from a straight line cutting such that

the part of it falling between and is one of minimal straight lines.

For let the ratio to be made equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter to the latus rectum, and likewise be made the ratio to .

We draw through a straight line parallel to , and draw through a

straight line parallel to .

We construct a hyperbola passing through with asymptotes and ,

as is shown in Problem 4 of Book II . Let that section be , and let it cut the

ellipse at .

Then I say that, when we join this straight line is one of minimal

straight lines.

[Proof]. For let be continued to meet and . Let it meet them at

and .

We draw two perpendiculars and to . Then is equal to , as

is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II . Therefore is equal to , and the ratio

to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,

and is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the

ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

229

But the ratio to was also [made] equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to is equal to the

ratio to .

But is equal to , and [hence] is equal to the sum of and .

So, when we subtract and from , and from , the ratio of the

remainder to the remainder is equal to the ratio of the whole , to the

whole , which is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum.

Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. And is a perpendicular [to the axis] and is the

center. Therefore is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 10

of this Book.

[Proposition] 56

And what we said in the preceding theorem concerning the fact that the

hyperbola will meet the ellipse will be proved by us drawing from a tangent

Go to the ellipse. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter to the latus rectum.

But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the

ratio to is greater than the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum, which is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is

greater than the ratio to , and pl., is greater than pl.,

But is equal to , and is equal to , therefore pl. is greater than

pl..

So the hyperbola passing through with asymptotes and cuts ,

as is proved from the converse of Theorem 12 of Book II . And is tangent to the section [at ]. Therefore the mentioned hyperbola cuts the

section .

[Proposition] 57

Furthermore now we make the ellipse whose major axis , and take

the point below the axis, and draw from it the perpendicular , and let the

center be , and draw from the straight line from which one of minimal

straight lines is cut off [between the axis and the section], let the minimal

straight line be , and let it cut , and draw and [on either side of

, meeting at and ] and from the center draw parallel to , now

230

is one of minimal straight lines, so it meets the minimal straight line drawn

from the center inside the angle , let it meet it at . Then the straight line

joining and cannot have a minimal straight line cut off from it between the

section and its [major axis], but the minimal straight line drawn from is closer

to [than ],as is proved in Theorem 46 of this Book.

Therefore is not one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem

25 of this Book.

Similarly too it will be proved that is not one of minimal straight lines,

and that the minimal straight line drawn from falls on the side of [from ].

[Proposition] 58

For every point taken outside one of conic sections provided that it is not

of the axis wherever the axis is continued in a straight line, it is possible for us

to draw from it some straight line such that the part of it which falls between

the section and its axis is one of minimal straight lines 77.

Let the section first be the parabola whose its continued axis .

We take outside of the section the point , not on the axis.

I say that there can be drawn from a straight line such that the part of

it which falls between and is one of minimal straight lines.

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular to wherever it falls on it be

drawn let be equal to the half of the latus rectum, and let be a perpendicular to .

We construct the hyperbola passing through with asymptotes

and , as is shown in Problem 4 of Book II .

Then it will cut the parabola, let it cut it at . We join and continue it

[on both sides] to and , and drop a perpendicular from onto .

Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II ,therefore

is equal to .

But is equal to the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is equal to

the half of the latus rectum. And is a perpendicular [from the axis to the

section]. Therefore is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem

8 of this Book.

[Proposition] 59

Furthermore we make the section the hyperbola or the ellipse whose

axis and center , and take outside of the section the point not on the

231

continuation of the axis, and draw from it the perpendicular to , and first

let that perpendicular not fall on the center.

I say that it is possible for us to draw from a straight line such that the

part of it falling between and is a minimal straight line.

[Proof]. For let the ratio to be equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter to the latus rectum. We draw at right angles [to ], and make

the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum, and pass through a straight line parallel to . We construct the

hyperbola passing through E with the asymptotes and , as is shown in

Problem 4 of Book II . Then it will meet the section . Let that hyperbola be

, and let it meet the section at . We join and continue it a straight

line [on both sides] to and and draw the perpendicular [to ]. Then

is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II, therefore is equal to

, and [hence] is equal to , and is equal to .

And the ratio to is equal to the ratio to , which is equal to

the ratio to because both ratios to and to are equal to the

ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore the ratio to

is equal to the ratio to .

And when we add the ratios in the case of the hyperbola and separate

them in the case of the ellipse, the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .

And convertendo in the case of the ellipse and dividendo in the case of

the hyperbola the ratio to [equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter

to the latus rectum] is equal to the ratio to , and is a perpendicular to

. So is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorems 9 and 10 of

this Book.

The proof is similar if the perpendicular falls outside of .

[Proposition] 60

Furthermore we make the perpendicular which is drawn from the point taken

outside of the hyperbola fall on the center as the perpendicular , and make

the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum and draw parallel to [to meet the section at ], and join and continued it to [meet the axis at] , then I say that is one of minimal straight

lines 79.

[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular to be drawn. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,

and is equal to the ratio to .

232

to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

And is a perpendicular [from the section to the axis]. Therefore is one of

minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.

[Proposition] 61

Furthermore [in the case of the hyperbola] we make the perpendicular falling from the taken point be on the other side of the center as the perpendicular

, and let the center be , and the section , and make the ratio to

equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and also make

the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum, and draw parallel to , and and parallel to , and construct

the hyperbola passing through with the asymptotes and , then [that

hyperbola] will cut the section , let it cut it at , and let the hyperbola be .

We join and continue it to [meet at] .

I say that is one of minimal straight lines 80 .

[Proof]. For let perpendicular to be drawn . Then the ratio to

is equal to the ratio to . Therefore pl. [equal to pl.,] is equal

to pl. [equal to pl.,].

But pl. is equal to pl. because of the asymptotes, as is proved in

Theorem 12 of Book II.

Therefore pl. is equal to pl., and the ratio to is equal to

the ratio to . But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .

Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to , and [equal to

] is equal to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to ,

and [also] is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is

equal to the ratio to .

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio

to is equal to the ratio to . But the ratio to is equal to the

ratio to , and the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .

Therefore the ratio of the remainder [of without , namely ], to

the remainder [ of without , namely ], is equal to the ratio to .

And dividendo the ratio to is equal to the ratio to , which is

equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum.

Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum. Therefore is one of minimal straight lines, as is

proved in Theorem 9 of this Book.

233

[Proposition] 62

It is possible for us to draw one of minimal straight lines through any

point, which is between one of conic sections and its axis 81.

Let the section first be the parabola whose axis . We take in the

mentioned place the point .

Then I say that it is possible for us to draw through one of minimal

straight lines.

[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn.

Let the half of the latus rectum be .

We draw from the perpendicular to , and construct a hyperbola

passing through with asymptotes and , then this hyperbola will cut the

parabola. So [let it cut it at , and] let the hyperbola be . We join the

straight line and continue it to [meet at] [and to meet at ].

Then I say that is one of minimal straight lines.

[Proof]. For let The perpendicular be drawn. Then is equal to ,

as is proved in Theorem 8 of Book II. Therefore is equal to .

But is the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is the half of the latus

rectum. So is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 8 of this

Book.

[Proposition] 63

Furthermore we make the section the hyperbola or the ellipse whose

axis and center , and take in the mentioned place the point .

I say that it is possible for us to draw through one of minimal straight

82

lines .

[Proof]. For let the perpendicular [to the axis] be drawn, and make the

ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,

and likewise [make] the ratio to [equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum].

We draw [through ] parallel to , and parallel to , and construct a hyperbola passing through with asymptotes and . Then this

section will cut the hyperbola and the ellipse, so [let it cut it at , and let the

section be . We join the straight line and continue it [on both sides] to

and , and drop the perpendicular .

Then I say that is one of minimal straight lines.

234

Therefore is equal to , and the ratio of to the difference between

and is equal to the ratio to .

But is equal to , and is equal to . Therefore the ratio of

to the difference between and is equal to the ratio to .

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio

of to the difference between and is equal to the ratio to , and

dividendo in the case of the ellipse and componendo in the case of the hyperbola the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to

the latus rectum, and is a perpendicular to . Therefore is one of minimal straight lines.

[Proposition] 64

the straight line drawn from it to the vertex of the section forms with the axis

an acute angle, and [such that] it is not possible to draw from that point to the

section a straight line such that the part of it falling between the section and

the axis is one of the minimal straight lines, or if only one of straight lines drawn

from that point to one side [of the axis], which is different from the side where

the point is, can have cut off from it [by the axis and the section] a minimal

straight line, then the straight line drawn from that point to the vertex of the

section is the shortest of the straight lines drawn from that point to that side

of the section, and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are

shorter than those drawn farther 83.

Let the section first be the parabola whose axis , and let there

be the point below the axis and let there be the point below the axis,

and let the angle which is formed by the straight line drawn from to

vertex of the section and the axis be an acute angle, and first let it not be

possible to draw from to the section any straight line such that the part of it

cut off between the section and the axis is one of minimal straight lines

Then I say that the shortest of straight lines drawn from to the section

is , and that of the remaining straight lines [drawn from to the section]

those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther .

That will be proved after we prove that when straight lines drawn from

ending at points of the section, in the case where not one of these straight lines

can have a minimal cut off from it [between the axis and the section],

235

then the minimal straight lines drawn from the points on the section and falling

on the axis fall on that side of the straight lines drawn from which is farther

from . We prove that as follows.

We draw from the perpendicular , then is either equal to the half

of the latus rectum, or greater [than it], or smaller than it.

First let it be equal to it or smaller than it. Then for straight lines from

drawn from to the section the part of them cut off between the section and

the axis is not one of minimal straight lines, but the minimal straight lines drawn

to the axis from the points to which [the straight lines drawn from ] reach fall

on that side of drawn straight lines which is farther from , as is proved in

Theorem 49 of this Book.

Furthermore we make greater than the half of the latus rectum, and

let the half of the latus rectum be , and let be the double , and draw

from the perpendicular to , and [let be such that] the ratio to is

equal to the ratio to , then is either equal to , or smaller than it, or

greater than it.

Now that is not equal is evident for it was proved in Theorem 51 of

this Book that when is equal to , then one straight line can be drawn from

such that the part of it cut off between the section and the axis is a minimal

straight line, but we have stated that no straight line can be drawn from such

that the part of it cut off between the section and the axis is a minimal straight

line. Therefore is not equal to .

Similarly too it will be proved that cannot be smaller than for it was

proved in Theorem 51 of this Book that, when is smaller than , then there

can be drawn from two straight lines such that the part which the axis cuts

off from each of them is a minimal straight line, but we had made a point such

that it is not possible to draw from it a straight line such that a minimal straight

line is cut off from it between the axis and the section.

Therefore is not smaller than . And it was proved that is not equal to

it.

And it was also proved in Theorem 51 of this Book that, when is

greater than , then no straight line can be drawn from such that the part of

it falling between the section and its axis is a minimal straight line, and the for

the straight lines drawn from to the section, when minimal straight lines are

drawn from their ends to the axis, they fall on the axis [removed] from those

straight lines on the side which farther from .

Therefore it has been proved that if is equal to for smaller than the

half of the latus rectum, then it must be that for the straight lines drawn from

236

to the section, when minimal straight lines are drawn from the points of their

ends, they fall on the side which is farther from [than the original straight

lines], and [it has also been proved that] if is greater than the half of the

latus rectum, then is greater than , as we proved, and in that case it must

also be that for the straight lines drawn from to the section, when minimal

straight lines are drawn from the points of their ends, they fall on the side which

is farther from .

Therefore since that has been proved, then I say that is the shortest

of the straight lines drawn from to the section , and that of the remaining

straight lines [drawn to from ], those drawn closer to it are shorter than

those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let and be drawn. Then, if possible, first let be equal

to . We draw from the straight line tangent to the section. Then is

perpendicular to the axis , as is proved in Theorem 17 of Book I because it is

parallel to the ordinates dropped on the axis. Therefore the angle is obtuse.

Therefore we draw from the perpendicular to , then it falls in side of

the section because it is not possible for any other straight line to fall between

the tangent and section, as is proved in Theorem 32 of Book I .

We draw from the tangent to the section. Then the minimal straight

line drawn between and the axis falls on the side of farther from , as we

proved above. And [that minimal straight line] forms a right angle with , as is

proved in Theorem 27 of this Book. Therefore the angle is acute.

So if we make center, and with radios draw a circle, then [that circle] will cut . And will be outside of it for the angle is acute, and the

angle is right.

Therefore let the circle be the circle .Then it cuts the section ,

let it cut it at .

We join and draw tangent to the section. Then falls outside of

the circle, and the minimal straight line drawn between and the axis is farther

from than , as we proved [above].

And it forms a right angle with , as is proved in Theorem 27 of this

Book. Therefore the angle is acute, and cuts the circle. But it [also] fell

outside of it, which is impossible. Therefore is not equal to .

So, if possible, let be greater than . Then, when we make center,

and with the radius draw a circle, the circle will cut . And a part of will

be inside of the circle, as we proved. And the circle will cut the section because

it cuts . Let [it cut the section at , and let] the circle be .

237

We join , and draw from a tangent to the section. Then it falls inside the circle for the minimal straight line drawn between the axis and falls

on the side of farther from , and [hence] the angle is acute. Therefore

cuts the circle.

But we had proved that it falls outside of it, which is impossible. Therefore is not greater than , and we had proved that it is not equal to it.

Therefore it is smaller than it.

Then I say that of the remaining straight lines [drawn from to the section] those drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let the tangent be continued to . Then the angle is

acute [hence] the angle is obtuse. So we draw from the perpendicular

to , then falls inside of the section. We draw from the tangent

to the section.

First let , if that is possible, be equal to . Then if we describe a circle

on the center with the radius , it will fall outside of because the angle

is acute. But it falls inside of because is perpendicular to . Therefore it cuts the section.

And when we joined the point at which it cuts it and with a straight line,

the absurdity of that is proved as is was in the case of the equality of and

.

Similarly too if is greater than the impossibility is proved as it was

proved in the case of and , where was made greater than . Therefore is the smallest of the straight lines drawn from to the section ,

and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are shorter than

those drawn farther.

Therefore it has been proved that, if is in the situation that there cannot be drawn from it to the section any straight line such that the part of it cut

off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, and the

angle is acute, then the smallest of straight lines drawn from to the section is , and that those [of the other straight lines] drawn closer to are

shorter than those drawn farther.

But if a minimal straight line can be cut off from only one of straight lines

drawn from to the section, and the angle is again acute , then it will be

proved, in Theorem 67 of this Book, that is again the smallest of straight

lines drawn from to the section, and that of the remaining straight lines those

drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn farther.

[Proposition] 65

238

center , and take some point below the axis such that, when we join , the

angle is acute and [such] that for none of straight lines drawn from to

the section is the part of it cut off between the section and the axis one of

minimal straight lines, then I say that is the shortest of straight lines drawn

from to the section , and that of the remaining straight lines those drawn

closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther 84.

[Proof]. All of minimal straight lines drawn from each of the points on the

section to the axis fall on the side farther from than the straight line

joining that point to for we draw from the perpendicular to the axis then

is either equal to or greater than or smaller than the half of the latus rectum.

Now if it is equal to it or smaller than it, then for straight lines drawn from

to the section , when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends to

the axis, they are farther from than those [straight lines], as is proved in

Theorem 50 of this Book.

But if is greater than the half of the latus rectum, then we make the

ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum,

and we imagine two straight lines and in continuous proportion between

and , and draw from the perpendicular to , And construct[the

straight line such that] the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to

pl.,.

Then I say that is greater than .

[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, for it not to be greater than it, then first

let it be equal to it. Then it was proved Theorem 52 of this Book that in this

case one can draw from a [single] straight line such that the part of it

cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines.

But that is not so, therefore is not equal to .

Similarly too it will be shown that is not smaller than for if it were

smaller than it, then it would be possible to draw from two straight lines such

that the part of [each of] them cut off [between the axis and the section] is

one of minimal straight lines, therefore is greater than .

And it was proved in Theorem 52 of this Book that, when is greater

than , no straight line can be drawn from such that the pare of it cut off between the section and the axis is one of minimal straight lines, and that the

minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of those straight lines are farther

from than the straight lines themselves.

239

Therefore it has been proved that for all of straight lines drawn from to

the section, when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends two the axis,

then these [minimal straight lines] are farter from than other straight lines.

And that will be proved by the method similar to that by which it was

proved in the case of the parabola in the preceding theorem, that is smaller

than all [other] straight lines drawn from to the section , and that of the

remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are smaller than those drawn

farther.

[Proposition] 66

Furthermore we make the section the ellipse whose major axis

and center , with the point below the major axis, and let the angle be

acute, and draw from center the perpendicular to the axis, and let be a

point such that it is not possible to draw from it to [the quadrant] a straight

line such that the part of it cut off between the section and the axis is one of

minimal straight lines, then I say that is the shortest of straight lines drawn

from to [the quadrant] , and that of the remaining straight lines those

drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn

farther 85.

[Proof]. For the perpendicular drawn from to the axis falls between

and , for if it were possible for it to fall between and , then it would be possible to draw from to the section a straight line such that the part of it cut off

between the section and the axis is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in

Theorem 55 of this Book, but that is not so, therefore the perpendicular does

not fall between and .

Furthermore it does not fall on the center for if it fell on the center ,

when it is continued in a straight line, the part of it falling between the section

and the axis would be one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 11

of this Book. Therefore it falls between and , as the perpendicular .

Now is either equal to the half of the latus rectum, or smaller than it,

or greater than it.

But if it is smaller than it or equal to it, then for the straight lines drawn

from to the section , no minimal straight line can be cut off from them

[between the axis and the section], and when minimal straight lines are drawn

from their ends to the axis, they fall on the side which is farther from than

the straight lines themselves, as is proved in Theorem 50 of this Book.

240

And if is greater than the half of the latus rectum, we make the ratio

to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and

take two straight lines and in continuous proportion between and ,

and draw at right angles [to the axis], and construct [a straight line such

that] as is to , so pl., is to pl.,. Then is either equal to or

greater than it or smaller than it.

Now if is equal to , then a [single] straight line can be drawn from

to such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one

of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 52 of this Book. But that is

not so.

And if were smaller than , then there could be drawn [from to ]

two straight lines such that the parts of them cut off [between the axis and the

section] are both minimal straight lines, and if is greater than , then no

straight line can be drawn from to such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, and when a

straight line is drawn from to the section , the minimal straight line drawn

from its and end to the axis is farther from than the straight line itself, as is

proved in Theorem 52 of this Book.

Thus it has been proved in every case that the minimal straight lines

drawn from every point of the section to the axis are farther from than

the straight lines joining those points to .

Next we can prove, as we did in the case of the parabola that is

shorter than all [other] straight lines drawn from to the section , and that

of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are shorter than those

drawn farther.

And the proof for that is the same for all three sections, now that we

have proved for each of the sections that the minimal straight lines drawn from

the section to the axis fall on the side which is farther from than the straight

lines themselves.

[Proposition] 67

Furthermore we make the section the parabola or the hyperbola

whose axis , and let there be some point below the axis, and let the angle

be acute, and let there be just one straight line among those drawn from

to the section such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, then I say again that is the shortest of

241

straight lines drawn from to the section , and that of the remaining

straight lines those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther 86 .

[Proof] . For let from to the axis perpendicular be drawn. Then I say

that for all straight lines drawn from to the section , then minimal straight

lines are drawn from their ends to the axis, these straight lines are farther from

than the straight lines themselves, except for one single straight line.

For in the cases of the parabola and the hyperbola is greater than the

half to the latus rectum, for if it were not greater than it, then it would not be

possible to draw from a straight line such that the part of it cut off [between

the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorems 49 and 50 of this Book. Therefore is greater than the half to the latus

rectum.

Then if the section is a parabola we cut off from next to a straight

line equal to the half of the latus rectum, and do the other construction as we

did in Theorem 64 of this Book, until we find the constructed the straight line

against which we measured . Then is equal to it for if it were smaller than

it, then it would be possible to draw from two straight lines such that the part

cut off from [each of] them [between the axis and the section] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 51 of this Book. But that is not so.

Therefore is equal to the constructed straight line. And it was proved

in that theorem that when that is so, then only one straight line can be drawn

from [to the section] such that the part of it cut off is one of minimal straight

lines, and that the minimal strait lines drawn from the ends of other straight

lines [between and the section] are farther from than the straight lines

themselves.

That will also be shown in the same way in this section if it is a hyperbola

for we make the center and divide into two parts such that the ratio of

one to other is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and carry out the rest of the construction as we did in Theorem 65 of this

Book until we find the constructed straight line against which we measured .

Then in this case too, as in the case on the parabola, is equal to the

found straight line. Therefore only one straight line can be drawn from [to the

section] such that the part of it cut off [ between the axis and the section] is

one of minimal straight lines, and for other straight lines drawn from to the

section, when minimal straight lines are drawn from their ends to the axis, these

[minimal] straight lines are farther from than the straight lines themselves, as

is proved in Theorem 52 of this Book.

242

And a similar was shown too in the case of the parabola. Then let the

straight line drawn from to the section such that the part of it cut off by

the axis is one of minimal straight lines .

We draw from to the section between and two straight lines and

. Then we prove as we proved in Theorem 64 of this Book that is the

shortest of straight lines drawn from and ending at the section between and

, and that of the remaining straight lines such as and between those

two points, those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther.

Then I say that is shorter than . For if it is not shorter than it,

first, let it be equal to it. We draw [to the section between and ], then

is greater than as we proved previously. Therefore it is greater than .

So we cut off from a straight line greater than but shorter

than , and make center and draw a circle with the radius . Then it will

cut the straight line and the arc of the section. So let it cut them as the

circle [where N is on the section]. We join , then is closer than to

. Therefore is smaller than . But is equal to . is smaller than

. But it was [constructed as] greater than it, that impossible. Therefore

and are not equal.

Again we make, if possible, greater than , and cut off from the

straight line greater than but smaller than . We make center and

draw a circle with the radius , then that circle will cut the straight line

and will cut the arc of the section. So let it cut them as the arc , we join

. Then is smaller than because it is closer to .

But is equal to . Therefore is smaller than , but that is impossible. Therefore is not greater than .

And we had [already] proved that it is not equal to it. Therefore it is

smaller than it.

Thus it has been proved that all straight lines drawn from to [the arc]

are shorter than .

Again we draw and in the remaining arc of the section, on the

other side of . Then I say that is smaller than , and that is smaller

than .

[Proof]. For let the tangents and to the section be drawn. Then

the angles and are obtuse because the minimal straight lines

drawn from and to the axis are farther from than straight lines drawn from

their vertices to , each [being farther from ] than its corresponding [straight

line].

243

the section. Then from that we can prove, as we proved in Theorem 64 of this

Book that is shorter than .

Similarly of the straight lines drawn from on the other side of all of

those drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther.

And I say that is the shortest of them.

[Proof]. The axis cuts off from a minimal straight line. Therefore the

angle between the tangent drawn from and is right.

First we make, if possible, equal to , and draw between them.

Then is smaller than because it is closer to . Therefore is smaller

than .

We make [on ] smaller than but greater than , and make

center, and draw a circle with the radius , then it will cut between and .

Let the circle be , and let it cut it at . We join . Then is smaller

because it is closer to .

But is equal to . Therefore is smaller than . But it is [also ]

greater than it, which is impossible. Therefore is not equal to .

Therefore, if possible, let it be smaller than it. We make [on ]

greater than but smaller than . Therefore when we make center and draw

a circle with the radius , it will cut the arc of the section let it cut it at ,

and let it be the circle . We join . Then is smaller than because it is

closer to .

But is equal to . Therefore is smaller than . But it is [also]

greater than it, which is impossible. Therefore is not smaller than .

And we had [already] proved that it is not equal to it. Therefore it is greater

than it . Therefore is the shortest of straight lines drawn from to the arc

of the section.

Thus it has been proved from what we said, that is shorter than all

straight lines drawn from to , and that of the remaining straight lines

those drawn closer to it are shorter than those drawn farther.

[Proposition] 68

If is the parabola whose axis , and and are the tangents to

the section [where is closer to the vertex than ], then is smaller than

87 .

[Proof]. For let be joined and from the straight line [meeting

244

at ] parallel to be drawn. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of Book II . We draw from the perpendicular to the axis. Then the

angle is right, therefore the angle is obtuse. And is common to the

triangles and . Therefore the sides and are [respectively] equal

to the sides and . And the angle is smaller than the angle .

Therefore the base is smaller than the base .

[Proposition] 69

If there is the hyperbola whose axis and center , and two tangents

to it and [where is closer to the vertex ], is smaller than 88.

[Proof]. For let is joined and continued in a straight line two [meet

at] , and be joined. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of

Book II . Therefore we draw the perpendicular , and continue to [meet it

at] . Then the angle is right, and the angle is greater than the angle

therefore the angle is obtuse, and the angle is obtuse. Therefore

the angle is smaller than the angle . And is equal to , and is

common to the triangles and . Therefore the base is smaller than

the base .

[Proposition] 70

If there is the ellipse whose major axis and minor [axis] , and

there are drawn between and on one of the quadrants of the section, and

two tangents and to the section, then the closer of these two to the

minor axis is greater than the farther 89.

[Proof]. For let be joined, and be drawn from to the center

[cutting at ]. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of

Book II. And is closer to , the half of the minor axis, than , and is

closer to , the half of the major axis. Therefore is greater than .

And and are [respectively] equal to and . Therefore the angle

is greater than the angle , and the angle is greater than the .

And and are [respectively] equal to and . Therefore the base is

greater than the base .

[Proposition] 71

If is the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis [and center

], and and are perpendiculars to the major axis, being greater than

245

, and and are tangent to the section, and it is evident that they will

meet each because of that we said in Theorem 27 of Book II, then is greater

than 90.

[Proof]. For let and be joined, and let be continued to [meet

the section at] , and let be joined and continued to [meet the section at]

. Then is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 30 of Book I .

And is equal to , and is a perpendicular to . Therefore is

equal to .

But was [shown to be] equal to . Therefore is equal to .

We join , then it is parallel to . And when we draw the perpendicular [to the major axis], it is also parallel to , therefore it is equal to it.

But was [assumed] greater than . Therefore is greater than

. Therefore is closer to [the half of the major axis] than . Therefore

is greater than , as is proved in Theorem 11 of this Book.

And we had proved that is equal to . Therefore is greater than

.

But is equal to as is proved in Theorem 30 of Book II. Therefore

the angle is greater than the angle , and the angle is greater than

the angle . And the sides and are [respectively] equal to the sides

and . Therefore the base is greater than the base .

[Proposition] 72

possible to draw from it two straight lines such that the part which the axis cuts

off from each of them is one of minimal straight lines, then the closer of those

two straight lines to the vertex of the section is greater than all [other] straight

lines drawn from that point to the arc of the section from the vertex of the section to the other, second, straight line, and of the remaining straight lines drawn

to that arc on both sides those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn

farther, and second straight line is smaller than all straight lines drawn from the

point to the remaining [part] on that side of the section, that is the complement of the first arc on that side, and of the remaining straight lines drawn to

that other [complementary] arc those drawn closer to it are smaller than those

drawn farther 91.

Let the section be with the axis , and the point below it, and two

straight lines and drawn from it to the section such that the parts that

cuts off them are two minimal straight lines.

246

I say that is greater than all [other straight lines drawn from to the

arc] , and that those [straight lines] on both sides, which are closer to

are greater than those drawn farther, and that is smaller than all straight

lines drawn from to [where is an arbitrary point on the other side of

from ], and that of those straight lines those drawn closer to are smaller

than those drawn farther.

[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular to be drawn. We construct against the straight line which we measure as we constructed it in

Theorems 64 and 65 of this Book. Then is smaller than that straight line for

if it were greater than it, it would not be possible to draw from a straight line

such that the part of it cut off [between the axis and the section] is one of

minimal straight lines, and if it were equal to it, then it would be possible to

draw only one straight line [of that kind], as is proved in Theorems 51 and 52

of this Book.

Therefore since is smaller than the constructed straight line, then only

two straight lines can be drawn from it such that the part of [each of]

them cut off is one of minimal straight lines, and the minimal straight lines

drawn from the ends of the straight lines between and are closer to

than the straight lines themselves, but as for minimal straight lines drawn from

the ends of the remaining straight lines, they are farther [from the vertex], as is

proved in Theorems 51 and 52 of this Book.

Now as to [the statement] that is greater than all [other] straight

lines drawn from to [the arc] , which will be proved as we proved it in Theorem 64 of this Book.

And similarly it will be proved that of those straight lines which are on the

side of [from ] those drawn closer to are greater than those drawn farther.

But as to [the statement] that is the greatest of the straight lines

drawn [from ] to [the arc] , and that of those straight lines drawn closer to

it are greater than those drawn farther, that will be proved as follows. We draw

and [between and ] and draw from and tangents and

to the section. Then is one of minimal straight lines, and is tangent to

the section, so the angle is right, as is proved in Theorems 27 and 28 of

this Book, and the angle is obtuse because the minimal straight line drawn

from to [the axis] is closer to than , as is proved in Theorems 51 and

52 of this Book. And [thus] the angle is right, and the angle is obtuse.

Therefore the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the sum of sq. and

sq..

247

Book. Therefore is greater than .

Similarly too it will be proved that is greater than because the angle is acute, and, when we make tangent the angle is obtuse.

Similarly also it will be proved that is greater than .

Therefore is greater than all [other] straight lines drawn from to the

arc of the section, and of those straight lines drawn closer to it are greater

than those drawn farther.

Now as to [the statement] that is smaller than all straight lines drawn

from to [the arc] , which will be proved by a method like we followed in

Theorem 64 of this Book.

And similarly too it will be proved that of straight lines drawn [from ] to

those [straight lines] drawn closer to are smaller than those drawn farther.

[Proposition] 73

If a point is taken below the major or two axes of an ellipse not on the

continuation of the minor axis, and of straight lines drawn from that point to

the section only one can have cut off from it [between the major axis and the

section] one of minimal straight lines, then only that [minimal] straight line is

greater than all other straight lines [drawn from that point to the section], and

of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greaten than those

drawn farther, and the shortest on straight lines drawn from that point to that

half of the section to which the greatest straight line is drawn is the straight

line joining that point and the vertex of the section adjacent to that point 92.

Let there be the ellipse whose [major] axis and center . We draw

through the perpendicular to the axis, and take below the axis the point

, let be a point such that only one straight line can be drawn from it to

such that the part of it which the axis cuts off is one of minimal straight

lines.

Now concerning this straight line from which a minimal straight line is cut

off, since no other straight line can be drawn from that point to the section

such that the axis cuts from it one of minimal straight lines, but it is [always]

possible for us to draw from [just one] straight line such that the part of it

cut off by the axis is one of minimal straight lines, provided that it cuts the

other one of two halves of the axis, that is to say the half on which the perpendicular drawn from [to the axis] does not fall, as is proved in Theorem 55 of

248

this Book, Therefore the straight line drawn from to such that the part

cut off from it is one of minimal straight lines cuts .

So let that straight line be , we join .

Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to ,

and that of straight lines on either side of it those drawn closer to it are greater

than those drawn farther, and that the shortest of all them is .

[Proof]. The section is the ellipse, and has been taken below its

major axis, being a point such that only one straight line can be drawn from it

to the section such that a minimal straight line can be cut off from it.

Now it has been proved in Theorem 57 of this Book that, when that is the

case, the remaining minimal straight lines drawn from a point on the section to

the axis, whatever point that may be, are farther from or from , than the

straight lines joining that point to , and that can be proved for any of straight

lines whether they are farther from , or from . So we draw some straight lines

, , and from to the section [where and are on , and is on

], and draw from a tangent to the section, then the angle is obtuse. So we draw from the perpendicular to , then it falls in side of the

section, as is proved in Theorem 32 of Book I.

We draw from the tangent to the section. Then the minimal

straight line drawn from to the axis is farther from than , as is proved in

Theorem 57 of this Book. Therefore the angle is acute. But the angle

was [made] right . So we can prove as we proved in Theorem 64 of this Book

by drawing the perpendicular [to ] from , that is not greater than ,

and not equal to it. Therefore is smaller than .

Furthermore is tangent to the section, and the angle is obtuse,

so we draw from the perpendicular to . Then it falls in side of the section, since no straight line can fall between the tangent and the section, as is

proved in Theorem 32 of Book I.

We also draw through the tangent to the section. Then the minimal

straight line drawn from is farther from than , as is proved in Theorem 57

of this Book. Therefore the angle is acute. So again it can be proved as it

was proved in Theorem 64 of this Book that is smaller than .

Furthermore we join and draw through the tangent to the section, then the angle is right, and the angle is acute. And therefore

is smaller than , as is proved in Theorem 64 of this Book.

I also say that is shorter than for we draw through the tangent

to the section. Then since is an ellipse, and the perpendicular to

its axis, has been drawn through its center, and and are tangents, then

249

of sq. and sq. is smaller than the sum of sq. and sq. because the

angle is obtuse, and the angle is acute. Therefore is smaller than

.

Similarly too it will be proved that is smaller than by drawing

[the tangent] .

So it has been proved that of these straight lines those drawn closer

to are greater than those drawn farther.

Now I say that is greater than . We draw tangent to the section.

Then the angle is right, as is proved in Theorem 28 of this Book, and the

angle is obtuse, and is greater than , as is proved in Theorem 71 of

this Book. Therefore is greater than . Therefore is the greatest of

straight lines drawn from to [the arc] , and of these straight lines those

drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther,

and is the shortest of them.

So we draw , and to [the arc] , and draw from the tangent

Go to the section, and perpendicular to . Then it falls in side of the section, as is proved in Theorem 32 of Book I .

So we draw from the tangent to the section. Then the minimal

straight line drawn from to the axis is farther from than , therefore the

angle is acute. Hence it will be proved that is smaller than , and we

will prove as we proved in Theorem 64 of this Book that of straight lines drawn

from to the section between and those drawn closer to are shorter

than those drawn farter. Therefore is smaller than .

Then I say that is smaller than .

[Proof]. If it is not smaller than it, then it is equal to it or greater than it.

So it possible let it be greater than it. We make greater than and

smaller than .Then when we make center, and draw a circle with the radius

, then it will cut the arc of the section, let it cut it at the point , as the

circle . We join , then is farther from than . Therefore is

greater than .

But is equal to , therefore is greater than . But it is [also]

smaller than it, that is impossible. So is not greater than .

So, if possible, let it be equal to it. We draw between these two straight

lines . Then is greater than , therefore is greater than . So we make

greater than and smaller than . Then when we make center, and draw

a circle , with the radius it will cut the arc of the section, let it cut it

at . We join . Then is greater than because it is farther from .

250

smaller than it, which is impossible. Therefore is greater than .

So is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the section ,

and those [straight lines] drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farter,

and is the shortest of straight lines drawn from to [the arc] . But is

greater than .

Therefore is the shortest of straight lines drawn from to the section

, and the greatest of them is , and those [straight lines] drawn closer to

it are greater than those drawn farther.

[Proposition] 74

If a point is taken below the major of the axes of an ellipse, and it is possible for us to draw from that point to the arc of the section opposite to it just

two straight lines such that the parts cut off from them [by the axis] are minimal straight lines, then the greatest of straight lines drawn from that point to

that side of the section is that one of two straight lines from each of which a

minimal straight line can be cut off which meets the minor axis, and of straight

lines on either side of it those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn

farther, and the shortest of those straight lines is the straight line drawn from

that point to that one of two vertices of the section which is closer to it 93.

Let the ellipse be whose major axis , and let there be a point below the major axis, and let the center of the section be .

We draw through the perpendicular to the axis. Let it be possible

for us to draw from just two straight lines such that the parts of them cut off

between and the axis of the section are minimal straight lines, let those

two straight lines which we stated to be drawn from be and ,

and let there be no other straight line apart from them which can be drawn from

it so that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines.

Then I say that which cuts the minor axis is the greatest of all straight

lines drawn from to the section , and that [for straight lines] on both

sides of it those drawn closer two are greater than those drawn farther, and

that is the shortest of mentioned those straight lines.

[Proof]. For let from the perpendicular to the axis be drawn. Then it

is evident that does not fall on the center for if it were to fall on the center,

then it would be impossible to draw from a straight line such that the part of

it which the axis cuts off is one of minimal straight lines except for perpendicular alone [when continued to meet the section], or [else] would be possible

to draw two straight lines besides it such that the part of each of them cut off

251

[by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorems 53 and

54 of this Book. But that is not the case [here by hypothesis].

So let the perpendicular fall between and . Then is greater than

the half of the latus rectum for, if it were not greater than it, then it would not

be possible to draw from a straight line between and such that the part

of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 50 of this Book. Therefore , as we said, is greater than the half of the

latus rectum.

So we make the ratio to equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and take two mean proportionals between and

, and construct the perpendicular as we constructed it in Theorem 64 of this

Book, and do the rest of what we did so as to generate the straight line against

which we measure .

Then is equal to that generated straight line for if it were greater than

it, then it would not be possible to draw from to a straight line such that

the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and if it were

smaller than it, then it would be possible to draw to [the quadrant] two

straight lines such that the part of them cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal

straight lines, as is proved in Theorem 52 of this Book, and it would also be

possible to draw from another, third, straight line to [the quadrant] , as is

proved in Theorem 55 of this Book. Therefore, is equal to the generated

straight line.

And it was proved in Theorem 52 of this Book that, when that is the case,

then only one straight line can be drawn from to [the quadrant] such that

the part of it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, and that the

minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of the remaining straight lines drawn

two are farther from than the straight lines themselves.

So we draw from to the section the straight lines , , and . Then

it will be proved, as we proved in Theorems 72 and 73 [of this Book] that is

smaller than , and is smaller than .

Then I say that is smaller than for if it is not smaller than it, let it

be greater than it or equal to it, and, first it be equal to it. We draw between

them , where is greater than , and is equal to . Therefore is

greater than . So we cut off from the straight line shorter than , but

greater than , make center and draw the circle with the radius , then

it cuts the arc [of the section], Let it cut it at . We join . Then is

greater than because it is farther from .

252

smaller than it, which is impossible.

In a similar way it will be proved that is not smaller than . Therefore

it is greater than it. So is greatest of straight lines drawn from to [the arc]

, and of these straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those

drawn farther, and the shortest of them is .

Similarly too it will be proved that is the greatest of straight lines

drawn between and , and that of these straight lines those drawn closer to it

are greater than those drawn farther, just as we proved the matter of straight

lines drawn to [the arc] .

Then I also say that is the smallest of straight lines drawn to [the arc]

.

[Proof]. For let be drawn [to ]. Then, if it is possible, for not to

be greater than , it is equal to it or smaller than it.

First, let it be equal to it. We draw between and . Then is

smaller than , therefore is smaller . We make greater than but

smaller than and make center, and draw the circle with the radius .

Then it will cut the arc [of the section], let it cut it at . We join . Then

is smaller than because it is farther from , and is equal to . Therefore is smaller . But it is [also] greater than it, which is impossible. So

is not equal to .

Similarly too it will be proved that it is not greater than it.

Therefore is greater than all [other] straight lines drawn from to

[the quadrant] , and of these straight lines those drawn closer to it are

greater than those drawn farther.

Now is the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , with

inside of the angle , from which has been drawn to the arc of the

section. So it will be proved as we proved in the preceding theorem that is

the greatest of straight lines drawn from to , and that of these straight

lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.

And it has [already] been proved that is the greatest if straight lines

drawn to [the arc] , and that of these straight lines those drawn closer to it

are greater than those drawn farther.

So is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the section ,

and of the remaining straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than

those drawn farther, and is the smallest of them.

[Proposition] 75

253

If a point is taken below the major of two axes an ellipse, and it is possible

to draw from it to the section three straight lines such that the parts of them

which the axis cuts off are minimal straight lines, two of these straight lines being on that one of two sides of the minor axis on which is the point, and one

straight line being on the opposite side, then of straight lines drawn from that

point to the arc of the section between the midmost of three straight lines and

that vertex of the section which is farther from the point, the greatest is that

one of three straight lines which is drawn on the side opposite to that in which

is the point, and those of these straight lines drawn closer to it are greater than

those drawn farther, but as for straight lines drawn from that point to the section which is between the midmost of three straight lines and that vertex of the

section which is next to the point, the greatest of them is the straight line next

to that vertex of the section which is on the side on which is the point, and

those of these straight lines which are closer to it are greater than those which

are farther, and the greatest of these straight lines and [also] of other straight

lines mentioned previously is that one of three straight lines which is drawn to

the side opposite to the side on which is the point 94.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and center . Let the

perpendicular passing through the center be , and the point below the axis be

. And let there be drawn from it three straight lines , , and such that

the parts cut off from them [by the axis] are minimal straight lines , two of

these straight lines and are on the side [of the minor axis] on which is ,

and one straight line is on other side.

Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the

section , and that of straight lines between and those drawn closer to it

on both sides are greater than those drawn farter, and that is the greatest

of straight lines drawn between and , and that those of these straight lines

that are closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.

[Proof]. and are minim al straight lines. So we will prove as we

proved in the case of the parabola in Theorem 72 of this Book that is the

greatest of straight lines drawn from to [the arc] , and that of these

straight lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.

Furthermore is one of minimal straight lines, and is also one of

minimal straight lines. So it will be proved then, as is was proved in the preceding theorem that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to[the arc]

.

And I also say that is greater than . For let from , , and the

perpendiculars , , and be drawn. Then the ratio to is equal to

254

the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum as is proved in Theorem 15 of this Book.

And likewise too the ratio to is equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter to the latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 15 of this Book. Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to .

But the ratio to is smaller than ratio to . Therefore the

ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to

is much smaller than the ratio to . And dividendo the ratio to

is smaller than the ratio to .

Now as for the ratio to , it is equal to the ratio to , and as

for the ratio to , it is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio

to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore is greater than .

Therefore the straight line drawn from parallel to is farter from

than , let that straight line be [which cuts at ].

We continue the perpendicular to [meet at] . Then is equal to

. Therefore is greater than .

And is common to the triangles and , and is a perpendicular to

. Therefore is greater than . But is greater than . Therefore is

greater than . So is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to the section .

And the situation with to straight lines drawn closer to and farter from it

is as we declared in the enunciation.

[Proposition] 76

as to fall on its center, and no other straight line can be drawn from that point

to one of quadrants of the section which are on the opposite side of the section

to the side in which is the point, such that the part of it cut off [by the axis] is

one of minimal straight lines, then the greatest of straight lines drawn from that

point to the section is that perpendicular, when continued [to meet the section], and of the remaining straight lines [drawn from that point], those drawn

closer to it are greater than those drawn farther 95.

Let the ellipse be whose major axis , and the taken point be , and

the perpendicular drawn from it to the center be , which has been continued

to [meet the section at] . And let it not be possible to draw from to [the

quadrant] any straight line except such that the part of it cut off [by the

major axis] is one of minimal straight lines.

255

Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to [the

quadrant] .

[Proof]. No straight line can be drawn from to the section between

and such that the part of it cut off is one of minimal straight lines.

And [so] the minimal straight lines drawn from the ends of those straight

lines are farther from than the straight lines themselves, as is proved in Theorem 53 of this Book. Hence it will be proved by means of the tangents, as it was

proved in Theorem 72 of this Book, that is the greatest of straight lines

drawn from to the quadrant .

And similarly it will be proved that it is the greatest of straight lines

drawn [from ] to the other quadrant. Therefore it is the greatest of straight

lines drawn from to the section.

And [it will be proved] that those of these straight lines that are closer to

it are greater than those drawn farther.

[Proposition] 77

an ellipse, so that it falls on the center, and it is possible to draw from that

point to a quadrant of the section [one] straight line such that the part of it cut

off by the axis is one of minimal straight lines, then that straight line is greatest

of straight lines drawn from that point to that quadrant, and of these straight

lines those drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther 96.

Let the ellipse be whose major axis and center , and the point

taken below is from which the perpendicular has been drawn to , and let

it be possible to draw from it to only one straight line such that the part of

it cut off [by the axis] is one of minimal straight lines, let that straight line be

.

Then I say that is the greatest of straight lines drawn from to

[the quadrant] , and that those [straight lines] drawn closer to it on both

sides are greater than those drawn farter.

[Proof]. For let and are two minimal straight lines which have been

continued to meet at . So the minimal straight lines drawn from [any] point on

the section between and are farter from than the straight lines joining

that point and , as is proved in Theorem 46 of this Book. And the minimal

straight lines drawn from [any] point on the section between and are closer

to than the straight lines joining that point and , as is proved in Theorem 46

of this Book. And when that is the case, then it can be proved, as it was proved

in Theorem 72 of this Book by means of the tangents, that is the greatest of

256

the straight lines drawn from to , and that of these straight lines those

drawn closer to it are greater than those drawn farther.

BOOK SIX

Preface

Apollonius greets Attalus

I have sent you the sixth Book of the Conics. My aim in it is to report on

conic sections which are equal1 to each other and those unequal to each other,

and those unequal to each other, and on those similar to each other and dissimilar to each other, and on segments of conic sections. In this we have enunciated more than what was composed by others among our predecessors. In

this Book there is also how to find a section in a given right cone equal to a

given section, and 257or to find a right cone, containing a given conics section,

similar 2 to a given cone. What we have stated on this [subject] is fuller and

clearer than the statements of our predecessors. Farewell.

Definitions

1. Conic sections which are called equal are those which can be fit one on

another, so that the one does not exceed the other3 Those which are said to be

unequal are those for which that is not so.

2. And similar [conic section] are such that, when ordinates are drawn in

them to fall on the axes, the ratios of the ordinates are drawn in them to the

lengths they cut off from the vertex of the section are equal to one another,

while the ratios to each other of the portions which the ordinates cut off from

the axes are equal ratios 4. Sections that are dissimilar are those in which what

we stated above does not occur.

3. The line that subtends a segment of the circumference of a circle or of

a conic section is called the base of that segment 5 .

4. The line that bisects all the lines drawn in that segment parallel to the

base is called the diameter to that segment 6 .

5. And the point on the section from which the diameter is drawn is called

the vertex of the segment 7.

6. Segments that are called equal from their bases up are those that can

be applied, one to another, so that one does not exceed the other. And seg257

ment that are called unequal are those for which what we stated is not the

case.

7.And segments that are called similar are those in which the angles

formed between their bases and their diameters are equal, and for which, an

equal number of lines having been drawn in each of them parallel to their base,

the ratios of these lines, and also the ratio of each base, to the ratios of these

lines, and also the ratio of each base to the lengths which they cut off from the

diameter from the vertex of the section are equal for every segment similarly

the ratio of the part cut off from the diameter of one to the part cut off from

the diameter of the other.

8.A conic section is said to the be placed in a cone, or a cone is said to

contain a conic section, when the whole of the section is in the surface bounding the cone between its vertex and its base, or in that surface after it has been

produced beyond the base, so that the whole of the section is in the surface

below the base, or else some of the section is in this surface and some in the

other surface.

9. Right cones that are said to be similar are those for which the ratios of

their axes to the diameters of their bases are equal.

10.The eidos that I call the eidos of the section corresponding to the axis

or to the diameter is that [eidos] under the axis or diameter together with the

latus rectum 8.

[Proposition] 1

Parabolas in which the latera recta which are perpendiculars to the axes

are equal, them selves equal, and if parabolas are equal, their latera recta are

equal 9.

Let there be two parabolas whose axes and and equal latera recta

and .

I say that these sections are equal.

[Proof]. When we apply the axis to the axis , then the section will

coincide with the section so as to fit on it for if it does not fit on it, let there be

a part of the section that does not fit on the section . We take the point

on the part of it that does not coincide with , and draw from it [to the

axis] the perpendicular , and complete the rectangular plane . We make

equal to , and draw from the perpendicular to the axis [meeting the

section at ], and complete the rectangular plane . Then and are

equal to and each to its correspondent.

258

equal in square to the quadrangle , as is proved in Theorem 11 of Book I.

And similarly too is equal in square to the quadrangle . Therefore

is equal to .

Therefore when the axis [of one section] is applied to the axis [of the

other], will coincide with , and will coincide with , and will coincide

with . But it was supposed not to fall on the section , which is impossible.

Therefore it is impossible for the section [] not to be equal to the section

[]

Furthermore we make the section [] equal to the section [], and

make equal to , and draw the perpendiculars [to the axis] from and ,

and complete rectangular planes and , then the section will coincide

with the section , and therefore the axis will coincide with the axis for

if it does not coincide with it, the parabola has two axes which is impossible.

Therefore let it coincide with it. Then will coincide with L because is

equal to , and will coincide with . Therefore is equal to , the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , is equal to , and is equal to

.

[Proposition] 2

are equal and similar10, then the sections will be equal, and if the sections are

equal, then the eidoi corresponding to their transverse axes are equal and similar, and their situation is similar11 .

Let there be two hyperbolas or ellipses and whose axes and .

Let the eidoi corresponding to their transverse axes be equal and similar, these

are and .

I say that the sections and are equal.

[Proof]. We apply the axis to the axis , then the section [] will

coincide with the section [] for if that it no so, let a part of the section

not coincide with the section we take the point on that part, and draw

from it the perpendicular to the axis, and complete the rectangular plane

We cut off from a segment equal to , and draw from the perpendicular to , and complete the rectangular plane . Then and are

[respectively] equal to and . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the

quadrangle .

259

situated because they are similar to the rectangular planes and [respectively], and is equal to . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . And the rectangular planes and were [already proved] equal.

Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle , and the straight

lines equal to them in square are [respectively] and , as is proved in

Theorems 12 and 13 of Book I.

Therefore when the axis is applied to the axis, will coincide with ,

and will coincide with . But it was supposed to fall on the section , which

is impossible. Therefore the whole section will fit on the section .

Furthermore we make two sections equal, and make and equal,

and draw from them the perpendiculars and , and complete [the rectangular planes] , , , and , then the section will fit on the section ,

and the axis will coincide with the axis for if it did not coincide with it,

then the hyperbola would have two axes and the ellipse three axes, which is impossible. Therefore coincides with , and it is equal to it. So will coincide

with , and will coincide with , and [hence] will coincide with , and

will fit on , therefore is equal to .

For that reason the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle .

But is equal to , therefore is equal to .

Furthermore we make equal to , then it will be proved, as we

proved above, that is equal to . Therefore is equal to , and is

equal to . Therefore the rectangular planes and are equal and similar.

Therefore the quadrangle is similar to the quadrangle , and also the

quadrangle is similar to the quadrangle . But is equal to . Therefore

is equal to . But it was [assumed] that is equal to . Therefore is

equal to and the quadrangle is similar to the quadrangle . Therefore

is equal to , and the quadrangle is equal to the quadrangle . And these

are the eidoi corresponding to the axes.

Porisms

If there are [a number of] parabolas, and ordinates falling on one of their

diameters meet the diameters at equal angles, and their latera recta are equal,

then the sections are equal, and if there are [a number of] hyperbolas or ellipses, and the ordinates falling on one of their diameters meet the diameter at

equal angles, and eidoi corresponding to those diameters are equal and similar,

then the sections are equal 12 .

260

[Proposition] 3

As for the ellipse it is evident that it cannot be equal to any of other sections because it is bounded, but they are unbounded.

Then I also say that no parabola can be equal to a hyperbola 13 .

[Proof]. For let there be the parabola and the hyperbola . Then,

if possible, let it be equal to it, and let the axes of the sections be and ,

and let the transverse axis of the hyperbola be , and let and be equal

to and [respectively]. We draw from the axes the perpendiculars , ,

, and . Now the section fits on the section because it is equal to it, and

[hence] , , , and coincide with , , , and [respectively], and as is

to , so is to , as is proved in Theorem 20 of Book I. Therefore as is

to , so is to . But that is impossible because as sq. is to sq., so

pl. is to pl., as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I.

Therefore the parabola is not equal the hyperbola.

[Proposition] 4

If there is an ellipse and a straight line passes through its center such

that its extremities end at the section, then it cuts the boundary of the section

into two equal parts. And the surface is also bisected [by it] 14 .

Let there be the ellipse whose center , and let the straight line AB

pass through its center. And first let be one of the axes of the section.

Then I say that the line fits on the line , when it is applied to it,

and the surface coincides with the surface .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, the line not coincide wholly with the line

. We take on the part of it that does not coincide with it, and draw from

it the perpendicular to , and continue it to [meet the section again at] .

Then coincides with because the angles at are right, and is equal to

. Therefore coincides with .

But it had been assumed not to coincide with it, which is impossible.

Therefore the line coincides with the line so as to fit to it, and the surface will coincide with the surface . Hence the line is equal to the

line , and the surface to the surface .

[Proposition] 5

261

Furthermore we do not make one of the axes 15 . And let the axes be

and , and we draw two perpendiculars and [to the axis], then the

line fits on the line , as was proved in the preceding theorem, and Z coincides with , and the surface coincides with the surface . Furthermore [the line] coincides with [the line] , and coincides with ,

and with because is equal to , and to BH, and the surface

coincides with the surface . Therefore the surface coincides with the

surface . So it is equal to it, and [hence] the line is equal to the line .

Furthermore [] is equal to []. Therefore [the surface] is

equal to [the surface] , hence the remainder [line] is equal to the remainder [line] . And [hence] the line is equal to the line . Therefore

the whole surface is equal to the whole surface , and the line

is equal to the line .

[Proposition] 6

another section so as to fit on it, then the [first] section is equal to

the[second] section 16 .

Let the arc of the section , when applied to the arc of the section fit on it. I say that the section is equal to the section .

[Proof]. For let, if that is not so, then the part coincide with the part

, and let the remainder of the section not coincide with the other section, but

let them be as the sections and . We take the point on , and

join it to , and draw in the section the diameter bisecting . Then the

tangent to the section at is parallel to , and the diameter bisects

the straight lines parallel to . Therefore we draw from the straight line

parallel to . Then bisects it, and it is parallel to the tangent to the section

at . And that [tangent] is also the tangent to the section . Therefore

is a diameter to the section , as is proved in Theorem 7 of Book II.

Therefore it bisects the diameter at L. But was [assumed to be] bisected

at [the same point] , which is impossible. Therefore the whole section coincides with the section so as to fit on it, therefore it is equal to it.

[Proposition] 7

262

continued to the other side, cut off from the section on both sides of the axis

the segments which, when one is applied to an other fit so as not to exceed or

fall short of it, but do not fit on any other part of the section if placed on it17 .

Let there be the parabola or the hyperbola whose axis . We take

on the section two points and , and draw from them two perpendiculars to

, and continue them to the other side of the section, these are and .

Let them cut off from the section two segments and . I say that the

line fits on the line , and the line on the line and the surface on

the surface , and the arc of the section on the arc .

[Proof]. The proof of that is like the preceding proofs for all perpendiculars drawn from the arc to the axis are equal in square to figures that

are equal to those figures to which the perpendiculars drawn from the arc

to the axis , being continuous with those perpendiculars, are equal in square.

Therefore is equal to , and is equal to , and the angles at and

are right.

Therefore the arc , when applied to the arc , will fit on it, and the arc

will coincide with the arc , and the [corresponding] surfaces will coincide

with the surfaces.

Therefore let the arc be another arc which is not cut off by these two

perpendiculars. Then I say that the arc , if applied to it, will not fit on it.

[Proof]. For let if that it not so, and if possible, it fit. Then, when is

applied to so as to fit on it, the line will coincide with the arc, which is

adjacent to the arc , as is proved in the preceding theorem. And the point

of the arc will fall on a place different from its position on the arc because the arc is not equal to the arc , and the axis will fall on a

place different from the position it has [now]. Therefore the parabola or the hyperbola has two axes, which is impossible. So the arc does not coincide with

the arc .

[Proposition] 8

In every ellipse perpendiculars which are drawn to the axis and continued

in a straight line to the other side of it cut off from the section on either side of

the axis arcs which fit when one is applied to another, and if they are applied to

the arcs cut off by the perpendiculars whose distance from the center towards

other side is equal to the distance of the perpendiculars drawn [above], they

will fit on them, but will not fit on [any] other arc of the section 18 .

263

Let there be the ellipse whose axis and . Let there be drawn

in it two perpendiculars to , and let them be continued in a straight line to

both sides [of the section], let them be and . And let them cut off from it

two arcs and . And let there also be drawn in the section two other perpendiculars of this kind whose distance from the center is [respectively] equal

to the distance of those two perpendiculars, these are and .

Now as to [the statement] that when one of and is applied to the

other, it will fit on it, which will be proved as it was proved in the preceding

theorem.

And similarly it will be proved that will fit on . And because the

surface , when applied to the surface , lies on it, as is proved in Theorem 4 of this Book, will coincide with because the distance of each from

the center is one and the same.

And will coincide with , and [hence] the arc will coincide with the

arc .Therefore it will fit on the arc because one of them fits on other.

And likewise too the arc [will fit on and ].

Therefore let there be another arc of the section, apart from these

four. Then I say that none of these arc will fit on it.

[Proof]. For let if possible the arc fit on it. Then it will necessarily follow, as it did in the preceding theorems, that the ellipse would have more than

two axes, which is impossible. Therefore will not fit on .

[Proposition] 9

In equal sections those parts of them at equal distances from their vertices will fit one on another, and those [parts] not at equal distances from

their vertices will not fit one on another 19 .

Let there be two equal sections with axes and . Let the distance of

the arc from be equal to the distance of the arc from .

Then I say that will fit on .

[Proof]. Then the section is applied to the section , the point will

coincide with H because the distance of each from the vertices of two sections

is equal. And A will coincide with , and [hence] the section will coincide

with the section . Then I say that it will not coincide with any other arc so as

to fit on it.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it coincide with the arc . Now we have

proved that it fits on . Therefore the arc will fit on the arc . But the

264

arcs and are not the arcs cut off by two perpendiculars, and their distances from the vertices are not equal. That is impossible as is proved in two

preceding theorems two.

[Proposition] 10

In the sections that are unequal no part of one of them will fit on a part of

another20 .

Let there be two unequal sections and .

That no part of one of them will fit on a part of another.

[Proof]. For let, if possible, the part fit on a part . Then the whole

section will fit on the section , as is proved in Theorem 6 of this

Book. Therefore the section is equal to the section , which is impossible. So no part of fits on a part of .

[Proposition ] 11

Let there be two parabolas and whose axes and .

I say that two sections are similar.

[Proof]. For let their latera recta and , and let as be to , so

be to . We cut at two arbitrary points and , and cut into the

same number of arcs with the same ratio at the points and . We draw from

the axes and the perpendiculars , , , , , and [and continue them to meet the sections again at , , , , , and ]. Then as is to

, so is to , and is the mean proportional between and , and

is the mean proportional between and , because of what is proved in

Theorem 11 of Book I.

As is to , so is to . And is equal to the double , and

is equal to the double . Therefore as is to , so is to .

Furthermore as is to , so is to . And as is to , so is

to , and as is to , so is to .

Hence it will be proved, as we proved above, that as is to , so is

to .

And similarly too it will be proved that as is to , so is to .

Therefore the ratio of [each of] , , and ,which are perpendiculars

to the axis, to the amounts , , and which they cut off from the axis is

265

the amounts , , and which they cut off from the axis.

And the ratios of the segments cut of from one of the axes to the segments cut off from the other are equal. Therefore the section is similar to

the section .

[Proposition] 12

Hyperbolas and ellipses in which the eidoi corresponding to their axes are

similar are also [themselves] similar, and if the sections are similar, then the eidoi corresponding to their axes are similar 22.

Let there be two hyperbolas or ellipses and whose eidoi corresponding to their axes and are similar, the transverse diameters of these

conic are and . We cut off from the axes the segments and and let

as be to , so be to .

We cut arbitrarily at and , and cut into the same number of

segments as , and in the same ratios at and we draw from , , , , ,

and the , , , , , and to the axes, [and continue them to

meet the sections again at , , , , , and ].

Then because the eidoi of the sections are similar as sq. is to pl. ,

so sq. is to pl., as may be proved from Theorem 21 of Book I.

But as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq.. Therefore as sq. is to

sq., so sq. is to sq. , and as is to , so is to , and as is

to , so is to .

Furthermore as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is

to . Therefore as is to , so is to . Hence it will proved, as we

proved above, that as is to , so is to , and that as is to , so

is to .

Therefore the ratios of the perpendiculars , and to the amounts

, , and they cut of from the axis are [respectively] equal to the ratios

of the perpendiculars , , and to the amounts , , and they cut

off from the axis.

And the ratios of the parts of that the perpendiculars cut of to the

parts of which the perpendiculars cut off are equal. Therefore the section

is similar to the section .

Furthermore we make the section similar to the section . Then since

two sections are similar we draw in the section some perpendiculars , ,

and to the axis, and in the section the perpendiculars , , and , and

266

let the ratios of these perpendiculars to the amounts they cut off from the axes

be equal [respectively], and likewise the ratios of the parts they cut off from

one of the axes to the parts they cut off from other axis, then as is to ,

so is to , and as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is

to . Therefore as is to , so is to .

And as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to

pl., so pl. is to pl. because of what was proved in Theorem 21 of

Book I. and because as is to , so is to , [and as is to , so

is to ], as is to , so is to , and [hence] as is to , so is to

. But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to

And [hence] as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

But as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to

sq., so pl. is to sq..

But the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum [of ], as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. Therefore the eidoi corresponding to and are equal 23-24 .

[Proposition] 13

Let there be two hyperbolas or ellipses whose centers and I, and diameters and . Let the angles that those diameters form with their ordinates be equal, and let the eidoi corresponding to L and be similar.

If those eidoi of hyperbolas or ellipses that are corresponding to diameters other than the axes are similar, and the ordinates falling on those diameters

form equal angles with the diameters, then the sections are similar25.

I say that the sections are similar.

[Proof]. For let from and the tangents and to the sections be

drawn. Then these tangents are parallel to the ordinates fallen. We draw

through and the straight lines and parallel to the tangents.

Now the eidoi corresponding to and are similar latus rectum proved in

Theorem 37 of Book I. And likewise [the ratio pl. to sq.] is equal to the

ratio of the [transverse] diameters to [its] the latus rectum. Therefore the ratios of the transverse diameter to [its] latus rectum. Therefore two ratios of

the [transverse] axes and to their latera recta are equal. And the eidoi

corresponding to the axes of these sections are similar. Therefore two sections

are similar as is proved in the preceding theorem .

And it is evident too that in the case on two ellipses this requires that the

axes and both be the major axes or the both be the minor axes because

267

the ratio of to its latus rectum in both cases is equal to the ratio of to its

latus rectum. And the rule is one and the same for major and minor [axes].

[Proposition] 14

Let there be the parabola whose axis , and the hyperbola or the ellipse similar to it. And let the axis of be the straight line , and let the

side of the eidos of the section, the transverse axis, be .

Let there be the perpendiculars and in the sections [in the parabola],

and and [in the hyperbola on the ellipse], and let the ratios of these

[perpendiculars] to the segments they cut off from the axes in one of the

sections be equal to [their] ratios to the segments they cut off from the axis of

other section, and let the ratios of the segments cut off from one of the axes

to the segments cut off from the other axis be equal. Then as is to , so

is to , and as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to

, and as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq..

But as sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in Theorem 20 of

Book I. And as is to , so is to . Therefore as sq. is to sq., so

is to , but as is to sq., so pl. is to pl., as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to pl.. Therefore

is equal to , but that is impossible. Therefore the parabola is not equal to

any other section

[Proposition] 15

Let there be the hyperbola and the ellipse . Let their axes be

[respectively] and , and let their transverse diameters be and .

Then, if these two sections are similar, then there are in the sections

some perpendiculars, for instance , , , and , such that the ratios of

these [perpendiculars] to the segments they cut off from the axes in both sections are [respectively] equal. Then we will prove as we proved in the preceding

theorem that as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. , and pl. is to

pl., and pl. is to pl.. Therefore as pl. is to pl., so pl. is to

pl.. And when what is so and as is to , so is to , and [hence] as

268

similar to the section .

[Proposition] 16

Let there be two opposite hyperbola and whose axis .

I say that the hyperbolas and are similar and equal.

[Proof]. The latera recta of the hyperbolas and are equal, as is proved

in the proof of Theorem 14 of Book I.

And the straight line is a side common to their eidoi. Therefore the eidoi corresponding to the axis of the hyperbolas and are similar and equal.

Therefore the hyperbola is similar to the hyperbola and is equal to it, as is

proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.

[Proposition] 17

If there are similar sections, and tangents are drawn to them ending at

their axes and forming equal angles with the axes, and diameters are drawn to

the sections from the points of contact, and a point is taken on each of those

diameter, and the ratios of the segments between the taken points and the vertices of those diameter to the tangents are equal and straight lines are drawn

through [each] taken point parallel to the tangents so that they cut off segments from the sections then those segments are similar, and their position is

similar, and if segments are similar and their position is similar, then the ratios

of their diameters to the [corresponding] tangents are equal, and the angles

which the tangents form with the axes are equal 30.

First let the similar sections be two parabolas and , let their axis be

and , and the tangents to them are and . Let the angles and

be equal. We draw through and the diameters and to the sections. Let as is to , so be to . We draw through and the straight

lines and parallel to and .

I say that the segments and are similar and similarly situated.

[Proof]. We draw from and the perpendiculars and to the axes

[cutting and at and ] , and continue the diameters and until

they meet them at and .

We make the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to , and

the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to . Then and are

269

latera recta corresponding to the diameters and [respectively]. Therefore sq. is equal to pl., as is proved in Theorem 49 of Book I. And likewise

sq. is equal to pl.. And the angle is equal to the angle , the angle is equal to the angle , and the angle is equal to the angle

because and EH are parallel to and [respectively], as is proved from

Theorem 46 of Book I. Therefore the angle is equal to the angle ,and

the angles at and are equal, therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle , and [hence] as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to

, so is to .

But the ratio to had been made equal to the ratio to therefore as is to , so is to .

Hence it will be proved, as we proved in Theorem 11 of this Book that, if

the straight lines are drawn to parallel to and the straight lines are drawn

to parallel to , and the ratio of these straight lines which are parallel to

[the segment] bases and to the segments they cut off from the [corresponding] diameters adjacent to and M are equal, and the ratios of the segments cut off from one of the diameters to those cut off from other diameter

are also equal, and the angles formed by the coordinates to parallel to these

bases and the diameters in both sections are equal [because the angles at and

are equal], then the segment is similar to the segment , and its position is similar to its position.

Furthermore we make the segment of one section similar to the

segment of other section, and let their diameters be and , and their

bases be and , and the points of their vertices be and and let and

MO be tangents to the sections at these points. Then I say that the angle is

equal to the angle , and that as is to , so to .

We draw the straight lines that we drew previously. Then since the sections are similar, two angles formed by and are equal to two angles

formed by and . And and are parallel to and [respectively].

Therefore the angles at , , , and are equal.

Therefore, since that is so, and [since] the angles and are obtuse, the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle at is equal

to the angle at .

Furthermore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of

the segments of the sections, and [hence] as is to , so is to , and

as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to . Therefore as

is to , so is to . And as is to , so is to because that

270

is to . And we had [already] proved that the angles at and are equal .

[Proposition] 18

Furthermore we make the mentioned sections hyperbolas or ellipses,

and let every thing else be as we stated in the preceding theorem 31 , and let

the diameters and end at the centers and of the sections, and let

the ratio of [abscissa] to the tangent be equal to the ratio of [abscissa]

to [the tangent] , and let the angles and be equal, then I say

that the segments and are similar, and let the ratio to the double

be equal to the ratio to , and let the ratio to the double MO be

equal to the ratio to . Then and are latera recta corresponding to

the diameters and [respectively], as is proved in Theorem 50 of Book I.

Therefore we draw from , , , and the perpendiculars , , ,

and to the axes. Then, since two sections are similar, the eidoi corresponding to their axes are also similar, as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book, and

since the eidoi of these two sections corresponding to their axes are similar, as

pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. because of what is proved in Theorem

37 of Book I.

And we had constructed the angles at and as equal, and the angles at

and are equal because they are right. Therefore the triangle is similar

to the triangle .

And we had [already] proved that as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to

sq.. Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle 32 .

And [hence] the angle at I is equal to the angle at , and the angle is

equal to the angle . And the angles at and are equal because the tangent is parallel to the ordinates. And the angles at and are right, and the

angles at and I have [already] been proved equal. Therefore the remaining angles [in the triangles and ] at and are equal. And it has [already]

been proved that the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the

triangle is similar the triangle , and [hence] as is to , so is to

. But we had made the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to ,

and the ratio to the double equal to the ratio to . Therefore as

is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to

, and as is to , so is to . Therefore the eidoi of which one is

pl. and the other is pl.TM are similar.

271

to equal to the ratio to .Therefore as is to , so is to .

And since that is so, and since the eidos pl. is similar to the eidos

pl.TMO, then, when we divide into partitions and draw through the points of

partition straight lines parallel to which is the base of the segment [],

and divide in the same ratios as the partitions of , and again draw through

the points of partition straight lines parallel to which is the base of the segment [], then it will be proved, as we proved in Theorem 12 of this Book,

that the ratios of the parallel straight lines cutting to the portions they cut

off from it adjacent to are equal to the ratios of the parallel straight lines cutting to the portions they cut off from it adjacent to M. And the angles

formed by the base with are equal to the angles formed by the base

with , because these angles are equal to the angles at and continued by

the tangent and the diameter.

Therefore two segments and are similar, and their position is

similar.

Furthermore we make the segment similar to the segment , then

I say that the angle is equal to the angle , and that as is to , so

is to .

[Proof]. For, since two segments are similar, there can be drawn in them

some straight lines parallel to and equal, to number, cutting and

at equal angles, and [then] the ratios between them and [also] the ratios of the

bases and to the portions they cut off from the diameters are equal, and

also the ratios of the partitions of [continued by these straight lines] to the

partitions of are equal to each other, and the straight lines drawn to in

the segment parallel to are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to and greater than it [in the case of the hyperbola] or smaller than

it [in the case of the ellipse] by are rectangular plane similar to pl., as is

proved in Theorem 50 of Book I, and likewise too the straight lines drawn to

in the segment parallel to are equal in square to the rectangular planes

applied to and greater and smaller than it by a plane similar to pl.TM.

Therefore, since that is so, then it will be proved, as we proved in Theorem of this Book, that as is to , so is to .

And when that is so, and the ordinate meet two diameters at equal angles, and [for that reason] as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., and the

angles at and are right, and the angle is equal to the angle , then

the triangle is similar to the triangle .

And that will be proved in the case of the hyperbola by a proof that is

272

universally applicable, but in the case of the ellipse it will be proved [only] by

the axes and being either both major or both minor axes.

Then, since as is to , so MT is to M, as pl. is to sq., so

pl.

is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. And as sq. is to sq., so

sq. is to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq., and

as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the

triangles and . And is equal to the double , and M is equal to the

double . Therefore as is to , so is to . And the angles at and

are equal.

[Proposition] 19

When straight lines are drawn in a parabola or a hyperbola as perpendiculars to the axis, then two segments cut off by each pair of perpendiculars on either side [of the axis] are similar and similarly situated, but as for other segments [in that section], they are dissimilar to them 34.

Let there be the parabola or the hyperbola whose axis , and let a pair

of straight lines be drawn in the section as perpendiculars and to the

axes, and let them cut off from the section the segments and , and let

the segments and be two segments not cut off by the same [pair of]

perpendiculars. Then I say that the segments and are similar, and that

the segments and are dissimilar.

[Proof]. As for [the statement] that the segments and are similar,

that is evident because each of them will fit on other, as is proved in Theorem7

of this Book. But as for [the statement] the segments and are dissimilar,

that will be proved as follows. Let, if possible, the segments and be similar. We join and , and continue them to [meet the continued axis at]

and . Now the segments and are similar, therefore the segment

will fit on the segment , as is proved in Theorem 7 of this Book. Therefore

the section is similar to the section . Therefore when the straight lines

and are continued in a straight line, they will meet the axis at equal angles

because of what was proved in two preceding theorems. We draw bisecting

and , draw from [lying on the section] parallel to . Then is

the diameter to the section because of what is proved in Theorem 28 of Book II.

And is parallel to the ordinates falling on it, therefore it is tangent to the

section. And the segments and are similar, therefore as is to , so

273

Therefore the segment is dissimilar to the segment .

[Proposition] 20

then every pair of these perpendiculars cuts off on either side [of the axis] two

segments similar to each other and similar to two segments cut off by the pair

of perpendiculars whose distance from the center is equal to the distance of

that pair of perpendiculars, and the position of these four segments is similar,

and no other segment [in that ellipse] is similar [to these]34.

Let there be the ellipse whose axis , and let there be in it the pair of

straight lines and cutting the axis at right angles. And let there be the

other pair of straight lines and cutting the axis at right angles, the distance of which from the center is equal to the distance of those [straight lines].

Then I say that the segments , , , and are similar, and that none of

other segments is similar to them.

[Proof]. As for [the statement] that the segments , , , and are

similar and similarly situated, that is evident because these segments will fit

one on another as is proved in Theorem 8 of this Book.

But as for [the statement] that no other segment is similar to them; this

will be proved as follows. Let, if possible the segment be similar to those

segments. We join and . Then, when they continued, if one of them meets

the axis, the other will meet it at the same angle as the first, as is proved in

Theorem 18 of this Book. Therefore and are parallel. Therefore we bisect

them and draw through two points of bisection . Then is a diameter to

two segments, as is proved in Theorem 28 of Book II. Therefore since the segments and are similar, as is to , so is to . That is impossible

for when we join and and continue them, they will not pass through

and . Therefore the segment is dissimilar to the segment .

[Proposition] 21

the axes and to cut off from the axes in the directions of the vertices of the

sections the segments whose ratios to the latera recta in all sections are equal,

then the segments that those perpendiculars cut off from one on the sections

are similar to the segments that the other perpendiculars cut off from the other

274

section, and their situation is similar, but they are not similar to any of other

segments that are taken from those sections 35.

Let there be two parabolas and whose axes and BY and their

latera recta be and . We draw in one of two sections the perpendiculars

and , and in other section the perpendiculars and Y, and let as be

to , so F be to , and let as be to , so be to .

Then I say that the segment is similar to the segment , and that

the arc is similar to the arc , and that the arc is similar to the arc .

[Proof]. Now as to [the statement] that the segment is similar to

the segment ; this will be proved as we proved [it] in Theorem 11 of this

Book. Therefore we join and and continue them in a straight line to [meet

the respective axes at] and . We bisect and at and , and draw

through them and parallel to the axes, and draw from and the

perpendiculars and to the axes cutting and at and ] .

Then the ratio of to each of and is equal to the ratio of to

each of [respectively].

Therefore it will be proved from that, as we proved in Theorem 11 of this

Book, that as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as is to ,

so is to , and as is to , so is to .

And convertendo as is to , so is to .

Furthermore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. Therefore as

is to , so is to because of what is proved in Theorem 20 of Book I.

And convertendo as is to , so is to .

But we have proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore as

is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to

. And the angles at and are right. Therefore the triangle is similar to

the triangle , and [hence] the angles at and are equal, and as is to

, so is to .

And convertendo as is to ,so is to .

And was bisected at , and was bisected at . Therefore is to

, so is to .

But is equal to and is equal to . Therefore as is to , so

is to .

And therefore as is to , so is to , axis proved in Theorem 20

of Book I.

And convertendo as is to , so is to .

275

is to , so is to . And therefore as is to , so is to .

And separando as is to , so is to .

But it was shown that as is to , so is to . Therefore as is

to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to because the triangle is similar to the

triangle . Therefore as is to , so is to .

But is equal to the tangent drawn from to the axis because it is parallel to , and they are between parallel straight lines [ and ].

Similarly too is equal to the tangent drawn from to the axis. Therefore the ratio of the tangent drawn from to is equal to the ratio of the

tangent drawn from to .And it was proved in Theorem 17 of this Book

that, when that is the case, and when the angles formed by the tangent and the

axis are equal [in both sections], then the segments from the vertices of which

the tangents are drawn are similar. Therefore the segments and are

similar and similarly situated.

Furthermore, we make the segment

a segment which is not cut off

by the mentioned perpendiculars, then I say that it is not similar to the segment

.

[Proof]. For the segment is similar to the segment , but the segment is dissimilar to the segment ,as is proved in Theorem 19 of this

Book because it is not cut off by the same pair of perpendiculars [as the segment ]. Therefore the segment is not similar to the segment .

[Proposition] 22

For similar hyperbolas and ellipses the same properties hold as we proved

hold for parabolas in the preceding theorem 36.

Let the situation described for the parabola remain the same [for the hyperbola and the ellipse], and let the diameters and end at centers and

[respectively].

We draw from and tangents and to the and tangents and

the sections. Then they are parallel to and [respectively].

`

Now the ratio of to the latus rectum [of ] is equal to the ratio of

to the latus rectum of other section. Therefore ,since the sections are similar, then their eidoi are also similar, as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book

276

Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter of one of the sections to the

latus rectum is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of other section to

its latus rectum.

And we had made the ratio of two latera recta to and [respectively] equal. Therefore, since that is the case, and since the eidoi of two sections are similar, then it will be proved, as was proved in Theorem 12 of this

Book, that the straight lines can be drawn in the segment parallel to ,

and in the segment o parallel to , and the number of the straight lines

drawn in the segment is equal to the number of the straight lines drawn in

the segment , and their ratios are equal to their ratios, and the ratios of the

straight lines drawn in the segment , and [also] of to the portions they

cut off from the axis adjoining are equal to the ratios of the straight lines

drawn in [the segment] , and [also] of to the portions they cut off from

the axis adjoining and [also] the ratios of the portions cut off the axis to

the portions cut off from the axis are equal, therefore the segment

and are similar.

Furthermore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . And also

as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to ,so is to , and as

is to , so is to . And as is to , so is to , and as AM is

to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to , and as is to

, so is to . And convertendo as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to because as is to , so is to

. Therefore as is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is to

. And the angles at and are right. Therefore the angles at and are

also equal. Therefore the angles at and are equal. And the sections are similar, therefore their eidoi are similar.

And and are tangents. Therefore as pl. is to sq. , so

pl. is to sq. , because of what is proved in Theorem 37 of Book I. And as

sq. is to sq., so sq. is to because of the similarity of the triangles

and .Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to

sq. .Therefore as is to is to , so is to .

But as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles [ and ]. Therefore as is to , so is to , and the angles

[at] and are right. Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle .

Therefore the angles at and are equal.

277

But it was [already] shown that the angles at and are equal. Therefore as is to , so is to , and as is to , so is to because

is parallel to , and to .

Furthermore the eidoi of two section are similar, therefore as is to

, so is to .

But as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so is

to . And dividendo as is to , so is to .

Furthermore as is to , so is to because as is to , so

is to , and as is to , so is to . Therefore as is to , so

is to , and as is to , so is to .

Furthermore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of

the triangles. But as is to , so sq. is to sq. because of what is

proved in Theorem 37 of Book I. And likewise as is to , so sq. is to

sq. .Therefore sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. , and [hence] as is

to , so is to .

But we have proved that as is to , so is to . Therefore as

is to , so is to , therefore as is to , so is to . And as is

to , so is to because the triangle is similar to the triangle

, therefore as is to , so is to .

But we have proved above that as is to , so is to , therefore

as is to , so is to .

And the angles at and

are equal. Therefore the segments and

are similar and similarly situated, as is proved in Theorem 18 of this Book.

Furthermore we make a segment not cut off by the mentioned perpendiculars, and also [in the case of the ellipse] not cut off by perpendiculars

whose distances from the center is equal to that of others

perpendiculars, then I say that it is dissimilar to the segment .

[Proof]. For let, if possible, it be similar to it. Now the segment is similar to the segment . Therefore the segment is similar to the segment .

But it is not cut off by the same perpendiculars [as ], nor [in the case of the

ellipse] by perpendiculars whose distance from the center is equal to the distance of [those perpendiculars]. But that is impossible, as is proved in Theorems 19 and 20 of this Book. Therefore the segment is not similar to the

segment , nor to the segment .

[Proposition] 23

278

segment of another 37.

Let there be two dissimilar sections and . And first let them both be

hyperbolas or ellipses.

Then I say that no segment of is similar to an segment of .

[Proof]. For let, if that is possible, the segment be similar to the segment .We join and , and bisect them at and . Let the centers of the

sections be and We join and , then they are diameter to the sections, as is proved in Theorem 47 of Book I. Now and are either axes

or not. Therefore, if they are axes, and the segments and are similar, then

there can be drawn to the axis straight lines parallel to such that the ratios

of them and the ratio of to the portions cut off [by these straight lines], and

the ratio of to the portions cut off [by these straight lines} from the axis adjacent to its vertex are equal to the ratios of the straight lines equal in number

to those [first straight lines] drawn to other axis parallel to and [to the ratio]

of to the portions cut off [by them] from the axis of other section adjacent

to its vertices, and [such that] the ratios of the segments cut off from one of

the axes to the segments cut off from other axis are [all] equal, and the parallel straight lines are perpendiculars to the axes, therefore the sections and

will be similar.

But if the diameters and are not axes then we make the axes

and , and draw from and also draw from them [] tangents to the

section and . Then, since the segments and are similar, and the

tangents and have been drawn from their vertices it will be proved

thence, as was proved in Theorem 18 of this Book that the triangle is similar to the triangle . And and are perpendiculars [to the axes]. Therefore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. 38.

But the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section to its latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 37 of

Book I. And likewise the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section to its latus rectum.

Therefore the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section to its

latus rectum is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter of the section

to its latus rectum. Therefore the eidoi of the sections and are similar.

But then that is the case, then the sections are similar, as is proved in

Theorem 12 of this Book. Therefore the sections and are similar, but we

had made them dissimilar, that is impossible. Therefore the segment is not

similar to the segment .

279

[Proposition] 24

Furthermore if we make the section a parabola and the section a

hyperbola for an ellipse, then it is evident that one section is not similar to

other, because of what we said in Theorem 14 of this Book.

Then I say that the segments and are dissimilar 39.

[Proof]. For if they are similar, then it is possible to draw in them straight

lines, equal in number parallel to the straight lines and [respectively] ,

such that the ratios of these [straight lines] to the portions they cut off from

one of the diameters adjacent to the vertices [] of the [first] segment are

equal to the ratios of the straight lines cutting other diameter to the portions

they cut off from it adjacent to the vertices [] of the segment, and also that

the ratio of the base [of the first segment] to [its] diameter is equal to the

base [of the second segment] to [its] diameter, and [also that] the ratios of

the divisions of one of the diameters [formed by these straight lines] are equal

to the ratios of the divisions of other diameter. Then if will be proved, as it was

proved for the sections in their entirety in Theorem 14 of this Book, but that

impossible. But if one of sections is a hyperbola and other is an ellipse, then

impossibility of that will be proved at it was proved in Theorem 16 of this Book.

[Proposition] 25

circle

40.

I say that it is not possible for a part of it to be an arc of a circle.

[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, be an arc of a circle. We draw in it

two straight lines and not parallel to each other in arbitrary positions.

We also draw in it not parallel not to them, and draw parallel to and

parallel to , and [also] draw parallel to . We bisect the straight lines

we draw at , , , , , and , and join , , and , then these straight

lines are diameters to the circle, and they bisect the straight lines drawn by us,

therefore they are perpendiculars to them. But they are also diameters to the

section because of what was proved in Theorem 28 of Book II. Therefore ,

, and are axes of the section. But none of them lies on a straight line with

its follow because three original straight lines are not parallel. That is impossible

for none of sections has more than two axes, as is proved in Theorem 50 of

280

Book II. Therefore if is not possible for a part of any of sections to be an arc of

a circle.

[Proposition] 26

If ones are cut on one side [of their axes] by parallel planes from the

class of planes which, when continued on the side of the vertex of the cone,

subtend its exterior angle, then the hyperbolas generated [by these planes] are

similar but not equal 41.

Let there be the cone , and let it be cut by two parallel planes, and let

their intersections with the base [of the cone] be and . We draw from

the center of the base of the cone the perpendicular to these straight

lines. Let the cone be cut by [another] plane passing through and the axis of

the cone, and let this plane cut the surface of the cone in and . Let the

intersections of this plane with two parallel planes be and , we continue

them to [meet continued at] and [respectively].Then I say that the section is similar to the section , but not equal to it.

[Proof]. We draw from a straight line parallel to and ZH. We

make the ratio to equal to the ratio sq. to pl., and also the ratio

to equal to the ratio sq. to pl.. Then since is perpendicular to

, the straight lines drawn in the hyperbola to parallel to are equal

in square to the rectangular planes applied to [which is the latus rectum] and

in increasing it by a rectangular plane similar to pl. as is proved in Theorem

12 of Book I .

Similarly too the straight lines drawn in the hyperbola to parallel

to are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to [which is the

latus rectum] and exceeding it by a rectangular plane similar to pl.. And the

angles formed by with are equal to the angles formed by with because they are parallel to them.

Therefore the sections are similar, as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.

And pl. s smaller than pl.. Therefore the sections and are

unequal because of what is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.

[Proposition] 27

If a cone is cut by parallel planes that meet two sides of the triangle

passing through its axis, but not parallel to the base of the cone and not antiparallel to it, then the ellipses [by these planes] are similar, but unequal 42.

281

Let the cone be cut by two parallel planes, and let the intersections

of these planes with the plane of the base of the cone be and . We draw

through the center of the base of the cone a straight line which is a perpendicular to and , we cut the cone with [another] plane passing through

this straight line and through the axis of the cone, and let the intersections of

this plane with two parallels planes be and .

Then I say that sections and are similar but not equal.

[Proof]. We draw from A a straight line parallel to and . Let each

of the ratios to and to be equal to the ratio sq. to pl.. Then

since is perpendicular to , the straight lines drawn in the ellipse to

parallel to are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to

[which is the latus rectum] and decreasing of it by the rectangular planes similar

to pl., as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I. Similarly too the straight lines

drawn in the ellipse to parallel to are equal in square the rectangular

planes applied to [which is the latus rectum] and de creasing of it by the rectangular planes similar to pl.. And the angle is equal to the angle

because and are parallel to and [respectively]. And pl. is similar to pl.. But when that is the case, then two sections are similar, as is

proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.

Therefore the sections and are similar. But then are unequal because pl. is greater than pl., and it was proved in Theorem 2 of this Book

that, when that is so then two sections are unequal.

[Proposition] 28

given parabola 43.

Let the given right cone be the cone with the axial triangle . Let the

given parabola be the section with axis and the latus rectum , and let

as is to , so sq. is to pl.. We draw to . We cut the cone with a

plane passing through and erected at right angles to the plane , let [this

plane] generate the section whose axis is .

Then I say that the section is equal to the section .

[Proof]. The perpendiculars drawn in the section to are equal in

square to the rectangular plane applied a straight line whose ratio to is equal

to the ratio sq. to pl., as is proved in Theorem 11 of Book I.

But the ratio to also is equal to the ratio sq. to pl.. Therefore is equal to the latus rectum of the section . And it was proved in

282

Theorem 1 of this Book that, when that is the case, these two sections are

equal. Therefore the section is equal to the section .

Then I say that no other section ,apart from this one, can be found in [this]

cone such that the point of its vertex [which is the end of the axis] lies on the

straight line [and such that it is equal to the section ] 44 for ,if it is possible to find another parabola equal to the section , then its plane cuts the

plane of the axial triangle of the cone at right angles, and the axis of the section lies in the plane of the triangle because the cone is a right cone [and

similarly for the axis of every section in a right cone].

Therefore if it is possible for another section whose vertex lies on to

be equal to the section , then its axis is parallel to , and the point of its

vertex is different from . And the ratio of its latus rectum to the straight line

cut off by that section from adjacent to is equal to the ratio sq. to

pl.. But this [latter] ratio is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is not

equal to the latus rectum of that other section.

But these two sections are [supposed to be] equal, that is impossible

because of that was proved in Theorem 1 of this Book.

Therefore there cannot be found on the vertex of the axis of another

section equal to the section .

[Proposition] 29

given hyperbola, when the ratio of the square on the axis of the cone to the

square on the half of the diameter of the base is not greater than the ratio of

the transverse diameter [which is the axis of the given section] to the latus

rectum 45.

Let the given cone be the cone on its axial triangle , with axis , and

let the given hyperbola be whose axis and the eidos pl..

And first let the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to . We

draw in [exterior] angle the straight line parallel to and equal to ,

And draw through a plane at right angles to the plane of the triangle ,

then it will cut the cone, and its intersection will be the hyperbola whose axis .

Then, since is parallel to , the ratio of [which the transverse diameter] to the latus rectum of [that] section is equal to the ratio sq. to pl.,

as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I, and [therefore] it also it equal to the ratio

to .

283

section whose axis . Therefore the eidos of the section whose axis is equal

to the eidos of the section , and the section and the section whose axis

are equal because of what is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.

[Furthermore] no other section can be found equal to the section with

the vertex of its axis on the straight line .

[Proof]. For, if that is possible, then the axis of that section lies in the

plane of the triangle , as is proved in the preceding theorem ,and the

triangle will be at right angles to the plane in which that other section lies.

And since that section is a hyperbola, and is equal to the section , its axis will

meet beyond , and the portion of the axis drawn from the triangle to the

point where it meets will be equal to the straight line , as is proved in

Theorem 2 of this Book.

But this [portion] is not , nor is it parallel to it, for if it were parallel to

it, it would be unequal to it. And, when that is the case, if a straight line is

drawn from A parallel to that axis, it will fall either between and , or between and .

Therefore let the straight line that is parallel to it [the axis of other section] be . Then as sq. is to pl., so is to , as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I and Theorem 2 of this Book. But that is impossible for sq.AM

is greater than sq., and pl. is smaller than pl..

Furthermore we [now] make the ratio sq. to sq. smaller than the ratio to , and describe on the triangle a circle circumscribing it,

and continue to [meet the circle at] , then the ratio to is smaller

than the ratio to .

Therefore let the ratio to be equal to the ratio to , and let

be parallel to . We join and . Let each of and be equal to

, and let be parallel to , and parallel to AK. We draw through

and planes at right angles to the plane of , therefore as to generate in

the cone two hyperbolas on the axes and .Then the ratio to is equal

to the ratio to , and to the ratios to and sq. to pl.. But

pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl.. But

the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio of [which is the transverse

diameter of the eidos of the section on the axis ] to its latus rectum, as is

proved in Theorem 12 of Book I.

Therefore the eidoi of the section and the section on the axis are

equal. And it was proved in Theorem 2 of this Book that, when that is the case,

then the section and the section on the axis are equal.

284

Similarly too it will be proved that the section is equal to the section

on the axis .

[Furthermore] no other, third section can be found with the vertex of its

axis on one of and equal to the section .

[Proof]. For, if it is possible to find a section other than those mentioned

sections, then its axis lies in the plane of , as was proved in the case of the

parabola. Therefore we draw parallel to that axis then we will prove, as we

proved above, that does not coincide with , nor with , and that the ratio to is equal to the ratio sq. to pl., and is equal to the ratio

sq. to pl. because pl. is equal to pl.. But the ratio sq. to

pl. is equal to the ratio to . Therefore as is to , so is to .

That is impossible because as is to , so is to , and as is to ,

so is to .

Furthermore we [now] make the ratio sq. to sq. greater than the

ratio to . Then I say that no section can be found in the cone equal to the

section .

[Proof]. For, if it can be found, then we draw parallel to the [transverse] diameter of that section. Then as sq. is to pl., so is to But

the ratio sq. to pl. is greater than the ratio to . Therefore the ratio

sq. to pl. is smaller than the ratio sq. to pl.. But sq. is

greater than sq. and pl. is smaller than pl.. That is impossible , therefore no section can be found in the cone equal to the section .

[Proposition] 30

given ellipse 46.

Let there be the given right cone on the axial triangle , and let the

given ellipse be the section whose axis and the latus rectum .

We draw on the triangle the circle circumscribing it, and make

the ratio to equal to the ratio to , it is evident that this is easily

possible, and draw in the triangle the straight line parallel to and

equal to . We draw through a plane cutting the cone and erected at right

angles to the plane of the triangle . Then this will generate in the cone the

ellipse whose axis , and the ratio of to its latus rectum will be equal to

the ratio sq. to pl., as is proved in Theorem 13 of Book I.

But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio of , which is the

transverse diameter of that section to its latus rectum, is equal to the ratio

285

sq. to pl..

But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , and as

is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio of to the latus rectum of the

section with axis is equal to the ratio to , and the eidoi of the section

and of the section with axis are similar and equal. Therefore the sections

themselves are equal, as is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.

I [also] say that no other section can be found in this cone with that vertex which is closer to lying on , which is equal to the section .

[Proof].For, if that is possible. Then we will prove, as we proved in Theorem 28 of this Book. That is its axis lies in the plane of the triangle , and

that its plane is at right angles to the plane of the triangle .

And, since that section is an ellipse, its axis will meet , and since it is

equal to the section , its axis is equal to , as is proved in Theorem 2 of this

Book. And that vertex which is closer to lies on . Therefore its axis does

not coincide with , nor it is parallel to it, and [hence]. When we draw from

a straight line parallel to that axis it will not coincide with .

Therefore let it be as . Then will cut the arc because it is not

parallel to . And the ratio of the transverse diameter [of the section] to its

latus rectum will be equal to the ratio sq. to pl., as is proved in Theorem

13 of Book I. And it also is equal to the ratio to .

But pl. is equal to pl. . Therefore the ratio sq. to pl. is

equal to the ratio to .

But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , and as

is , so is to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to

, which is impossible. Therefore no other section besides the section with

axis can be found in this cone equal to the section with the point of that

vertex which is closer to lying on .

[Proposition] 31

and similar to a given right cone 47.

Let the parabola be whose axis , and the latus rectum for that

section, and the given one with the axial triangle .

We draw through a plane at right angles to the plane of the section , and draw in that plane the straight line , which we make the form

together with the angle equal to the angle . We make the ratio to

equal to the ratio to ,and draw on the triangle similar to the tri286

angle , and draw and from and , and construct the cone with

vertex and base the circle drawn on as its diameter, and perpendicular to

the plane . Then the angle is equal to the angle .

But the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the angle is

equal to the angle .Therefore is parallel to being a side of the axial

triangle [of the cone]. Therefore the plane in which lies the given section generates in the cone a parabola. And the ratio to is equal to the ratio to

and to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to because is equal to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is

equal to the ratio to ..But sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio

sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the latus rectum of

the section generated in the cone is . But it is also the latus rectum of the

section .

And the parabolas with equal latera recta are [them selves] equal, as is

proved in Theorem 1 of this Book. Therefore the section is placed in the

cone that we constructed, and the cone that we constructed is similar to the

cone because the triangle is similar to the triangle . Then I say

that this section is not found in any other cone a part from this one similar to

the cone with its vertex on this side of the plane of the section.

[Proof]. For let, if that is possible, there be another cone containing this

section and similar to the cone . The vertex of this cone is . Let there pass

through the axis of [this] cone a plane perpendicular to the plane of the given

section, then it will cut it, and the position of the intersection in which this

plane cuts that plane will be the axis of the section.

But is the axis of the section, therefore is the intersection of these

two planes.

But the plane is at right angles to the plane in which lies the section

and it passes through Therefore I lies in the plane . Let and be the

sides of the cone. Then is parallel to , and the angle is equal to the

angle and to the angle . Therefore lies on the same straight line as

, and we continue to [meet at] . Now the section is in the cone

with vertex . Therefore if we make the ratio of some straight line to equal to

the ratio sq. to pl., then that straight line will be the latus rectum of the

section .

But is the latus rectum of the section . Therefore as sq. is to

pl., so is to . And the ratio sq. is to pl. was shown be equal to

the ratio to .

287

of the triangles. Therefore as is to , so is to , that is impossible.

Therefore no other cone can be found containing that section, similar to

the cone , and such that the point of its vertex is on this side of the plane

in which the section lies.

[Proposition] 32

cone containing a given hyperbola 48.

[For this problem to be soluble] it is necessary that the ratio of the

square on the axis of that cone to the square on the radius of its base be not

greater than the ratio of the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to

the axis of the section to its latus rectum.

Let there be the given hyperbola whose axis and transverse diameter , and let the eidos corresponding to the axis of this sections be

pl.. Let the given cone be the cone with the axial triangle .

We continue to , and draw through the plane at right angles

to the plane in which lies the section. We draw in this plane on the segment

of a circle admitting an angle equal to the angle , and complete the

circle and bisect the arc at . We draw from the perpendicular to

[and continue it to meet the circle again at ].

And first let the ratio of the square on [which is the axis of the cone]

to the square on ZH be equal to the ratio to . We continue in a

straight line from as , and draw parallel to . Then, since the arc

is equal to the arc , the angle is equal to the angle .

Therefore the angle is equal to the angle .

Therefore we construct the equilateral cone with vertex , and base the

circle with diameter AM and plane at right angles to the plane .

Then, when that is so, the plane in which lies the given section generates

in [this] cone the hyperbola with whose axis and the transverse diameter

. And the angle is equal to the angle because the segment

admits an angle equal to the angle . And is equal to , and is equal to

. Therefore we draw the perpendicular [to AM].

Then as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..

But as sq. is to pl., so is to . Therefore as sq. is to

pl., so is to . Therefore the ordinates in the generated section falling

on are equal in square to the rectangular planes applied to and increasing

it by a rectangular plane similar to pl. as is proved in Theorem 12 of Book I.

288

And the perpendiculars falling from the section on are also equal in

square to the rectangular planes applied to and increasing it by a rectangular

plane similar to pl.. Therefore the section is equal to the section generated in the cone with vertex and base the circle on the diameter as is

proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.

And it lies in its plane, and its axis coincides with its axis. Therefore the

cone with vertex contains the section , and it is similar to the cone

because as is to , so is to . Then I say that no cone, apart from

one we constructed which is similar to the cone and has the point of its

vertex on the same side of the plane in which lies the section as , contains this section.

[Proof]. For let, if it is possible, another cone with its vertex at I contain it .

Then it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding theorem; that I lies in the

plane . Therefore let the sides of [that] cone be and . Now that cone

is similar to the cone . Therefore the angle is equal to the angle ,

and the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore lies on the arc ,

and ,when continued, will pass through . So we join and draw from A the

straight line parallel to it, and from the straight line parallel to . Then

the section lies in the cone with vertex , and its axis has been continued to . Therefore the ratio as sq. is to pl. is equal to the ratio of ,

the transverse diameter, to , the latus rectum.

But as is to , so sq. is to pl.. Therefore as sq. is to

pl., so sq. is to pl., and the angle is equal to the angle , and

they are equal to the angles and [respectively]. Therefore the angle

is equal to the angle . And the angle is equal to the angle .

Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle . And we had proved that

as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..

But is equal to . Therefore is equal to . And the ratio to

is equal to the ratio to and to the ratio to .Therefore is equal

to . But that is impossible because is a diameter of the circle, and has cut

at right angles at . Therefore no cone can be found other than the cone

which we constructed, which is similar to the cone and contains the section

. Furthermore we make the ratio sq. to sq. smaller than the ratio

to , and carry out the construction as we did before, then as sq. is to

pl., so sq. is to pl. because of the similarity of two triangles [

and ]. And pl. is equal to sq. and to sq.. And sq. is equal to

sq.. Therefore as sq. is to pl., so sq. is to sq.. But sq. is equal

289

to pl.. Therefore the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio sq. to

sq. and equal to the ratio pl. to sq., and equal to the ratio to .

But the ratio sq. to sq. is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore

the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore we make the

ratio to equal to the ratio to , and draw through a straight line

o parallel to . We join , , and , and draw from the straight line

parallel to .

Then it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding theorem, that the

triangles and are isosceles and similar. Therefore if we construct a cone

with vertex I and base the circle with the diameter and in the plane perpendicular to the plane , then the plane in which lies the section will cut

that cone, and from the cutting of the one by the other will result a hyperbola,

and the axis of that section will be ,and its transverse diameter and the

ratio to is equal to the ratio to and to the ratio to . But the

ratio to is equal to the ratio pl. to sq., and pl. is equal to pl.,

therefore as pl. is to sq., so is to .

But as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to pl. because the quadrangle

is a parallelogram. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl..

Therefore is the latus rectum of the section generated in the cone

. Thence it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding part of this theorem, that the cone with the vertex I contains the section , and it will also be

contained by another equal to this cone, with the vertex , when and

are joined and continued. And these two cones will be similar to the cone

. Then I say that no third cone similar to the cone , and with the point

of its vertex on the same side of the plane in which lies the section as I can

contain it.

[Proof]. For the point of its vertex will lie on the arc , as we proved if

the preceding theorem. Therefore let it be , we join . Then we will prove by

the converse of the proof we made previously that as is to , so is to

. But that is impossible because the ratio to was made equal to the

ratio to . Therefore no third one similar to the cone contains this

section.

But if the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio to , then it

is not possible for a cone similar to the cone to contain the section .

[Proof]. For let, if it is impossible, it be contained by the cone with vertex .

Then we will prove by a method like the preceding theorem that as is to ,

so is to . But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio sq. to sq.,

which we proved to be equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to

290

this kind] similar to the cone will contain the section .

[Proposition] 33

Let the given ellipse be whose major axis , and latus rectum ,

and let given right cone be the cone .

We want to show how to construct a right cone similar to a given right

cone containing a given ellipse 49.

We draw through a plane at right angles to the plane in which lies the

section , and draw in it on the arc [of a circle] admitting an angle

equal to the angle . We bisect it at , and draw from the straight line

in such way that as is to , so is to .

Similarly too we draw in such way that it is cut [by the circle] in the

same ratio. We join and , and draw parallel to , and parallel to

[cutting at ]. We construct the cone whose vertex I and base the circle

with diameter . Then I say that this cone is similar to the cone EZK, and that

it contains the section .

[Proof]. The angle is equal to the angle because they are in the

same arc. But the angle also is equal to the angle because and

are parallel. But the angle is equal to . Therefore the remaining angle

[in the triangle ] the angle is equal to the angle . Therefore the triangle is similar to the triangle .

But the triangle is similar to the triangle , and these triangles are

isosceles. Therefore the triangle is isosceles and similar to the triangle

. Therefore the cone with vertex and base the circle on diameter is

similar to the cone . And the plane in which lies the section generates

in this cone the ellipse whose major axis . And the ratio to is equal to

the ratio to and to the ratio pl. to sq.. But pl. is equal to pl..

Therefore as is to , so pl. is to sq..

But as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to pl. because thee quadrangle

is a parallelogram. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to pl.. And

is the transverse diameter, therefore is the latus rectum of the section generated in the cone. And it is also the latus rectum of the section .

Therefore the section is contained in the cone that we constructed

because of what is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book.

Similarly too it will be proved that it is contained in another cone with vertex whenever and are drawn.

291

[Furthermore] no other, third cone similar to the cone with the point

of its vertex on this side of the plane [of ] contains this section.

[Proof]. For, if it is possible that some other contains it, then we will

prove, as we proved in the preceding theorem, that if there is drawn through

its axis a plane at right angles to the plane in which the section lies, then that

intersection of these two planes is the major of two axes of the section.

And we will also prove, as we proved in the case of the hyperbola in the

preceding theorem that the point of vertex of the cone lies on the arc . Let

this point be , and let the sides of the cone be and . We draw through

and the straight line and draw parallel to , and parallel to .

Then the triangle is as isosceles, and as sq. is to pl., so is to .

Therefore as sq. is to pl., so pl. is to sq. because the quadrangle

is a parallelogram.

But pl. is equal to pl.. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to

sq., and this [latter] ratio is equal to the ratio to . Therefore as is

to , so is to .

But the ratio to was also equal to the ratio to . Therefore the

ratio to is equal to the ratio to , which is impossible. Therefore it is

not possible for there to be a third cone similar to the cone containing this

section.

292

BOOK SEVEN

Apollonius greets Attalus.

Peace be on you. I have sent to you with this letter of mine the seventh

book of the treatise on Conics. In this book are many wonderful and beautiful

things on the topics of diameters and the eidoi corresponding to them1, set out

in detail. All of this is of great use in many types of problems, and there is much

need for it in the kind of problems which occur in conic sections which we mentioned, among those which will be discussed and proved in the eighth book of

this treatise 2 .

[Proposition] 1

If the axis of a parabola is continued in a straight line outside of the section to a point such that the part of it which falls outside of the section is equal

to the latus rectum, and furthermore a straight line is drawn from the vertex of

the section to any point on the section and a perpendicular to the axis dropped

from where it meets it, then the straight line which was drawn [from the vertex

is equal in square to the rectangular plane under the straight line between the

293

foot of the perpendicular and the vertex of the section, and the straight line between of the foot of the perpendicular and the point two which the axis was

continued 3.

Let there be the parabola whose axis . We continue to , let

be equal to the latus rectum. We draw from the straight line in any position [so as to cut the section again at ], and drop as perpendicular to .

Then I say that sq. is equal to pl..

[Proof]. is the axis of the section, is perpendicular to it, and is

equal to the latus rectum. Therefore sq. is equal to pl., as is proved in

Theorem 11 of Book I.

Therefore we make sq. common. Then the sum of sq. and sq. is

equal to the sum of pl. and sq..

But the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to sq., and the sum of pl.

and sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore sq. is equal to pl..

[Proposition] 2

it falling outside of the section in the transverse diameter, and a straight line is

cut off adjacent one of the ends of the transverse diameter such that the

transverse diameter is divided into two parts in the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus rectum, and the straight line cut off corresponds to the

latus rectum, and a straight line is drawn from that end of the transverse diameter which is the end of the straight line which was cut of to the section, in

any position, and from the place where [that straight line] meets it, a perpendicular is dropped to the axis, then the ratio of the square on the straight line

drawn from the end of the transverse diameter to the corresponding plane under two straight lines between the foot of the perpendicular and two ends of

the straight line which was cut off is equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the excess of it over the straight line which was cut off. And let the

straight line that was cut off be called the homologue 4 .

Let the hyperbola be the section whose continued axis , and let the

eidos of the section . Let be cut off from , and let as is to , so

is to , which is the latus rectum.

We draw from to the section the arbitrary straight line , and drop

perpendicular to the axis. Then I say that as sq. is to pl., so is to .

[Proof]. We make pl. equal to sq.. Therefore as pl. is to pl.,

so sq. is to pl.. But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio of the

294

proved in Theorem 21 of Book I. Therefore the ratio pl. to pl. is equal to

the ratio to and to the ratio to , and as is to , so is to .

Therefore the ratio to is equal to the ratio to . So the ratio to

is equal to the ratio to , and the ratio to is equal to the ratio

to . But, when we make a common height, as is to , so pl. is to

pl.. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to pl.. But pl. is equal to

sq.. Therefore as sq. is to pl., so is to .

.

[Proposition] 3

Let there be the ellipse whose axis and eidos . Let the straight line

constructed on the continuation of the axis be , and let as is to , so

is to .

If a straight line is constructed on the continuation of one of axes of an

ellipse, whichever axis it may be, and one of its ends is one of the ends of the

transverse diameter, and the other end is outside of the section and the ratio of

it to the straight line between its other end and the remaining and of the

transverse diameter is equal to the ratio of the latus rectum to the transverse

diameter, and a straight line is drawn from the common end to the transverse

diameter and the straight line constructed on the axis to any point on the section and from the place where its meet the section a perpendicular is dropped

to the axis, then the ratio of the square on the straight line which was drawn

[to the section] to the pl. two straight lines between the foot of the perpendicular and two ends of the straight line which was constructed on the axis is

equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter to the straight line between those

two ends of the transverse diameter and the straight line which was constructed that are different from each other. Let the straight line that was constructed be called the comologue6.

From let be drawn to the section, and let us drop perpendicular

to the axis. Then I say that sq. is to pl., so is to .

[Proof].We make pl. equal to sq.. Then as pl. to pl., so

sq. is to pl..

But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio of the latus rectum

which is to the transverse diameter which is , as is proved in Theorem 21

of Book I. Therefore the ratio pl. to pl. is equal to the ratio to

295

to , so is to . And as is to , so is to , and as is to , so

is to .

But, when we make a common height, as is to , so pl. is to

pl.. Therefore as is to , so pl. is to pl.. But pl. is equal to

sq.. Therefore as sq. is to pl., so is to 7.

[Proposition] 4

of its diameter, and an ordinate is drawn from the point of contact to that diameter, and from the center a straight line is drawn parallel to the tangent and

equal to the half of the diameter conjugate with the diameter passing through

the point of contact, then the ratio of the square on the tangent to the square

on the straight line parallel to it is equal to the ratio of the straight line between

the point of intersection of the tangent and the diameter and the foot of the

perpendicular to the straight line between the foot of the perpendicular and the

center 8.

Let the diameter of the hyperbola or the ellipse be , and its center ,

and the straight line tangent to the section be . Let be an ordinate to

and let be parallel to , and let be equal to the half of the diameter

conjugate with the diameter passing through .

Then I say that sq. is to sq., so is to .

[Proof]. We draw from the diameter , and draw and parallel

to [and let meets at ]. Let the ratio of the straight line to be

equal to the ratio to . Then is the half of the straight line such that,

when the rectangular planes applied to it in the hyperbola with the addition of a

rectangular plane similar to the plane under and the double , and in the ellipse with the subtraction of a rectangular plane similar to the plane under the

double and , the ordinates falling on are equal to those rectangular

planes. And that has been proved in Theorem 50 of Book I. And is the half of

the diameter conjugate with the diameter . Therefore pl., is equal to

sq., as is proved in Theorems 1 and 21 of Book II. And the ratio to is

equal to the ratio to and to the ratio to . Therefore pl., is equal

to sq.. But the ratio pl., to pl., is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio sq. to pl., is equal to the ratio to .

But as for the ratio BK to , it is equal to the ratio to . And as for

the rectangular plane pl., ,it is has we have shown, equal to sq..

296

[Proposition] 5

If there is a parabola and one of its diameters is drawn in it, and from the

vertex of that diameter a perpendicular is dropped to the axis, then the straight

line such that straight lines drawn from the section to the diameter parallel to

the tangent drawn from the vertex of the diameter [as ordinates] are equal in

square to the rectangular planes under the mentioned straight line and the

segment cut off from the diameter by ordinates [that straight line is the latus

rectum corresponding to the diameter] is equal to the latus rectum corresponding to the axis larger by the quadruple amount cut off from it by the perpendicular from the axis adjacent to the vertex of the section 9.

Let there be the parabola whose axis , and one of its diameters , and

let the straight lines such that the perpendiculars dropped to are equal in

square analogous rectangular planes be this is corresponding to the axis .

We draw from the perpendicular to the axis.

Then I say that the straight lines drawn from the section to parallel to

the tangent [] from are equal in square to the eidos applied to the straight

line equal to in creased by the quadruple , that straight line is the latus

rectum corresponding to the diameter

[Proof]. We draw perpendicular to the axis and continue to and

draw tangent to the section at , and draw so that it forms a right angle

with . Then the triangle is similar to the triangle . Therefore as is

to , so is to . Therefore is equal to the half of the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter , as is proved in Theorem 49 of Book I.

But pl. is equal to sq. because the angle is right and is perpendicular [to ]. And sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore pl. is equal to

pl..

But is equal to the double , as is proved in Theorem 35 of Book I.

Therefore is equal to the double , and the quadruple is equal to the

double . Therefore the sum and the quadruple is equal to the double

. And we have [already] shown that the double is the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter . Therefore the latus rectum corresponding to the

diameter is equal to the sum of and the quadruple .

[Proposition] 6

297

two straight lines adjacent to two ends of the axis which is the transverse diameter, each of them equal to the straight line which we called homologue,

and placed as it is placed, and two conjugate diameters from among the diameters of the section are drawn, and from the vertex of the section a straight line

is drawn parallel to the upright diameter of two opposite hyperbolas to cut the

section, and from the place where it meets it a perpendicular is dropped to the

axis, then the ratio of the transverse diameter of two conjugate diameters to

the upright one is equal in square to the ratio of the straight line between the

foot of the perpendicular and the end of the more remote of two homologues

to the straight line between the foot of the perpendicular and the end of the

nearer of two homologues, and the ratio of the transverse diameter to the latus

rectum corresponding to it parallel to the second diameter is in length equal to

the ratio of two straight lines which we mentioned previously to each other in

length 10.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis , and transverse diameter ,

as the continuation of the axis, and center . Let each of two straight lines

and be equal to the homologue. Let two conjugate diameters and

pass through , and let us draw parallel to , and draw the perpendicular

to . Then I say that the ratio of the square on the transverse diameter

to the square on the upright diameter is equal to the ratio to .

[Proof]. We join , and draw the perpendicular from , and draw from it

also parallel to . Then that straight line [] is tangent to the section.

And since is equal to , and is equal to , is parallel to . Therefore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the triangles.

But as is to , so sq. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 4 of this

Book. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq.. And since as sq. is

sq., so sq. is to sq. because of the similarity of the triangles [ and

], and as sq. is to sq., so is to , the ratio sq. to sq.H is

compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq. and to .

But the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to

pl. , pl. to pl. , and pl. to sq.. Therefore the ratio sq.

to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to pl., pl. to pl.,

pl . to sq., and to . But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , as is proved in Theorem 2 of this Book, and the ratio pl. to

sq. is equal to the ratio to , as is also proved in Theorem 2 of this

Book, and the ratio pl. to pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to

and to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ra298

compounded of these ratios which we mentioned is equal to the ratio to

because the part of it to , when combined with to , is equal to

the ratio to , and is equal to , and as for the part of it to ,

when combined with to , it is equal to the ratio of to itself. Therefore

the ratio compounded of these ratios is equal to the remaining ratio, which is

the ratio to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio

to , and [hence] the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to .

Furthermore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to the

straight line such that straight lines drawn from the section to parallel to

[are equal in square to corresponding rectangular plane] as is proved in Theorems 1 and 21 of Book II. Therefore the ratio of to the mentioned straight

line [that is the latus rectum corresponding to ] is equal to the ratio to

.

[Proposition] 7

straight lines at two ends of it, each of them equal to the homologue straight

lines, and two conjugate diameters are drawn in the section, and from the vertex of the section a straight line is drawn parallel to one of the conjugate diameters so as to meet the section [again], and from the place there it meets

[the section] a perpendicular is dropped to the axis, then the ratio of the diameter which is not parallel to the straight line drawn to other diameter is equal

in square to the ratio to each other of two parts [of the straight line between

the ends of two homologues straight lines which are not the ends of the diameter] into which it is cut by the perpendicular, according to how two homologues

are placed, if [they are found on the major axis , they are outside the section,

and if in minor axis, then they are on the axis itself. And the ratio of the mentioned diameter to the straight line such that the ordinates dropped on it are

equal in square to corresponding rectangular planes is [also] equal to the mentioned ratio 11.

Let there be the ellipse whose axis . Let two homologues straight lines

be and . Let the diameters and be conjugate, in any position. We

draw parallel to the diameter , and drop from the perpendicular to

the axis. Then I say that the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to

,and that the ratio of to the straight line such that straight lines drawn to

it in the section parallel to are equal in square to corresponding rectangular

299

planes, this straight line is the latus rectum, also is equal to the ratio to .

[Proof]. We join , and drop the perpendicular from and draw from

it too the straight line parallel to . Then that line is tangent to the section. And since is equal to and is equal to , is parallel to .

Therefore as is to , so is to because of the similarity of the

triangles.

But as is to , so sq. is to sq., because of what is proved in

Theorem 4 of this Book. Therefore as is to , so sq. is to sq.. And

since as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq. because of the similarity of two

triangles, and as sq. is to sq., so is to .

The ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to sq.

and to .

But the ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] sq. to

pl., pl. to pl. , and pl. to sq.. Therefore the ratio sq. to

sq. is compounded of [the ratios sq. to pl., pl. to pl., pl.

to sq., and to .

But the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the ratio to , as is proved

in Theorem 3 of this Book, and the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio

to , as is also proved in Theorem 3 of this Book, and the ratio pl. to

pl. is compounded of [the ratios] to and to , therefore the

ratio sq. to sq. is compounded of [the ratios] to , to , to

, to , and to .

And the ratio compounded of those ratios mentioned by us is equal to the

ratio to because the part of it to , when combined with to

is equal to the ratio to , and is equal to , and as for the part of it

to , when combined with to , it is equal to the ratio of to itself. Therefore the ratio compounded of these ratios is equal to the remaining

ratio to . Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to

. And furthermore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to the

straight line by which straight lines drawn from the section to parallel to

are equal in square to corresponding rectangular planes. Therefore the ratio of

to the latus rectum corresponding to it is equal to the ratio to .

Hence it will be proved that if the perpendicular dropped from on the

axis passes through the center , then the diameter will be equal to the diameter because is equal to 12 .

[Proposition] 8

300

Furthermore we set the diagram for the hyperbola and the ellipse in the

way it was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book, then I say that the ratio of the

square on which is the transverse diameter to the square on and

which are two conjugate diameters, when whey are joined together in a straight

line is equal to the ratio of pl., to the square on the straight line equal to

the sum of and the straight line equal in square to pl. 13.

[Proof]. We make a mean proportional between and . Then as

sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq.. But sq. is equal to pl., as is

proved in Theorems 37 and 38 of Book I. Therefore as sq. is to sq., so

pl. is to sq..

But as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq. because and are

parallel to and [respectively]. Therefore the ratio pl. to sq. is

equal to the ratio sq. to sq.. And when we make a common height, as

is to , so pl. is to . And the ratio sq. to pl. is equal to the

ratio to , as is proved in Theorems 2 and 3 of this Book. And is equal

to because and are two homologue straight lines. Therefore as

pl. is to pl., so sq. is to pl..

Therefore permutando as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to pl..

But we have [already] proved that as pl. is to sq., so sq. is to

sq.. Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio pl. to

pl. and is equal to the ratio to . And as is to , so pl., is to

sq.. Therefore as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to sq..

Furthermore as sq. is to sq., so is to , as was proved in two

preceding theorems. Therefore as is to , so is to because is the

mean proportional between and . Therefore the ratio to the sum of

and is equal to the ratio is to , and the ratio of sq. to the square

on the sum of and is equal to the ratio sq. to sq..

But we have [already] proved that as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to

sq.. Therefore ex a equali the ratio sq. to the square on the sum of

and is equal to the ratio pl., to sq., and is equal to the sum

and the straight line whose square is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio of

sq. to the square on the sum of two conjugate diameters and is equal

to the ratio of pl., to the square on which is equal to the sum of

and the straight line whose square is equal to pl..

[Proposition] 9

301

Furthermore we set out what we have mentioned in the situation of Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the square on the

difference of and is equal to the ratio of pl., to the square on the

difference of and Xi, where is the straight line equal in square to

pl..

[Proof]. The ratio of to is equal to the ratio to , as is shown

in the proof of the preceding theorem. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square

of the difference of and is equal to the ratio sq. to the square of the

difference and .

But as sq. is to sq., so pl., is to sq., as is proved in the preceding theorem. Therefore ex the ratio sq. to the square on the difference

and is equal to the ratio pl., to the square on the difference of

and . But sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square on

the difference of and is equal to the ratio pl., to the square on the

difference of and , where is the straight line equal in square to pl..

[Proposition] 10

We again set the diagram as it was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book.

Then I say that the ratio sq. to pl., is equal to the ratio of to the

straight line equal in square to pl. 15.

[Proof]. It has been shown in the proof of Theorem 8 of this Book that as

sq. is to sq., so is to . And is was proved there also that as sq. is

to pl., , so is to because the ratio to is equal to the ratio

to . Therefore as sq. is to pl., ,so is to .

But sq. is equal to pl.. Therefore the ratio sq. to pl., is

equal to the ratio of to the straight line equal in square to pl..

[Proposition] 11

Furthermore we set things in the state that we prescribed for the hyperbola in Theorem 6 of this Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the sum of

sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to the sum of and 16.

[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so is to , as was proved in Theorem

8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.BK is equal to

the ratio to the sum of and because it was proved in Theorem 6 of

this Book that as sq. is to sq., so is to . Therefore a equali the ratio

sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to the sum of

302

and .

[Proposition] 12

In any ellipse the sum of the squares on any two of its conjugate diameters what ever is equal to the sum of the squares on its two axes 17.

Let the diagram for the ellipse be as it was in Theorem 7 of this Book.

Then the axis is , two conjugate diameters and , and two homologue straight lines and . And the ratio of sq. to the square on other of

two axes of the section is equal to the ratio of which is the transverse diameter to the latus rectum corresponding [to it], as is proved in Theorem 15 of

Book I.

But the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to because is the homologue straight line. And is equal to . Therefore the

ratio of sq. to the square other of two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to . And for that reason the ratio of sq. to the sum of sq. and

the square on other of two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to .

Furthermore as sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in the

proof of Theorem 8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the sum sq. and

sq. is equal to the ratio to the sum and because it was proved in

Theorem 7 of this Book that as sq. is to sq., so is to .

But the sum of and is equal to . Therefore the ratio sq. to

the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to . And we had

[already] proved that the ratio to is equal to the ratio sq. to the sum

of the squares on two axes. Therefore the sum of the squares on two axes is

equal to the sum of sq. and sq..

[Proposition] 13

In every hyperbola the difference between the squares on its axes is equal

to the difference between the squares on any pair of its other conjugate diameters whatever 18.

Let the diagram of the hyperbola be as it was in Theorem 6 of this Book.

Then the ratio of the square on , which is one of the axes to the square on

the other of two axes of the section, is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, as was proved in Theorem 16 of Book I. But the ratio of to its latus

rectum is equal to the ratio to because is the homologue straight

line. And is equal to . Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the

303

other of two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to , and therefore

the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the other

on two axes of the section is equal to the ratio to .

Furthermore as sq. to is sq., so is to , as is proved in

Theorem 8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the difference between sq.

and sq. is equal to the ratio to because it was proved in Theorem 6 of

this Book that as sq. is to sq., so is to .

Therefore ex a equali the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and

sq. is equal to the ratio to . And we had [already] proved that the ratio

of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the other of two

axes of the section is equal to that ratio which is the ratio to . Therefore

the difference between sq. and the square on the other of two axes of the

section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq..

[Proposition] 14

Furthermore we let the diagram of the ellipse as we represented it in

Theorem 7 of this Book, then I say that the ratio of the square on the axis

to the difference between the squares on and is equal to the ratio to

the double when is parallel to the diameter and is the perpendicular to the axis 19.

[Proof]. The ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to , as is

proved in Theorem 8 of this Book. And the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio to the difference between

and because it was proved in Theorem 7 of this Book that as sq. to

sq., so is to . But the difference between and is equal to the

double . Therefore the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and

sq. is equal to the ratio to the double .

[Proposition] 15

Furthermore we set the diagram for the hyperbola and the diagram for

the ellipse in the situation we represented in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book,

then I say that the ratio of sq. to the square on the straight line which

bounds together with the diameter the eidos of the section, this straight line

is the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter , is equal to the ratio of

pl., to sq. 20.

[Proposition] 16

304

Book, and let the latus rectum corresponding to be , then I say that the ratio sq. to the square on the difference between and is equal to the ratio

pl., to the square on the difference between and 21.

[Proof]. The ratio to the difference between and is equal to the

ratio to the difference between and for it was proved in Theorems 6

and 7 of this Book that as is to , so is to . Therefore the ratio sq.

to the square on the difference between and is equal to the ratio sq. to

the square on thee difference between and .

[Proposition] 17

[Proof]. As is to , so is to , as is proved in Theorems 6 and 7

of this Book. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square on the sum of and is

equal to the ratio sq. to the square on the sum of and . But as sq.

is to sq., so pl., is to sq.. Therefore the ratio sq. to the square on

the sum of and is equal to the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of

and .

[Proposition]18

Furthermore we set the diagram as it was in Theorems of this Book, then I

say that as sq. is to pl., ,so is to 23.

[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in the proof of

Theorem 8 of this Book. But as sq. is to pl., ,so is to , and as is

to , so is to , as is proved in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book. Therefore

as sq. is to pl., , so is to .

[Proposition] 19

Furthermore we set the diagram as is was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this

Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to

the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. 24.

[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so pl., is to sq. , as is proved in

Theorem 8 of this Book. But the ratio to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal

to the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. because it was proved in the

proof of Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book that as is to , so is to .

305

Therefore the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio

pl., to the sum of sq. and sq..

[Proposition] 20

Furthermore we set the diagram as is was in Theorems 6 and 7 of this

Book, then I say that the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and

sq.T is equal to the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. 25.

[Proof]. As sq. is to sq., so pl., to sq. , as is proved in the

proof of Theorem 8 of this Book.

But the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. is equal to

the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. because it was

proved in Theorems 6 and 7 of this Book that as is to , so is to .

Therefore the ratio sq. to the difference between sq. and sq.T is equal to

the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq..

[Proposition] 21

If there is a hyperbola, and its transverse axis is greater than its upright

axis, then the transverse diameter of each pair of conjugate diameters among

its other diameters is greater than the upright diameter of that pair, and the

ratio of the greater axis to the smaller axis is greater than the ratio of the

transverse diameter to the upright diameter among the other conjugate diameters, and the ratio of a transverse diameter nearer to the greater axis to the

upright diameter conjugate with it is greater than the ratio of a transverse diameter farther [from that axis] to the upright diameter conjugate with it 26.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axes and , and let there be two

other transverse diameters and , and let be greater than .

Then I say that is greater than the upright diameter conjugate with it,

and that the diameter also is greater than the upright diameter conjugate

with it, and that the ratio to is greater than the ratio of to the upright

diameter conjugate with it and than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it, and that the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it

is greater than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.

[Proof]. We make each of the ratios to and to equal to the

ratio of to its latus rectum. Then and belong to the class of straight

lines called homologues.

306

make parallel to the tangent to the section at , and drop to the greater

axis the perpendiculars and . Then the ratio of sq. to the square on the

upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to , as is proved in

Theorem 6 of this Book.

And likewise the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is greater than the

upright diameter conjugate with it, and likewise too the diameter is greater

than the upright diameter conjugate with it.

Furthermore the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to

and is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is equal to , and as is

to , so is to . But the ratio to is smaller than the ratio to

AN. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to EN.

Similarly too it will be proved that the ratio to is greater than the

ratio to .

But as is to , so sq. is to sq. because each of these two ratios

is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, as is proved in Theorem 16 of

Book I. Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio to and

is greater than ratio to .

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the

upright diameter conjugate with it, and the ratio to is equal to the ratio

of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it.

Therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is greater than the ratio of sq. to

the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it, and is greater than the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it.

Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio of to the upright

diameter conjugate with it, and is greater than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.

Furthermore the ratio to which is equal to the ratio of sq. to the

square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is greater than the ratio to

which is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter

conjugate with it. Therefore the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate

with it is greater than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.

[Proposition] 22

If there is a hyperbola and its transverse axis is smaller than its upright

axis, then the transverse diameter of each pair of diameters among the other

307

conjugate diameters is smaller than the upright diameter of that pair, and the

ratio of the smaller axis to the greater axis is smaller than the ratio of any of

the other transverse diameters to the upright diameter conjugate with it, and

the ratio of a transverse diameter nearer to the smaller axis to the upright diameter conjugate with it is smaller than the ratio of [a transverse diameter] farther [from that axis] to the diameter conjugate with it 27.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axes and and center , and with

two of its diameter and , and let [the transverse axis] be smaller than

[the upright axis] .

Then I say that each of and is smaller than the upright diameter

conjugate with it, and that the ratio to is smaller than the ratio of to

the upright diameter conjugate with it, and [is smaller] than the ratio of to

the upright diameter conjugate with it, and that the ratio of to the upright

diameter conjugate with it is smaller than the ratio of to the upright diameter conjugate with it.

[Proof]. We make the ratios to equal to the ratio of the diameter

to its latus rectum, and also equal to the ratio to . Then and

belong to the class of straight lines called homologues.

We draw parallel to the tangent passing through ,and parallel to

the tangent passing through , and drop from and the perpendiculars

and to the axis. Then the ratio of the square on the diameter to the

square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to ,

as is proved in Theorem 6 of this Book.

And likewise the ratio of sq. to the square on the upright diameter conjugate with it is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the diameter BK is

smaller than the upright diameter conjugate with it, and the diameter is

smaller than the upright diameter conjugate with it.

Furthermore the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to

and is equal to the ratio to . Therefore is equal to , and as i

28.

For we set the diameter conjugate with it 29 .

[Proof]. Let the major of two axes of the ellipse be , and its minor axis

, and [two pairs of] its conjugate diameters be and , and and .

Let EZ be greater than , its conjugate, and be greater than , its conjugate, [and let be closer to the major axis than ].

We drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis , and

drop from and the perpendiculars and to .

308

Then the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to the ratio pl.ALB to sq., as is

proved in Theorem 21 of Book I.

But pl. is greater than sq., therefore pl. is greater than sq..

Therefore is greater , and [hence] is greater than .

Furthermore as pl. is to sq., so pl. is to sq..

But pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore pl. is smaller than sq..

Therefore is smaller than , and [hence] is smaller than .

But it was proved that is greater than . Therefore the ratio to

is greater than ratio to . And the diameter is conjugate with the diameter , and is parallel to the tangent to the section at .

[Furthermore] the diameter is conjugate with the diameter , and it

[] is parallel to the tangent to the section at . And the diameter is

closer to the major axis than is the diameter .

And as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem

21 of Book I.

But pl. is greater than pl.. Therefore sq. is greater than sq..

And the difference between pl.ARB and pl. is greater than the difference between sq. and sq. because it has been proved that pl. is

greater than sq..

But the difference between pl. and pl. is equal to the difference

between sq. and sq.. Therefore the difference between sq. and sq. is

greater than the difference between sq. and sq.. Therefore the sum of

sq. and sq. is greater than the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore is

greater than , and [hence] the diameter is greater than the diameter .

Furthermore as pl. is to pl., so sq. is to sq., as is proved in

Theorem 21 of Book I. But pl. is smaller than sq., and pl. is smaller

than sq.. Therefore the difference between pl. and is smaller than

the difference between sq. and sq..

But the difference between pl. and pl. is equal to the difference

between sq. and sq.. Therefore the difference between sq. and sq.

is smaller than the difference between sq. and sq.. Therefore the sum of

sq. and sq. is smaller than sq. and sq.. Therefore is smaller than

, and [hence] the diameter is smaller than the diameter .

And when the diameter conjugate with is greater than the diameter conjugate with , and the diameter is smaller than the diameter ,

then the ratio of to its conjugate is greater than the ratio of to its

conjugate .

309

[Porism 1]

And hence it becomes clear that the difference between and is

greater than the difference between and , and that the difference between and is greater than the difference between and , and that

the difference between sq. and sq. s greater the difference between sq.

and sq. which is greater than the difference between esq. and

sq..

[Porism 2]

Then I say that the straight line under which and the eidos of the

section is formed is smaller than the straight line under which and the eidos

of the section is formed, and that the straight line under which and the eidos

of the section is formed ,is smaller than the straight line under which and the

eidos of the section is formed, and that the straight line under which and

the eidos of the section is formed is smaller than the straight line under

which and the eidos of the section is formed 30.

[Proof]. For let be greater than , and be greater than , and

be greater than , and be smaller than , and be smaller than ,

and be smaller than . And sq. is equal to the rectangular plane under

and the straight line under which and the eidos of the section is formed,

as is proved in Theorem 15 of Book I. And sq. is equal to the eidos of the

section corresponding to , and sq. is equal to the eidos of the section

corresponding to , and sq. is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to .

[Proposition] 25

In every hyperbola the straight line equal to [the sum of] its two axes is

smaller than the straight line equal to [the sum of] any other pair whatever of

its conjugate diameters, and the straight line equal to the sum of a transverse

diameter closer to the greater axis together with its conjugate diameter is

smaller than the straight line equal to the sum of a transverse diameter farther

from the greater axis together with its conjugate diameter 31.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , with the some

of its conjugate diameters and , and and . Then the axis is either

equal to the other of two axes of the section or it is unequal to it. Now if it is

310

equal to it, then the diameters and are equal, as is proved in Theorem 23

of this Book, and likewise the diameter is equal to the diameter .

But the diameter is greater than the axis , and the diameter is

greater than diameter . Thus what we desired has been proved.

But as form [what happens] if the axis is unequal to the other of two

axes of the section, the difference between sq. and the square on the other

of two axes of the section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq.

as is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book.

Therefore the straight line equal to [the sum of] two axes is smaller than

the straight line equal to [the sum of] diameters and . And because the

difference between sq. and sq. is equal to the difference between sq.

and sq. the straight line equal to [the sum of] diameters and is smaller

than the straight line equal to [the sum of] the diameters and .

[Proposition] 26

In every ellipse the sum of its two axes is smaller than [the sum] of any

conjugate pair of its diameters, and the sum of any conjugate pair of its diameters which is closer to two axes is smaller than the sum of any conjugate pair of

its diameters farther from two axes, and the sum of the conjugate pair of its diameter each of which is equal to the other is greater than that of any [other]

conjugate pair of its diameter 32.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and conjugate diameters and , and and , and and , and let be

greater than [its conjugate , and let be greater than [its conjugate] ,

and let be equal to [its conjugate] .

Then I say that the straight line equal to [the sum of] two axes and

is smaller than the straight line equal to [the sum of] two diameters and

, and that the straight line equal to [the sum of] two diameters and ,

and that the greatest of them [the sums of the pairs of conjugate diameters]

is the straight line equal to [the sum of] two diameters and .

[Proof]. The ratio to is greater than the ratio to , as is

proved in Theorem 24 of this Book. Therefore the ratio of the square on the

sum and to the sum of sq. and sq. is smaller than the square on the

sum and to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the sum of sq. and sq.

is equal to the sum of sq. and sq., as is proved in Theorem 12 of this

Book. Therefore the square on the sum and is smaller than the square on

the sum of and . Therefore the straight line equal to the sum of two axes

311

and is smaller than the straight line equal to the sum of two diameters

and .

Similarly too if will be proved that the straight line equal to [the sum of]

and is smaller than the straight line equal to the sum of two diameters

and .

[Proposition] 27

In every ellipse or hyperbola in which two axes are unequal the increment

of the greater axis over the smaller is greater than the increment of [the

greater of] any conjugate diameter among its diameters over the diameter conjugate with it, and the increment of [the greater of a pair of] them nearer to

the greater axis over the diameter conjugate with it is greater than the increment of [the greater of a pair of them] farther [from the major axis] over the

diameter conjugate with it 33 .

Now it has been proved in Theorem 24 of this Book that in case of the

ellipse that is as we stated, but as for the hyperbola it will be proved as follows.

We make the axis of the hyperbola . Let some of its conjugate diameters be

and , and and .

Then I say that the difference between and the other axis is greater

than the difference between and , and that the difference between

and is greater than the difference between and .

[Proof]. The difference between sq. and the square on the other of

two axes of the section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq., as

is proved in Theorem 13 of this Book. And the diameter is greater than the

axis . Therefore the difference between and the axis conjugate with it is

greater than the difference between and .

Similarly too it will be proved that the difference between and ZH is

greater than the difference between and .

[Proposition] 28

In every hyperbola or ellipse the rectangular plane under its two axes is

smaller than the rectangular plane under any conjugate pair whatever of its diameters, and of the conjugate diameters for those in which the greater [of the

pair] is closer to the greater axis ,the rectangular plane under the diameter and

the diameter conjugate with it is smaller than rectangular plane under one of

those in which it is farther from it [the greater axis] and the diameter conjugate

with it 34 .

312

Now as for the case of the hyperbola, that will be proved from what we

said in that precedes. For each of two axes is smaller than the diameter adjacent to it of any pair of conjugate diameters, and those of the [diameters]

closer two axes are smaller than those farther.

But as for the case of the ellipse we make its major axis and the minor

, and let some of its conjugate diameters be and , and , and

and , then I say that pl., is smaller than pl., and that pl., is

smaller than pl.,, and pl., is smaller than pl.,.

[Proof].The sum of two axes and is smaller than the sum of two

diameters and , as is proved in Theorem 26 of this Book, and [hence] the

square on the sum and is smaller than the square on the sum and .

But the sum sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and sq., as

is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book. Therefore the by subtraction the double

pl., is smaller than the double pl., . Therefore pl., is smaller than

pl., .

Similarly too it will be proved that pl., is smaller than pl., ,and

pl., is smaller than pl., .

[Proposition] 29

The differences between the eidoi corresponding to [each of] the diameters of any hyperbola and [each of] the squares onthose diameters are equal 35

.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and let some of

its conjugate diameters be and , and and , then I say that the difference between the eidos of the section corresponding to and sq. is

equal to the difference between the eidos of the section corresponding to

and sq., and [also is equal to] the difference between the eidos corresponding to and sq..

[Proof]. The difference between sq. and the square on the other of the

two axes of the section is equal to the difference between sq. and sq., and

[also is equal to] the difference between sq. and sq., as was proved in

Theorem 13 in this Book.

But as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , it is equal to the

square on the other of two axes of the section, has we stated in Theorem 16 of

Book I. And as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , it is equal to

sq., and as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , it is equal to

313

sq.. Therefore the difference between the eidos of the section corresponding

to and sq. is equal to the difference between the eidos of the section

corresponding to and sq., and [also is equal to] the difference between

the eidos of the section corresponding to and sq..

[Proposition] 30

If there is added to [one of] the eidoi corresponding to any of the diameters of an ellipse the square of that diameter [the sum always] comes out equal

36.

Let the center of the ellipse be , and some of its conjugate diameters be

BK and , and and .

Then I say that the eidos of the section corresponding to together

with sq. is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to together

with sq..

[Proof]. The sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the sum of sq. and

sq., as is proved in Theorem 12 of this Book.

But as for the eidos of the section corresponding to , is equal to sq.,

and as for sq., it is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to , as

is proved in Theorem 15 of Book I.

Therefore the eidos of the section corresponding to together with

sq. is equal to the eidos of the section corresponding to together with

sq.

[Proposition] 31

When a pair of conjugate diameters is drawn in an ellipse or between conjugate opposite hyperbolas, then the parallelogram under that pair of diameters

with angles equal to the angles under the diameter at the center is equal to the

rectangular plane under two axes 37.

Let there be the ellipse or the conjugate opposite hyperbolas whose center and axes and , and with one pair of its conjugate diameters and

.

Let the tangents [to these section] pass through and , and and be

and , and and . Then and are parallel to the diameter ,

and and are parallel to the diameter , as is proved in Theorems 5 and

20 of Book II. Therefore the quadrangle is a parallelogram, and its angles are

equal to the angles under the diameters and at the center .

314

Then I say that the quadrangle is equal to the rectangular plane under

two axes and .

[Proof]. We drop from the perpendicular to , and make the

straight line a mean proportional between and . Then as sq. is to

sq., so pl. is to sq., as is proved in Theorem 37 of Book I. But pl.

is equal to sq.. Therefore as sq. is to sq., so sq. is to sq., and as

is to , so is to , and as sq. is to pl., so pl., is to

pl., .

And permutando as sq. is to pl., , so pl. is to pl., .

But sq. is equal to pl., as is proved in Theorem 37 of Book I.

Therefore as pl. is to pl., , so pl. is to pl.. . And is parallel

to . Therefore as sq. is to sq., so is to , as is proved in Theorem 4

of this Book. And as the triangle is to the triangle , so sq. is to

sq. because two triangles are similar. Therefore as the triangle is to the

triangle , so is to , and as the double triangle is to the double

the triangle , so is to . But the quadrangle is a mean proportional between the double triangle and the double triangle .

And similarly is a mean proportional between and . Therefore as

the double triangle is to the parallelogram , so is to .

But as is to , so pl., is to pl.. Therefore as the double triangle is to the quadrangle , so pl., is to pl..

And we had [already] proved that as pl., is to pl., so pl., is

to pl.. Therefore as the double triangle is to the quadrangle , so

pl., is to pl.. But the double triangle is equal to pl.,. Therefore, the quadrangle is equal to pl., and [hence] the quadruple quadrangle with is [the quadrangle] is equal to the quadruple pl. with is

equal to the rectangular plane under two axes and . Therefore the quadrangle is equal to the rectangular plane under two axes and .

[Porisms]

1) in every hyperbola the sum of the squares on its two axes is smaller

than [the sum of] the squares on any conjugate pair whatever of its

diameter , and [the sum is] the squares on a pair of conjugate diameters closer

to two axes is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on a pair of conjugate diameters farther from two axes 38,

315

2) and that in every ellipse the difference between the squares on its

two axes is greater than the difference between the squares on any conjugate

pair whatever of its diameters ,and the difference between the squares on [a

pair of] conjugate diameters close to two axes is grater than the difference between the squares on [a pair of] conjugate farther from two axes 39,

3) and that if there is a hyperbola in which the transverse diameter of the

sides of the eidos of the section corresponding to the axis is greater than the

latus rectum, then the transverse diameter of [each of] eidoi of the section corresponding to the other diameters is greater than its latus rectum and [in that

case] the rate of the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to that

axis to the latus rectum is greater than the ratio of every [other] transverse diameter to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it , this ratio in the

eidoi corresponding to those transverse diameters closer to the axis is greater

than in those corresponding to transverse diameters farther from the axis 40 ,

4) but if the transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to the axis

of the hyperbola is smaller than the latus rectum, then other transverse diameters of other eidoi are smaller than their latera recta, and the ratio of the

transverse diameter of the eidos corresponding to that axis to its latus rectum

is smaller than the ratio of every [other] transverse diameter to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and this ratio in the eidoi corresponding to

those transverse diameters closer to the axis is smaller than in those corresponding to transverse diameter farther from the axis 41,

5) and if the eidos of the hyperbola corresponding to the axis is equilateral, then the eidoi of the section corresponding to other diameters are equilateral 42,

It has also been shown that

6) in every ellipse the transverse diameter of the eidos of the section

corresponding to the diameters drawn between the major axis and two equal

conjugate diameters is greater than their latus rectum, and the ratio of it [the

transverse diameter] to it [the latus rectum in the eidoi corresponding to these

diameters closer to the major axis is greater than in those corresponding to

transverse diameters farther from it 43 ,

7) but as for the transverse diameter of the eidoi of the ellipse corresponding to the diameters between the minor axis and two equal conjugate diameters, it is smaller than latus rectum, and the ratio of it [the transverse diameter] to it [the latus rectum in these eidoi corresponding to those diameters

closer to the minor axis is smaller than in those corresponding the diameters

farther from it 44.

These are theorems which can be proved from what we proved in the

316

treatment of the diameters and eidoi of sections and their sides, and the ratios

of the conjugate diameters and corresponding latera recta.

[Proposition] 32

In every parabola the latus rectum which is the straight line such that the

ordinates dropped to the axis are equal in square to the rectangular planes under that straight line and the segments of the axis cut off by ordinates is the

smallest of the latera recta which are the straight lines such that the ordinates

dropped on the other diameters are equal in square to corresponding rectangular planes, and the latus rectum corresponding to [one of] those diameters

closer to the axis is smaller than the latus rectum corresponding to the diameter farther 45.

Let there be the parabola whose axis and with two other of its diameters and , and let the latera recta [correspondingly to the diameters

, , and ] be , and [respectively] .

I say that is smaller than , and that is smaller than .

[Proof]. We drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis.

Then is equal to the sum of and the quadruple , as is proved in Theorem 5 of this Book. And similarly is equal to the sum of and the quadruple . Therefore is smaller than , and is smaller than .

[Proposition ] 33

to the axis is not smaller than its latus rectum, then the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to the axis is smaller than the latus rectum of [any of] the

eidoi corresponding to other diameters of the section, and the latus rectum of

[any of] the eidoi corresponding to diameters closer to the axis is smaller than

the latus rectum of the eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther from the

axis 46 .

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and with two of

its diameters and .

Then I say that the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding

to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding

to , and that the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to

is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to

.

317

[Proof]. First we make the axis equal to the latus rectum to the eidos

corresponding to it. Then the diameter is equal to the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to it, which can be proved from Theorem 23 of this Book

and Theorem 16 of Book I.

But is smaller than . Therefore the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

.

Furthermore the diameter is equal to the latus rectum of the eidos of

the section corresponding to it. But the diameter is smaller than the diameter . Therefore the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to

is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos of the section corresponding to

.

Furthermore we make the axis greater than the latus rectum of the

eidos of the section corresponding to it, and [then] the ratio of to the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the ratio of to its

latus rectum, as is proved from Theorem 21 of this Book and Theorem 16 of

Book I. And similarly the ratio of to its latus rectum is greater than the ratio

of to its latus rectum. But the axis is smaller than the diameter , and

the diameter is smaller than the diameter . Therefore the latus rectum of

the axis is smaller than the latus rectum of the diameter , and the latus

rectum of the diameter BK is smaller than the latus rectum of the diameter .

[Proposition] 34

Furthermore we make smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, but not smaller than the half of the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to it, then I say that again the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

, and that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to 47 .

[Proof]. We make each of the ratios to and to equal to the

ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it , and draw from

the straight line parallel to , and the straight line parallel to , and

drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis. Then, since each

of the ratios to and to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to if. is equal to and equal to .

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is equal to the ratio pl., to sq..

318

But the diameter is smaller than its latus rectum . But not smaller

than the half of the latus rectum. Therefore is greater than but not

greater than the double . And the sum of and is greater than the

double . Therefore the rectangular plane under and the sum and

to the rectangular plane under and the sum of and is smaller than

the rectangular plane under and the sum and to sq.. Therefore

the ratio to is smaller than the rectangular plane under and the sum

and to sq., and [hence] the ratio to is smaller than the ratio of

the sum of sq. and the rectangular plane under and the sum of and

to sq.. But the sum of sq. and the rectangular plane under and the

sum of and is equal to sq.. Therefore the ratio to is smaller

than the ratio sq. to sq..

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl. ,.

Therefore the ratio pl., to pl.. is smaller than the ratio sq. to

sq.. And permutando the ratio pl., to sq. is smaller than the ratio

pl., to sq..

Now as for the ratio pl., to sq., is equal to the ratio of sq. to

the square on the latus rectum of the diameter , as is proved in Theorem 15

of this Book, and as for the ratio pl., to sq., we have [already] proved

that it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square of the diameter .

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square of the diameter is smaller

than the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Therefore the latus rectum of the diameter is smaller than

the latus rectum of the diameter .

Furthermore is not greater than the double . Therefore is

smaller than the double . And the sum of and is greater than the

double . Therefore pl., the sum of and is greater than sq..

Therefore the ratio pl. , the sum of and .to pl., the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and is smaller than the ratio of

[the rectangular plane] under and the sum and to sq.. But the

ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to the ratio to

. Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio [the rectangular

plane] under and the sum and to sq.. Therefore the ratio to

is smaller than the ratio of the sum sq. and [rectangular plane] under

and the sum and to sq.. But the sum of sq. and [the rectangular

plane] under and the sum of and is equal to sq.. Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio sq. to sq..

319

Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than sq. to sq..

And permutando the ratio pl., to sq. is smaller than pl., to

sq.. But as for the ratio pl., to sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq. to

the square on the latus rectum of the diameter , as is proved in Theorem 15

of this Book, and as for the ratio pl., to sq., it is equal to the ratio of

sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the diameter , as is proved in

Theorem 15 of this Book.

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the diameter is smaller than the ratio of it [sq.] to the square on the latus rectum of the diameter .

Therefore the latus rectum of the diameter is smaller than the latus

rectum of the diameter . And it has already been shown that the latus rectum

of the diameter is smaller than the latus rectum of the diameter .

[Proposition] 35

Furthermore we make smaller than the half of the latus rectum of the

eidos of the section corresponding to it, then I say that there are two diameters [one] on either side of this axis such that the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to each of them is the double that [diameter], and that [latus

rectum] is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to any

other of the diameters on that side [of the axis],and the latus rectum of eidoi

corresponding to the diameters closer to those two diameters is smaller than

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to a diameter farther from them48 .

[Proof]. has been cut into two parts such that the ratio to is

equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, and likewise the ratio to

[is the same ratio]. And the diameter is smaller than the half of its latus rectum. Therefore is greater than the double . Therefore is greater than

.

Therefore let be equal to , and let be the perpendicular to the

axis meeting the section at . We join and draw the diameter parallel to

. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 6 of this Book.

Therefore the diameter is the half of the latus rectum of the section

corresponding to it.

Therefore we draw between and the diameters and , and draw

from the straight line parallel to the diameter and the straight line

320

parallel to the diameter , and drop from and the perpendiculars and

to the axis.

Now is equal to . Therefore pl. is smaller than sq. we make

[the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and common [to both

sides], then [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is smaller

than sq.. Therefore the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is

greater than the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and

to sq.. But the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to

the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than [the rectangular

plane] under and the sum of and to sq.. Therefore the ratio to

is greater than the ratio the sum sq. and [the rectangular plane] under

and the sum of and to sq..

But the sum of sq. and [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and is equal to sq.. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the

ratio sq. to sq..

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore

the ratio pl., to pl. is greater than the ratio sq. to sq.

And permutando the ratio pl., to sq. is greater than pl., to

sq,.

But as for the ratio pl., to sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq.

to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to as is

proved in Theorem 15 of this Book. And as for the ratio pl., to sq. , it is

equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to as is proved in Theorem 15 of this Book.

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to KB is greater than the ratio of sq. to the latus rectum

of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

.

Furthermore pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore it will be proved

from that, as we proved previously that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

.

Furthermore pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to .

321

than is the diameter , then I say that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

, and that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. Now we draw from two straight lines and parallel to

and , and drop from Y and the perpendiculars and to the axis. Then

pl. is greater than sq. . Therefore when we go through a procedure like

the preceding one, it is shown that the ratio pl., to sq. is smaller than

the ratio pl., to sq., and from that it will be proved that the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to . And because pl. is greater than sq. the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 36

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and with two

other of its diameters and .

If there is a hyperbola, and the eidos corresponding to its axis is not

equilateral, then the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to

its axis is greater than the difference between the sides of [any of] the eidoi

corresponding to other diameters , and the difference between the sides of the

eidoi corresponding to those diameters closer to the axis is greater than the difference between the sides of the eidoi corresponding to those diameters farther

from it 49.

Then I say that the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the difference between two sides of the eidos

corresponding to , and that this [latter] difference is greater than the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

But we draw and parallel to the diameters and , and drop

from and the perpendiculars and to the axis and make each of the

ratios to and to equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to it. Then the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it

is equal to the ratio pl., to sq.. And is parallel to the diameter ,

and is the perpendicular to the axis. Therefore the ratio pl., to the

square on the difference between and is equal to the ratio of sq. to

322

the square of the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 16 of this Book.

But the difference between and is equal to . Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to it is equal to the ratio pl., to sq..

And the ratio pl., to sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to sq. .

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between

and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the ratio of sq. to the square of the difference between it and the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to it. Therefore the difference between and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Furthermore is parallel to the diameter , and is the perpendicular to the axis. Therefore the ratio pl., to the square on the difference

between and is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it as is

proved in Theorem 16 of this Book.

And the ratio pl., to sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to

sq. .Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the difference between

and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the ratio of

sq. to the square on the difference between and the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to it.

Therefore the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

[Proposition] 37

In every ellipse for the eidoi of the section corresponding to the diameters greater than their [corresponding] latera recta the difference between two

sides of the eidos corresponding to the major axis is greater than the difference

between two sides of [any of] the eidoi corresponding to the remaining diameters, and the difference between two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the

diameters closer to the major axis is greater than the difference between two

sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther [from the major

axis].

But in the case when the diameters on which the which the

corresponding eidoi are smaller than the latera recta, the difference between

323

two sides of the eidos corresponding to the minor axis is greater than difference between two sides of the others of these eidoi and the difference between two sides of those of the eidoi corresponding to the diameters closer to

the minor axis is greater than the difference between two sides of those eidoi

corresponding to the diameters farther from it.

And the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to the

major axis is greater than the difference between two sides of the eidos corresponding to the minor axis 50.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and

with two of its diameters and , both and being greater than the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Then I say that the difference between and the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and that the difference between

and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

[Proof]. is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding

to it, and also is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

it, and also the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 24

of this Book. Therefore the difference between and the latus rectum of the

eidos constructed to it is greater than the difference between and the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Similarly too it will be proved that the difference between and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Furthermore, we make each of and smaller than the latus rectum

of the eidos corresponding on it, then I say that the difference between and

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference

between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and that the

difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is

greater than the difference between KB and the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to it.

[Proof]. is smaller than , and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is grater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

, as is proved in this Book. Therefore the difference between and the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between

and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

324

Similarly too it will be proved that the difference between and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Furthermore the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 15 of Book I. And the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to is greater than , as is proved from Theorem 15

of Book I. Therefore the difference between and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between and the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

[Proposition] 38

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse side of the eidos corresponding to its axis is not smaller than one third of its latus rectum, then the sum of

the straight lines bounding each of the eidoi corresponding to its diameters

which are nor the axes is greater than the sum of the straight lines bounding

the eidos corresponding to its axis, and the sum the straight lines bounding the

eidoi corresponding to those diameters closer to the axis is smaller than [the

sum of] the sides bounding the eidoi corresponding those diameters farther

from it 51 .

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis , being not smaller then

one third of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Let two of its diameters be and .

Then I say that [the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to , and that [the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to

, is smaller than [ the sum of] the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to

.

[Proof]. We make first the axis not smaller than the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to it.

Now the diameter is greater than the axis , and the diameter is

greater than the diameter , and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding

to is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is

proved in Theorem 33 of this Book, and likewise too the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding two . Therefore the sum of the diameter and the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the sum of the diameter and

325

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and the sum of the diameter

and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the

sum of the diameter and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Therefore the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is

greater than the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to , and

the sum of these [latter] sides is greater than the sum of the sides bounding

the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 39

Furthermore we make smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, but not smaller than one third of the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to it, and let each of the ratios to and to be equal

to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and draw

from two straight lines and parallel to the diameters and [respectively], and drop from and the perpendiculars and to the axis.

Then the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is

equal to the ratio to , and is not smaller than one third of the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Therefore is not smaller than one

third of . Therefore is not smaller than the quarter of the sum of and

. Therefore [the rectangular plane] under the quadruple and the sum of

and is not smaller than the square of the sum of and . Therefore

the ratio the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and

to the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of and

is not greater than the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the

sum p\of and to the square on the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is not greater than the ratio the quadruple [the rectangular plane]

under and the sum of and to the square on the sum and . And

componendo the ratio to is not greater than the ratio the quadruple sum

of the square on the sum of and and [the rectangular plane] under

and the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .

But the quadruple sum of the square of the sum of and and [the

corresponding plane] under and the sum of and is smaller than the

square on the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is smaller than

the ratio of the square on the sum of and to the square on the sum of

and .

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio of pl., to pl., .

326

Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio square

on the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .

And the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and is smaller

than the ratio pl., to the square of the sum of and .

But as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it

is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the diameter together with

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of

this Book, and as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and ,

it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on the diameter together with

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of

the eidos corresponding to KB is smaller than the ratio of sq. to the square

on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the sum

of two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of two

sides of the eidos corresponding to . And therefore the sum of the sides

bounding the eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of the sides

bounding the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore is greater than the quarter of the sum of and ,

therefore the quadruple [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and

is greater then the square on the sum of and . Therefore it will be

proved from that, as it was proved above, that the ratio pl., to the square

on the sum of and is smaller than the ratio pl., to the square for the

sum of and .

But as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it is

equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 17 of this Book. And for that

reason the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and is equal to

the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two

sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than its ratio to the square on

[the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the sum of

two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of two sides

of the eidos corresponding to . And therefore the sum of [four] sides of the

eidos corresponding to is greater than the sum of [four] sides of the eidos

corresponding to .

[Proposition] 40

327

If there is a hyperbola, and its transverse axis is smaller than one third of

its latus rectum, then there are two diameters, [one] on either side of its axis,

each of which is equal to one third of the latus rectum of the diameter, and the

sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to each of two diameters is

smaller than [the sum of] sides bounding any of the eidoi corresponding to the

diameters on that side [of the axis], and sum of the sides bounding the eidoi

constructed on the diameters closer to [that diameter] is smaller than [the sum

of] the sides bounding the eidoi corresponding to [the diameters] farther from

it 53.

Therefore we make the diagram in Theorem 35 in the same way as it was.

Then is smaller than , and therefore is smaller than one the half of .

Therefore we make equal to the half of , and drop from the perpendicular to the axis, and join and draw the diameter parallel to .

Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 6 of this Book.

But is equal to one third of . Therefore is one third of the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Therefore let two diameters and fall anywhere between and ,

we draw and [respectively] parallel to them, and drop and as perpendiculars to the axis. Then is equal to the quarter of the sum and .

Therefore the square of the sum of and is greater than the quadruple

[rectangular plane] under and the sum of and . Therefore we subtract

the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and from both

of two [sides] and there remains the square on the sum of and is greater

than the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and .

Therefore the ratio of the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum

of and to the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and is greater than its ratio to the square on the sum of and .

But the ratio the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and to the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and

is equal to the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the

ratio the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and to

the square on the sum of and .

And componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio of the sum

of the square on the sum of and and the quadruple [rectangular plane}

under and the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .

But the sum of the square on the sum of and and the quadruple

328

[rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to the square

on the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio

the square on the sum of and to the square on the sum of and .

But the ratio to is equal to pl., to pl.. Therefore the ratio

pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio of the square on the sum of

and to the square on the sum of and .

And permutando the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and

is greater than pl., to the square on the sum of and .

Bur as for the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it

is equal to the ratio of sq. to the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 17 of this Book, and as for

the ratio pl., to the square on the sum of and , it is equal to the ratio

of sq. to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to

, as is also proved in Theorem 17 of this Book. Therefore the ratio of sq.

to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to is

greater than its ratio to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Therefore the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is

smaller than the sum of the sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the square on the sum of and is greater than the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and . Therefore it will

be proved thence, as we proved previously, that the sum of the straight lines

bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of the sides

bounding the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and is smaller the square on the sum of and . Therefore it will be

proved thence also as we proved [previously] that the sum of the straight lines

bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of the sides

bounding the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore we draw the diameters and making them farther from

than is the diameter , and draw from two straight lines and

parallel to and [respectively], and drop from and the perpendiculars

and to the axis. Then the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and

the sum of and is greater than the square on the sum and .

Therefore when we make the sum of and the quadruple [rectangular plane]

under and common [to both sides], it will be proved from that, as we

proved previously, that the sum of the straight lines bounding the eidos corre329

sponding to is greater than the sum of the straight lines bounding the eidos

corresponding to .

Furthermore the quadruple [rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and is greater than the square on the sum of and . Therefore it will

be proved thence also that the sum of the straight lines bounding the eidos corresponding to is the greater than the sum of the sides bounding the eidos

corresponding to .

[Proposition] 41

In every ellipse the sum of [four] sides bounding the eidos corresponding

to its major axis is smaller than the sum of the sides bounding any eidos corresponding to another of its diameter, and the sum of the sides bounding [one

of] the eidoi corresponding to those diameters closer to the major axis is

smaller than the sum of the sides bounding an eidos corresponding to a diameter farther from it, and the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding

to the minor axis is greater than the sum of the sides bounding the eidoi corresponding to other diameters 54.

[Proof]. Let the major of two axes of the ellipse be , and its minor axis

be , and let there be other diameters and .

Let and be parallel to these two diameters and let us drop two perpendiculars and to the [major] axis. Let the ratio to be equal to

the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and likewise

we make the ratio to [equal to that ratio].

Then the ratio of sq. to the square of the straight line equal to the sum

of the diameter and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is

equal to the ratio sq. to sq., and is equal to the ratio pl., to sq.

because pl., is equal to sq..

And the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio to because it was

proved in Theorem 15 of Book I that the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, and the ratio to is equal to the ratio

pl. to sq., and the ratio of sq. to square on the straight line equal to

the sum of and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is equal to

the ratio sq. to sq. also because of what was proved in Theorem 15 of

Book I. Therefore the ratio of sq. to the square on the straight line equal to

the sum of the diameter and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

it is equal to the ratio pl. to sq..

330

And it was shown that the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of

sq. to the square on the straight line equal to the sum of and the latus

rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Therefore the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater

than the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum. Therefore the sum

of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of

the sides of the eidos corresponding to .

And [also] the ratio of pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to

the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of

this Book.

Therefore the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater

than the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum. Therefore the sum

of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the

sum of the sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to

the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of

this Book, and likewise also the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of

sq. to the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter

and its latus rectum.

Therefore the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater

than the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum. Therefore the sum

of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the sum of

the sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to

the square on the straight line equal to the sum of the diameter and the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 17 of

this Book.

And we have [already] proved that the ratio pl. to sq. is equal to

the ratio of sq. to the square on the sum of and its latus rectum.

Therefore the ratio to the sum of and its latus rectum is greater than

the ratio of to the sum of and its latus rectum.

Therefore the sum of the sides bounding the eidos corresponding to is

smaller than the sum of the sides of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 42

331

the eidos corresponding to its axis, and those eidoi corresponding to the

diameters closer to the axis are smaller than those eidoi corresponding to the

diameters farther from it 55 .

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and two of its diameters

and .

Then I say that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidoi

corresponding to other diameters of the section, and that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. We draw the straight lines and parallel to the diameters

and [respectively], and drop to the axis the perpendiculars and , and

make the ratio to equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq.

to the eidos corresponding to . And the ratio to is equal to the ratio

of sq. to the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 18 of this

Book.

And the ratio to is greater than the ratio to .

Therefore the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to is greater

than its ratio to the eidos corresponding to .

Therefore the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos

corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 18 of this Book.

And likewise also the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the

eidos corresponding to .

And the ratio to is greater than the ratio to . Therefore the

ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to is greater than its ratio to the

eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 43

eidos corresponding to the major axis, and the greatest of them is the eidos

corresponding to the minor axis, and those eidoi corresponding to the diameters

closer to the major axis are smaller than those corresponding to the diameters

farther from it 56 .

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and with

two other of its diameters and .

332

Then, I say that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the eidos

corresponding to , and that the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the

eidos corresponding to , and that the eidos corresponding to is smaller

than the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. We draw and parallel to the diameters and [respectively], and drop as perpendicular to the axis and . We make the ratio

to equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

it. Then the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to is equal to the ratio

to .

But sq. to equal to the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in

Theorem 15 of Book I. Therefore the eidos corresponding to is smaller than

the eidos corresponding to .

Now the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to . As is proved in Theorem 18 of this Book. And likewise the ratio

to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to .

And the ratio to is equal to the ratio of sq. to the eidos corresponding to . But is smaller than , and is smaller than , and

is smaller than . Therefore the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the

eidos corresponding to , and the eidos constructed on is smaller than the

eidos corresponding to , and the eidos corresponding to is smaller than

the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 44

to its axis is either [1] not smaller than its latus rectum, or [2] smaller than it,

but [such that] its square is not smaller than the half of the square of the difference between it [the transverse side] and it [the latus rectum], then the

sum of the squares of two sides of the eidos corresponding to the axis is

smaller than [the sum of] the squares of two sides of any eidos corresponding

to one of its other diameter 57.

Let ther be the hyperbola whose axis is , and with two of its diameters

and . Let be either not smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, or let be smaller than it, but let sq. be not smaller than

the half of the square of the difference between it [] and it [its latus rectum].

Then I say that the sum of the squares of two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares of two sides

333

of the eidos corresponding to , and that [the sum of] the squares of two

sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller that [the sum of] the squares

of two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proof]. First we make not smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to it. Then the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is

greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in

Theorem 33 of this Book. And likewise the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

. And is smaller than , and is smaller than . Therefore [the sum

of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding is smaller than [the

sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , and [the

sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller

than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 45

Furthermore we make smaller than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, but [such that] its square is not smaller than the half of the

square on the difference between it [] and it [its latus rectum] and set the

diagram as it was in the preceding theorem, and let each of two ratios to

and to be equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, then the double sq. is not smaller than sq. because is

equal to , and the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to

, and sq. is not smaller than the half of the square on the difference between its latus rectum. We draw two diameters and , and draw and

parallel to them, and drop to the axis the perpendiculars and .

Then the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it

is equal to the ratio to and is equal to the ratio to . And the double

sq. is not smaller than sq., and [hence] the double pl. is greater than

sq. . Therefore we make the double pl. common [to both sides]. Therefore the double pl. sum of the double pl and sq. is greater than the

sum of the double pl. and sq.. Therefore the double pl. and the sum

of and is greater than the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the

sum of sq and sq Therefore the double [rectangular plane] under and

the sum and is greater than the sum of the double pl. and sq..

Therefore the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is

greater than the sum of sq. and sq..

58

334

Therefore the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum

of and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and is smaller than the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under and

the sum of and to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the ratio the double

[rectangular plane] under and the sum and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is equal to the ratio to .

Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the double [rectangular

plane] under and the sum of and to the sum of sq. and sq..

[And componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of the

double [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of ( and ) and

sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.]59

And the sum of sq. and sq. is smaller than the sum of sq., sq.,

and the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and . Therefore the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of sq. and sq. to

sum of sq. and sq..

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the sum of sq.

and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. And permutando the ratio pl.,

to the sum of sq. and sq. is smaller than pl., to the sum of sq.

and sq..

But the ratio pl., to thee sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the

ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos

corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 19 of this Book. And the ratio

pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to the

[sum of the] squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is

proved from the preceding topic in this theorem. Therefore the ratio of sq.

to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos constructed on is

smaller than its ratio to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos

corresponding to is greater than [thee sum of] the squares on two sides of

the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the double sq. is greater than sq., and [hence] the

double pl. is greater than sq.. Therefore it will be proved, as we proved in

the preceding, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 46

335

But if the square on the transverse diameter [] is less than the half of

the square on the difference between it and the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to it, then on either side of the axis are two diameters, the

square on each of which is equal to the half of the square on the difference between it and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and the sum of

the squares of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller than [the

sum of] the squares of two sides of any eidos corresponding to [one of] the diameters drawn on the side [of the axis] on which it lies, and [the sum of] the

squares of two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters on its side

[of the axis] closer to it is smaller than [the sum of] the squares of two sides

[of eidoi] corresponding to those diameters farter from it 60.

Let the axis of the section be , and let sq. be smaller than the half of

the square on the difference between it and the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Let each of the ratios to and to be equal to the

ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. Then the double sq. is smaller than sq.. We make the double sq. equal to sq., and

drop from the perpendicular to the axis, and join and draw the diameter parallel to . Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to the

latus rectum of the eidos constructed on it, as is proved in Theorem 6 of this

Book. And hence sq. is equal to the half of the square on the difference between it the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

So we draw between and two diameters and , and draw and

parallel to them [respectively], drop the perpendiculars and to the

axis.

Now the double sq. is equal to sq. . Therefore the double pl. is

smaller than sq.. We make the double pl. common [to both sides]. Then

the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and is smaller

than the sum of sq. and sq..

Thence it will be proved, as we proved in the preceding theorem that

[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is less

than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the double pl. is smaller than sq.. Therefore we make

the double pl. common [to both sides]. Then the double [rectangular plane]

under and the sum of and than the sum of sq. and sq., and it

will be proved thence also, as it was proved in the preceding theorem that [the

sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos constructed on is smaller than

[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

336

Furthermore the double pl. is smaller than sq., and it will proved

thence also, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares

on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore we draw two diameters and , and let them be farther

from the axis than is the diameter , and we draw and parallel to them,

and drop to the axis to the perpendiculars and , then the double pl. is

greater than sq., therefore it will be proved thence also, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to

is greater than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the double pl. is greater than sq., therefore it will be

proved thence, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than [the sum of] the squares

on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 47

If there is an ellipse, and the square on the transverse side of the eidos

corresponding to its major axis is not greater than the half of the square on the

sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it, then [the sum of] the

squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the major axis is smaller

than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of [all] other eidoi corresponding to

its diameters, and [the sum of] the squares and two sides of those eidoi corresponding to diameters closer to it is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on

two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther from it, and the

greatest of them is [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the minor axis 61.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis . Let sq.

not be greater than the half of the square on [the sum of] two sides of the eidos corresponding to it, and let there be in the section two other diameters KB

and . We draw and parallel to them [respectively], and drop to the axis

the perpendiculars and , and make each of the ratios to and to

equal to the ratio of to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Then the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio of

sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to

. And the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to is

equal to the ratio to because the ratio to is equal to the ratio of

337

to its latus rectum, and the ratio of to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio of the latus rectum of the diameter to because of what is proved in

Theorem 15 of Book I.

Similarly too the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

to is equal to the ratio of the square on the latus rectum of the eidos

corresponding to to sq.. And the ratio to is equal to the ratio

pl. to sq.. Therefore the ratio of the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to is equal to the ratio pl. to sq., and is equal to the

ratio of the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to

sq.. [And the ratio of the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to to sq. is equal to the ratio sq. to sq.].

And the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the

eidos corresponding to is equal to the ratio sq. to the sum of sq. and

sq.. Therefore the ratio pl. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the

ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

And the ratio pl., to sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. [to the

sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to it.

[Therefore the ratio sq. to the sum of the squares on two sides of the

eidos corresponding to is greater than the ratio sq. to the sum of the

squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the sum of

the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than the

sum of the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to ]62.

Now sq. is not greater than the half of the square on [the sum of] two

sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore the double pl., is not

greater than sq. , and [hence] the double pl., is smaller than sq..

Therefore we subtract the double pl. from both [sides] alike, and there remains the double pl. is smaller than the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio the double pl. to the double pl. is greater than the ratio

double pl. to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio to is

greater than the ratio the double pl. to the sum of sq. and sq..

But the sum of the double pl., sq., and sq. is equal to the sum

of sq. and sq. because is equal to . Therefore componendo the ratio

to is greater than the ratio of the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of

sq. and sq.. But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to

pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio the

sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq..

338

And permutando the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq. is

greater than the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq..

But as for the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq., we have

proved that it is equal to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the square on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to it, and as for the ratio pl.NG,MX to the sum

of sq. and sq. it is equal to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares

on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 19 of

this Book. Therefore the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than its ratio to [the sum of]

the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore [the sum

of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than

[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore is either smaller than or it is not smaller than it.

Therefore first let it be smaller than it. Then the sum of sq. and sq.

is greater than the sum sq. and sq.. But the sum of sq. is greater than

the double [rectangular plane] under and the difference between and

. Therefore the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under and the difference between and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the

difference between and is greater than the ratio the double [rectangular

plane] under and the difference between and to the sum of sq.

and sq.. Therefore the ratio to is greater than the ratio the double

[rectangular plane] under and the difference between and to the

sum of sq. and sq.. But the sum of the double [rectangular plane] under

and the difference between and , sq., and sq. is equal to sq.

and sq. because the difference between (the sum of sq. and sq.) and

(the sum sq. and sq.) is equal to the difference between the double sq.

and sq.. Therefore componendo the ratio to is greater than the ratio

the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. But the ratio

to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl.,

to pl., is greater than the ratio the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of

sq. and sq..

And permutando the ratio pl., to the sum and sq. is greater

than pl., to the sum of sq. and sq..

But as for the ratio pl., to the sum of sq. and sq., it is equal

to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 19 of this Book, and as for the ratio

pl., to the sum of sq. and sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq. to

[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

339

Furthermore we make not smaller than , then the sum sq. and

sq. is notgreater the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio pl..

to the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to the sum of

sq. and sq.. Therefore it will be proved thence also, as we proved in the

preceding part of this theorem, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of

the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Similarly too what we stated will be proved if the perpendicular drawn

from falls between and or on itself for in every case turns out to be

smaller than the distance which the perpendicular [] cuts off from it [the major axis towards and ].

Now the ratio pl. to the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio

of sq. to [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding

to , as we proved in the first part of this theorem, and the ratio pl., to

the sum of sq. and sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to [the sum of] the

squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem

19 of this Book. Therefore it will be proved thence, as we proved above, that

[the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is

smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding

to .

[Proposition] 48

If there is an ellipse, and the square on its major axis is greater than the

half of the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it,

then there are two diameters [one] on either side of the axis, such that the

square on each of them is equal to the half of the square on the sum of two

sides of the eidos corresponding to it, and [the sum of] the square on two sides

of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller thin [the sum of] the squares on two

sides of [any of] other eidoi corresponding to diameters drawn in that quadrant

in which [that diameter] is, and [the sum of] the squares on two sides of eidoi

corresponding to those diameters in that quadrant closer to it is smaller than

[the sum of] the squares on two sides of eidoi corresponding to those diameters farther [from it] 63.

Let the diagram be as we drew it in the theorem preceding this one.

Then it will be proved, as it was proved there, that the double sq. is

greater than sq.. We make the double sq. equal to sq., and drop from

340

the perpendicular to the axis to meet the section, and join , and draw

in the section the diameter parallel to .

Then the ratio to is equal to the ratio of to [the sum of] two

sides of the eidos corresponding to it, as is drawn from the proof of Theorem 7

of this Book. And therefore the ratio sq. to sq. is equal to the ratio of

sq. to the square on the sum of two sides of the eidos corresponding to it.

But sq. is equal to the half of sq. .Therefore sq. is equal to the half of

the square on [the sum of] two sides of the sides of the eidos corresponding to

it.

Therefore we draw two diameters and between and , and draw

from two straight lines and [respectively] parallel to them, and drop to

the axis the perpendiculars and .

Now sq. is equal to the half sq., and pl. also is equal to the half

of sq.. Therefore pl. is equal to sq.. Therefore pl. is equal to

pl.. And when we subtract two smaller [members] from two greater [members] , we get the ratio of the remainder to the remainder equal to the

ratio of the whole to the whole . Therefore pl., is equal to pl..

Therefore pl., is greater than pl., ,and the double pl., is

greater than the double pl.,. Therefore the quadruple pl. is greater

than the double pl., .

We make the double pl. common [to both sides], then the sum of the

quadruple pl. and the double pl. is greater than the double pl..

Furthermore we make the quadruple sq. common [to both sides], then

the sum of the quadruple pl. , the double pl., and the quadruple sq.

is greater than the sum of the double pl. and the quadruple sq..

But the sum of the quadruple , the double pl., and the quadruple

sq. is equal to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and , and the sum of the double pl. and the quadruple sq. is equal to

the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the double [rectangular plane] under

and the sum of and is greater than the sum of sq. and sq.. And

therefore the ratio the double [rectangular plane] under Mi and the sum of

and to the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and

is smaller than the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and

to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio to is smaller

than the double [rectangular plane] under and the sum of and to the

sum of sq. and sq..

341

But the sum of sq. and sq. is greater than the sum of sq. and

sq. by an amount equal to the double the [rectangular plane] under and

the sum of and .

Therefore componendo the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the

sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. Then it will be proved

thence, as it was proved in the preceding theorem, that [the sum of] the

squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum

of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the double pl., is greater than the double pl.,,

therefore it will be proved thence, as we proved in the preceding part of this

theorem, that the sum of the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding

to is smaller than the sum of the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore the double pl., is greater than the double pl.,

therefore it will be proved thence that the ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq..

But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the sum of

sq. and sq. to the sum of sq. and sq.. Therefore it will be proved

thence, as we proved previously, that [the sum of] the squares on two sides of

the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore we draw in the section in those two quadrants [in which the

diameters are already drawn] two other diameters and farther from the

major axis than is the diameter , and draw from two straight lines and

parallel to them, and drop to the axis two perpendiculars and , it will be

proved by means of a procedure like the preceding, that [the sum of] the

squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than [the sum

of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to , and that [the

sum of] these [latter] two squares is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on

two sides of the eidos corresponding to , whether and are both between

and , or whether one of them is on the center and the other between

and or between and .

Hence [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding

to equal in square to the half of the square on [the sum of] two sides of the

eidos corresponding to it is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two sides

of any of the eidoi corresponding to other diameters drawn in the two quad342

rants and , and [the sum of] the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters drawn in two quadrants and closer to it

[] is smaller than [the sum of] the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther [from it].

Therefore [the sum of] the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to turns out to be greater than the sum of the squares on two sides of

the eidoi corresponding to any of the remaining diameters.

[Proposition] 49

to its axis is greater than its latus rectum, then the difference between the

squares on two sides of that eidos is smaller than the difference between the

squares on two sides of any of the eidoi corresponding to other diameters, and

the difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding

to diameters closer [to the axis] is smaller than the difference between the

squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to diameters farther from it,

and the difference between the squares on two sides of any of the eidoi corresponding to diameters which are not axes is greater than the difference between the square on the axis and the eidos64 corresponding to it, but smaller

than double that difference.

Let there be the hyperbola whose axis and center , and let be

greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

And let each of the ratios to and to be equal to the ratio of

to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. We draw two diameters

and .

Then I say that the difference between sq. and the square on its latus

rectum is smaller than the difference between sq. and the square on the

latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to , and that the difference between

sq. and the square on its latus rectum is smaller than the difference between

sq. and the square on its latus rectum.

[Proof]. We draw and parallel to the diameters and [respectively], and drop to the axis the perpendiculars and . Then the ratio of

to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio to and also is equal to the ratio

to . Therefore the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between it [sq.] and the

square on its latus rectum.

343

ratio to is smaller than the ratio the sum of and to the sum of

and which is smaller than the ratio [the rectangular plane] under and

the sum of and to [the rectangular plane] under and the sum of

and . But the ratio to is equal to the ratio pl., to pl.,.

Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than [the rectangular

plane] under and the sum of and to [the rectangular plane] under

and the sum of and .

Now as for [the rectangular plane] under and the sum and , it

is equal to the difference between sq. and sq., and as for [the rectangular

plane] under and the sum and , it is equal to the difference between

sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the

ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq.

and sq.

And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. is smaller than pl., to the difference between sq. and sq..

But as for the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq., it is

equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between the squares on two sides

of the eidos corresponding to , as is proved in Theorem 20 of this Book, and

as for the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq., we have

shown that it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between the

square on it [] and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding

to it. Therefore the ratio of sq. to the difference between the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to is smaller than its ratio to the difference

between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to . Therefore,

the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to

is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos

corresponding to .

Furthermore, the ratio to is smaller than to ; therefore the

ratio to is smaller than the ratio of the sum of and to the sum of

and . Therefore it will be proved thence, as we proved above, that the

difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to

is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos

corresponding to .

Furthermore we make the straight line equal to the latus rectum of

the eidos corresponding to , then the difference between sq. and sq. is

equal to the sum of the double pl. and sq.. Therefore the difference be344

tween sq. and sq. is greater than pl. and is smaller than the double

pl.. But pl. is equal to the difference between sq. and the eidos

corresponding to it, and the difference between sq. and the eidos corresponding to it is equal to the difference between sq. and the eidos corresponding , as is proved in Theorem 29 of this Book.

Therefore de difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between

sq. and the eidos corresponding to it, but is smaller than the double that difference.

[Proposition] 50

If there is a hyperbola, and the transverse side of the eidos corresponding to its axis is smaller than its latus rectum, then the difference between the

squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the axis is greater than the

difference between the squares on two sides of any of the eidoi corresponding

to the diameters other than it, and the difference between the squares on two

sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters closer to the axis is greater

than the difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to the diameters farther from it, and the difference between the

square on any of those diameters and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the double difference between the

square on the axis and the eidos corresponding to the axis 65.

Let the axis of the hyperbola be , and let each of the ratios to

and to be equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum, and we make the

rest of the diagram which preceded in the theorem before this remain the same.

Then the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq. is

equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it. And the ratio to is

greater than the ratio to . Therefore the ratio to is greater than

the ratio of the sum and to the sum of and . Therefore the ratio

pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio of the sum and to the

sum of and .

But the ratio of the sum of and to the sum of and is equal

to the ratio pl., the sum of and to pl., the sum of and .

Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio pl., the sum

of and to pl., the sum of and .

345

used above that the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is smaller than the difference between

sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

Then we make equal to the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to

. Therefore pl. is equal to the difference between sq. and the eidos

corresponding to because of what was proved in Theorem 29 of this Book.

And the difference between sq. and sq. equal to the sum of the

double pl. and sq., which is greater than the double pl..

Therefore the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos

corresponding to is greater than the double difference between sq. and

the eidos corresponding to .

[Proposition] 51

The difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to the major axis of an ellipse is greater than the difference between

the squares on two sides of any eidos corresponding to other diameters which

are greater than the latus rectum of the eidoi corresponding to them, and the

difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi constructed to

those of these diameters closer to the major axis is greater than the difference

between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to those diameters farther from it, and the difference between the squares on two sides of the

eidos corresponding to its minor axis is greater than the difference between the

squares on two sides of any eidos corresponding to other diameters which are

smaller than the latera recta of the eidoi corresponding to them, and the difference between the squares on two sides of those eidoi corresponding to those

of these diameters closer to the minor axis is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides on those eidoi corresponding to the diameters

farther from it.

Let there be the ellipse whose major axis and minor axis , and one

of two equal conjugate diameters . Let two diameters and be drawn

between and , and let and [respectively] be parallel to them, and let

there be dropped to the axis the perpendiculars and .

We construct in the diagram [elements] corresponding to the constructions in the hyperbola in the theorem preceding this.

Then I sat that the amount by which sq. is greater than the square on

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the amount by

which sq. is greater than the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it,

346

and that the latter amount is greater than the amount by which sq. is

greater than the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

[Proof]. The ratio to is smaller than the ratio to . Therefore

the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the double pl.. to

the double pl.,.

But as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference between

sq. and sq., and as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference

between sq. and sq.. Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller

than the ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq. and sq..

And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. is smaller than pl., to the difference between sq. and sq. .

But as for the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and sq.,

it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between it [sq.] and the

square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it because each of the

ratios to and to is equal to the ratio of to its latus rectum because both and are homologues. And as for the ratio pl.. to the difference between sq. and sq., it is equal to the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum on the eidos corresponding to it, as is proved in Theorem 20 of this Book. Therefore the ratio of

sq. to the difference between it and the square on the latus rectum of the

eidos corresponding to it is smaller than the ratio of sq. to the difference

between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding

to it therefore the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos

corresponding to is greater than the difference between the squares on two

sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore we will prove, as we proved in the preceding part of this

theorem, that the ratio pl., to pl., is smaller than the ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq. and sq..

And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. is smaller than the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. .

And it will be proved thence that the difference between the squares on

two sides of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the difference between the squares on two sides of the eidos corresponding to .

Furthermore we draw two diameters and between and , and

draw from two straight lines and parallel to them, and drop to the axis

perpendiculars and , then I say that the difference between sq. and the

347

square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the

difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it, and that this [latter] difference is greater than the difference

between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding

to it.

[Proof]. The ratio pl., to pl., is greater than the ratio to

because is greater than and is smaller than , and the ratio to

is equal to the ratio the double pl., to the double pl., .

Now as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference between

sq. and sq., and as for the double pl., , it is equal to the difference

between sq. and sq. . Therefore the ratio pl., to pl., is greater

than the ratio the difference between sq. and sq. to the difference between sq. and sq. .

And permutando the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. is greater than the ratio pl., to the difference between sq. and

sq. .

Therefore it will be proved thence, by [a method] similar to that which we

used above, that the ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the

square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to is greater than the

ratio of sq. to the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it []. Therefore the difference between

sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is

greater than the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum

of the eidos corresponding to it.

Furthermore the ratio to is greater than the ratio to because is greater than and is smaller than , therefore the ratio

pl., to pl. is greater than the ratio the double pl., to the double

pl.,, and it will be proved thence, as we proved previously, that the difference between sq. and the square on the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it is greater than the difference between sq. and the square on

the latus rectum of the eidos corresponding to it.

348

INTRODUCTION

A. Apollonius at Perga

Apollonius was born at Perga () on the Southern coast of Asia Minor, near the modern Turkish city of Bursa. Little is known about his life before

he arrived in Alexandria, where he studied. Certain information about Apollonius

life in Asia Minor can be obtained from his preface to Book 2 of Conics.

The name Apollonius(Apollonius) means devoted to Apollo, similarly

to Artemius or Demetrius meaning devoted to Artemis or Demeter.

In the mentioned preface Apollonius writes to Eudemus of Pergamum that

he sends him one of the books of Conics via his son also named Apollonius. The

coincidence shows that this name was traditional in the family, and in all probability Apollonius ancestors were priests of Apollo.

Asia Minor during many centuries was for Indo-European tribes a bridge to

Europe from their pre-fatherland south of the Caspian Sea.

The Indo-European nation living in Asia Minor in 2nd and the beginning of the

1st millennia B.C. was usually called Hittites.

Hittites are mentioned in the Bible and in Egyptian papyri. A military

leader serving under the Biblical king David was the Hittite Uriah. His wife Bathsheba, after his death, became the wife of king David and the mother of king

Solomon.

Hittites had a cuneiform writing analogous to the Babylonian one and hieroglyphs analogous to Egyptian ones.

The Czech historian Bedrich Hrozny (1879-1952) who has deciphered

Hittite cuneiform writing had established that the Hittite language belonged to

the Western group of Indo-European languages [Hro]. Hence it is clear that such

nations of Europe as Greeks and Romans, Galls and Goths, Slavies and Lithuanians were descendants of Hittite tribes. As the masculine words in the most ancient of these languages have the endings of -os, -us, -as, -es, -is, the Hittite

masculine words had ending of -ash, -ush, -ish.

The Hittite word vadar for water is near to the Russian and Czech

voda, English water, German Wasser, and Greek . The Hittite word

pahhur for fire is near to the English word fire, German Feuer, and Greek

. The Hittite word gordion for town is near to Russian gorod and

ograda, Czech hrad, English garden, and German Garten. The Hittite

0

word eshmi for I am is near to Russian yesm , Czech jsem, Latin sum,

Greek and English I am.

In the first millennium B.C., after migration of Hittite tribes from the East

to the west of Asia Minor and to Europe, the Hittite Empire disintegrated and

many separate Hittite kingdoms appeared. The most important of these kingdoms were situated in the Western part of Asia Minor. The most famous cities

of these Hittite kingdoms were Ilion in Troy, Pergamum in Moesia, Sardis in

Lydia, Gordion in Phrygia, and Myres in Lycia. The king of Lydia Croeses was famous for his richness; with the name of the king of Phrygia Gordias was connected the legend of Gordias knot. City of Pergamum was the first city where

pergament was made.

In the same millennium on the Jonian coast of Asia Minor the Greek cities

Miletus, Ephesus and others appeared.

During the Greek - Persian wars all of Asia Minor was occupied by the Persians. After the victory of Greeks all Hittite states of Asia Minor became Greek

states. In this period Pergamum was the cultural and scientific center of Asia

Minor.

Later all these states were conquered by Romans and became provinces

of the Roman Empire. After the division of this empire into Western and Eastern

parts, Asia Minor entered into Byzantium. In 14-15th centuries Asia Minor was

conquered by Turks and entered into Turkey.

The Greek state where the city Perga was located had the name Pamphylia. This name, as well as its Hittite prototype, meant belonging to all

tribes. This name shows that Pamphylia played an exclusive role among Hittite

states.

It is explained by the fact that main shrines common for all Hittite tribes

were situated there. B.Hrozny proved that Greeks borrowed from Hittites the

cults of the god of thunder, Zavaya, the god of Sun, Apulunash, and his sistertwin goddess of Moon, Artimu, whom they called Zeus, Apollo and Artemis [Hro,

p.147].

The Hittite name Perga is near to Greek and German Burg

and means tower, castle; in the original sense of the word perga, rock, is

near to German Berg - mountain. This word was connected with the words

perunash and perginash meaning god of thunder, destroyer of rocks. The

word perga enters in the name of the city Pergamum.

Hittite Perga was the center of the cults of Zavaya, Apulunash, and Artimu.

When Perga became a Greek town, the main shrines of Zeus and Apollo

were moved to Olympia and Delphi, and the main shrine of Artemis was left in

1

Perga. The other shrine of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the World,

was also situated in Asia Minor at Ephesus.

Herodotus in his History wrote that kings of some Hittite states sent rich

gifts to the Apollos shrine in Delphi, where the shrine was situated in his time.

No doubt that they in fact sent their gifts into Perga.

It is very probable that Apollonius kin comes from priests of Apulunash.

B. Apollonius at Ephesus

In the preface to Book 2 of Conics, Apollonius writes to Eudemus of Pergamum that he sends him his son Apollonius bringing the second book of Conics. He asks Eudemus to acquaint with this book Philonides, the geometer,

whom Apollonius introduced to Eudemus in Ephesus, if ever he happens to be

about Pergamum.

German historian Cronert [Cro] reports that Philonides was a student of

Eudemus, mathematician and philosopher - Epicurean, who later worked at the

court of Seleucid kings Antioch IV Epiphanus (183-175 B.C.) and Demetrius I

Soter (162-150 B.C.).

Eudemus was the first teacher of Philonides. No doubt that Eudemus was

also the teacher of Apollonius at Ephesus, and it is natural that Apollonius sent

him his main work.

When Apollonius finished his study at Ephesus, Eudemus recommended

that he continue his study at Alexandria.

C. Apollonius at Alexandria

Apollonius teachers at Alexandria were pupils of Euclid. In the preface to

Book 1 of Conics, Apollonius writes that he composed this work at Alexandria.

Apollonius nickname in this scientific capital of the Hellenistic world was

Epsilon. Since the nickname of Eratosthenes was Beta, it is clear that the

most great Alexandria mathematicians had as nicknames the first letters of the

Greek alphabet: Euclid - Alpha, Archimedes - Gamma, and Conon of Samos Delta

Apollonius first works were on astronomy. Claudius Ptolemy quotes in

Chapter 1 of Book 12 of Almagest Apollonius non-extant work on equivalence

of epicyclic and eccentric hypotheses of motion of planets. This quotation

shows that Apollonius was one of the initiators of the theory of motion of planets by means of deferents and epicycles presented in Almagest.

work Conics and many treatises were on geometry, Apollonius was called at Alexandria Great Geometer.

D. Conic sections before Apollonius

The appearance of conic sections was also connected with the cult of

Apollo. There sections were used for solving the so-called Delic problem of duplication of cube.

This problem was connected with following legend: on the island Delos,

believed to be the place of birth of Apollo and Artemis, a plague epidemic broke

out. The inhabitants of the island appealed to the shrine of Apollo at Delphi for

aid. The priests of the shrine told them that they must duplicate the cubic altar

of the shrine. The Delians made the second cube equal to the first one and

stood over it, but the plague did not cease. Then the priests told that the double altar must be cubic like the old one. If the edge of the old altar was equal to

a, the edge of the new altar must be equal to the root of the equation

x3 = 2a3 .

(0.1)

It is possibly that the legend on the duplication of Apollos cubic altar appeared earlier when the main shrine of Apollo was at Perga.

The problem of duplication of a cube was solved by some Greek mathematicians of the 4th c. B.C. Menaechmus found that this problem can be reduced to the finding two mean proportionals between a and b, that is

a:x=x:y=y:b

(0.2)

for b = 2a.

Menaechmus found that the solution x of equation (0.1) is equal to the

abscissa of the point of intersection of two parabolas x2 = ay and y2 = 2ax or of

one of these parabolas with the hyperbola xy = 2a2.

Menaechmus defined a parabola as the section of the surface of a right

circular cone with right angle at its vertex by a plane orthogonal to a rectilinear

generator of the cone, and a hyperbola as the analogous section of the surface

of a right circular cone with obtuse angle at its vertex. The equations of these

conic sections are determined by equalities (0.2).

The works of Menaechmus are lost. The first known titles of works on

conic sections are On Solid Loci ( ) by Aristaeus and Elements

3

but it is known that Aristaeus work consisted of 5 books and Euclids work consisted of 4 books.

Ancient mathematicians used the word locus for lines and surfaces.

Modern mathematicians regard lines and surfaces as sets of points, but this

viewpoint was impossible for ancient scientists because they could not conceive

that a set of points having no sizes has a non-zero length or a non-zero area.

Aristotle wrote in his Physics: Nothing that is continuous can be composed of

indivisible parts: e.g., a line cannot be composed of points, the line being continuous and the point indivisible [Ar, p. 231a]. Therefore ancient mathematicians regarded lines and surfaces only as loci (), that is places for points.

Greek mathematicians called straight lines and circumferences of circles

that can be drawn by a ruler and compass plane loci and conic sections they

called solid loci.

Conic sections are considered in many works of Archimedes who called a

parabola a section of right-angled cone, single branch of a hyperbola - a section of obtuse-angled cone, and an ellipse - a section of acute-angled cone.

Archimedes called a paraboloid of revolution a right-angled conoid and a single

sheet of a hyperboloid of revolution of two sheets an obtuse-angled conoid.

No doubt that Menaechmus, Aristaeus, and Euclid used the same names of conic

sections.

The equations of parabolas used by Menaechmus for solving the Delic

problem are particular cases of the equation

y2 = 2px

(0.3)

symmetry of this parabola and whose axis 0y is the tangent to this parabola at

its vertex. The magnitude p is now called the parameter of the parabola.

Euclid in Prop. II.14 of Elements proves that if is an arbitrary point of

the circumference of a circle with the diameter , and is the basis of the

perpendicular dropped from onto , the line is mean proportional between and , that is : = :. If we denote = x, = x,

= y, we obtain the equation

y2 = xx

(0.4)

coordinates whose axis 0x = and axes 0y and 0y are tangents to the circumference at the points and .

Archimedes in Prop. I.4 of his treatise On Conoids and Spheroids proves

that an ellipse can be obtained from a circumference of a circle by the contraction to its diameter in the direction perpendicular to this diameter

x = x , y = ky

(0.5)

the system of rectangular coordinates whose axis 0x is the major axis of the ellipse and axes of ordinates are tangents to the ellipse at the ends of its major

axis has the form

y2 = k2xx .

(0.6)

The branch of a hyperbola used by Menaechmus in the system of rectangular coordinates whose axes are asymptotes of the hyperbola is determined by

the equation xy = const. In another system of rectangular coordinates, whose

axis 0x is the axis of symmetry of the hyperbola, and axes of ordinates are tangents to both branches of the hyperbola at their vertices, this hyperbola is determined by equation (0.4).

An arbitrary hyperbola can be obtained from the equilateral hyperbola

used by Menaechmus by transformation (0.5), which is a contraction to the axis

of symmetry of this hyperbola for k <1 and a dilatation from this axis for k >1.

Therefore the equation with two abscissas of an arbitrary hyperbola in the system of rectangular coordinates whose axis 0x is the axis of symmetry of the

hyperbola and the axes of ordinates are tangents to both branches of the hyperbola at their vertices has form (0.6).

Archimedes determined ellipses and hyperbolas by equations (0.6).

If the major axis of an ellipse and the real axis of a hyperbola are equal to

2a and the minor axis of an ellipse and the imaginary axis of a hyperbola are

equal to 2b, the coefficient k in equations (0.6) is equal to b/a. in the case of

the ellipse x= 2a - x and in the case of the hyperbola x = 2a + x.

Therefore these equations have the form

y2 = (b2/a2)x(2a - x)

for the ellipse and

5

(0.7)

y2 = (b2/a2)x(2a + x) .

(0.8)

can be rewritten as

y2 = 2px - (p/a)x2 ,

(0.9)

y2 = 2px + (p/a)x2 .

(0.10)

Equations (0.9) and (0.10) are given in the systems of the rectangular

coordinates whose axis 0x is the major axis of the ellipse and the real axis

of the hyperbola, and whose axis 0y is tangent to the ellipse at the left end of

its major axis and tangent to the hyperbola at the right end of its real axis.

Magnitudes p in these equations are called parameters of the ellipse and hyperbola.

E. Structure of Conics

Apollonius Conics consisted of 8 books. Books 1-4 are extant in Greek

original, Books 5-7 are extant only in medieval Arabic translations by Thabit ibn

Qurra edited by his teachers Ahmad and al-Hasan banu Musa ibn Shakir, Book 8

is lost.

The books of Conics consist of prefaces addressed to Eudemus or Attalus

of Pergamum, definitions, and propositions.

Apollonius propositions, like propositions of Euclids Elements, are theorems or problems.

In the beginning of every proposition, its general statement in italic and

its formulation with notations of points and lines are given. The formulations of

propositions Apollonius begins with the words - I say.

After that, the proof of a theorem or the solution of a problem follows. In

beginning of the solution of every problem its analysis is given, where known

points and lines are indicated; next, the synthesis, that is the required construction, is described.

Apollonius style is very concise, therefore the translators insert in the

text explanatory words in brackets and references to Euclid and Apollonius

propositions in parentheses.

6

F. Editions of Conics

The most important editions of Apollonius Conics are:

[Ap1] - the first Latin translation of Books 1-4 published by Federigo

Commandino (1509-1575).

[Ap 2] - the Greek text of Books 1-4 and the Latin translation of all 7

books published by Edmund Halley (1656-1742).

[Ap 3] - the critical Greek text of Books 1-4 established by Johan Ludvig

Heiberg (1854-1928) and published by him with the Latin translation.

[Ap 4] - the English translation of Books 1-3 by Robert Catesby Taliaferro

(1907-1987) published by Encyclopedia Britannica in the Great Books of the

Western World series. The translation of Book 1 was first published in 1939 by

St. Johns College at Annapolis in The Classics of the St. Johns Program series.

[Ap 5] - the revised edition of the translation [Ap4] published by Dana

Densmore and William H. Donahue.

[Ap 6] - the English translation of Book 4 by Michael N. Fried (b. 1960). This

translation was first published as Appendix to the book [FU](pp.416 -485).

[Ap 7] - the critical Arabic text of Books 5-7 established by Gerald James

Toomer (b. 1934) and published by him with the English translation and commentary

Critical Arabic text is based on 3 manuscripts: Oxford one, translated by

Halley; Istanbul one, published in [Ap12]; and Teheran one.

[Ap 8] - the detailed English exposition of all 7 books on the basis of the

editions [Ap 2] and [Ap3] published by Thomas Little Heath (18611940).

[Ap9] - commented French translation of all 7 books published by Paul Ver

Eecke.

[Ap10] - German translation of Books 1- 4 published by Arthur Czwalina.

[Ap11] - the Greek text of Heiberg reproduced and published with the

Modern Greek translation of all 7 books by Euangelos Stamatis (1898-1990).

[Ap12] - facsimile edition of the Istanbul manuscript of the medieval Arabic translation of all 7 books by Hilal al-Himsi and Thabit ibn Qurra copied by the

famous mathematician and physicist al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham (965-ca.1050)

prepared by Nazim Terzioglu (1912- 1976).

[Ap13] - commented Russian translation of 20 propositions by I. Yagodinsky

(1928).

[Ap14] - commented Russian translation of all 7 books published by B. A.

Rosenfeld - in press.

7

us mention the attempt by Ibn al-Haytham [IH] published with the English translation by Jan Pieter Hogendijk (b.1955) and the attempt by Halley added to his

translation [Ap2].

Let us mention the excellent exposition of Apollonius Conics: [Ze] The Theory of Conic Sections in Antiquity by Hieronymus Georg Zeuthen

(1839-1920).

[Hea, pp.126-196] - in the book A History of Greek Mathematics by T.L.

Heath.

[VdW, pp.241-261] - in the book The Science Awakening by Bartel

Leendert Van der Waerden (1903-1996).

[VZ, pp.97-108] - in the book History of Mathematics by Michail E. Vashchenko-Zakharchenko (1825-1912).

[IM, pp.129-139] - in the book History of Mathematics from most ancient

times to beginning of 19th century, vol.1 by Adolf P. Yushkevich (1906-1993).

[Too] - the article Apollonius of Perga by G. J. Toomer. See also Introduction to

his edition [Ap7],

[FU] Apollonius of Pergas Conica. Text, Context, Subtext by M.N.Fried

and Sabetai Unguru.

[Rho] - Apollonius of Perga, Doctoral Thesis by Diana L. Rodes (2005)

[Ro3] - Apollonius of Perga (in Russian by B.A.Rosenfeld 2003). See also

his article [Ro4].

G. Other mathematical works of Apollonius

Besides Conics Apollonius was the author of following mathematical

works:

1) Cutting off of a ratio ( ) in two books.

2) Cutting off of an area ( ) in two books.

3) Determinate section ( ) two books.

4) Inclinations () in two books.

5) Tangencies () in two books

6) Plane loci ( ) in two books.

7) Comparison of dodecahedron and isocahedron

( ).

8) On non-ordered irrationals ( ).

9) Rapid obtaining of a result ().

10) Screw lines ().

11) Treatise on great numbers.

8

From these works only treatise (1) is extant in medieval Arabic translation. There are the Latin translation [Ap15] by E. Halley and the English translation [Ap16] by E.M.Macierowski of this treatise.

The short expositions of treatises (1) - (6) are given by Pappus of Alexandria (3rd c. A.D.) in Book 7 of Mathematical Collection [Pa, pp. 510 -546;

Ap11, vol.1, pp.100 - 120].

The fragments of medieval Arabic translations of these treatises and English translations of these fragments are published by J.P.Hogendijk [Ho].

In works (1) and (2) the following problems are solved: given two straight

lines and with fixed points and , to find two points and , such that,

in the case of treatise (1), the ratio / would be equal to the given ratio,

and, in the case of treatise (2), the product . would be equal to the given

area.

In treatise (3) the problems of the following type are solved: given four

points , , , on a straight line, to find a point such that ratio

./. would have the given or an extremal value. The last problem is

equivalent to the problem of determining an extremum of a function that is a

ratio of two quadratic polynomials.

In work (4) the problems equivalent to quadratic and cubic equations are

solved by geometrical means called inclinations.

In treatise (5) the problem of construction of a circle tangent to given

objects of three kinds, which can be circles, straight lines, and points, is solved.

In treatise (6) theorems on plane loci, which is on circles and straight

lines, are proven. In this treatise, homotheties, inversions with respect to circles, and other transformations mapping plane loci to plane loci are considered.

There is only the commentary on work (7) by Hypsicles (2nd -1st c. B.C.)

added to Euclids Elements as Book 14 [Ap11, vol.1, pp.60-66]. In this work,

Aristaeus treatise Comparison of five solids is mentioned, where the theorem,

that if a cube and a regular octahedron are inscribed in the same sphere, then

as their volumes are one to the other, so their surfaces are one to the other, is

proven. Apollonius proves analogous theorem on regular dodecahedron and

icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere.

The commentary by Pappus on the work (8) is extant only in the medieval

Arabic translation [Ap11, vol.1, pp. 134-144]. This commentary shows that in

this treatise, besides quadratic irrationals considered in Book 10 of Euclids Elements, cubic and higher irrationals are also considered.

Work (9) is mentioned by Eutocius (6th c. A.D.) on Archimedes Measuring

a circle [Ap11, vol.1, p. 48]. This information shows that in the treatise, the

9

was found in a more rapid way than in Archimedes work.

The work (10) is mentioned by Proclus Diadochus (5th c. A.D.) in his

commentary on Book 1 of Euclids Elements [Ap11, vol.1, p. 144]. According to

this information, in the work (10) screw lines in the surface of a right circular

cylinder are considered.

The commentary by Pappus on the work (11) is extant in Book 2 of his

Mathematical Collection [Ap.11, vol.1, pp. 70-72]. The beginning of this book

containing the title of the work (11) is lost. The commentary shows that in this

work a system of names of great numbers was proposed, which later was improved by Archimedes in Psammites.

The work (12) is mentioned by Marinus (5th c. A.D.) in his commentary to

Euclids Data together with Apollonius Inclinations [Ap11, vol.1, pp.68-70]

Therefore it is clear that this work is geometrical. Probably, in it, like in Inclinations, problems equivalent to algebraic equations were solved by geometrical

methods. The title of the work (12) shows that these methods were more general than inclination. Probably, in this work Apollonius described the methods

used by him for obtaining proportions from which he derived in Prop. I.11 - I.13

of Conics equations of parabola, hyperbola and ellipse and proportions equivalent to algebraic equations of evolutes of conics given by him in Prop. V.51 and

V.52.

Some mathematicians of Western Europe undertook attempts to restore

lost works of Apollonius. F.Viete (1540-1603) in [Vi] and M.Ghetaldi (15661622) in [Ghe1] restored Tangencies. Ghetaldi in [Ghe2] - Inclinations. F.van

Schooten (1615-1660) [Sch] and P.Fermat (1601-1665)[Fe] -Plane loci.

H. Letters and their numerical values

The Greek alphabet of the classic epoch consisted of 24 letters, which

had following numerical values:

, -- alpha=1, , -- bta=2, , -- gamma=3, , -- delta =4, , -- epsilon=5,

, -- zta=7, , -- ta= 8, , -- theta=9, , -- iota=10, , -- kappa=20, , -lambda=30, , -- mu=40, , -- nu=50, , -- xi =60, , -- omicron=70, , -pi=80, , -- rho=100, , -- sigma=200, , -- tau=300, , -- upsilon=400,

, -- phi=500, , -- chi= 600, , -- psi=700, , -- omga=800. Numbers 6,

90, 900 were represented by 3 archaic letters -- wau, -- koppa, sabi or

sampi.

The last of these letters was not in use in the most ancient times, the

first and second ones were used during the time when the Latin alphabet was

10

created, on the base of the Greek one. From them, Latin letters F and Q were

derived.

The numbers 1000, 2000,3000, etc. were represented by , ,

, etc.

Apollonius used these letters for numbering propositions in Conics.

Claudius Ptolemy, who borrowed from Babylonian astronomers not only

information on their observations but also sexagesimal fractions, used these letters from =1 to =59 for recording of sexagesimal fractions. Zero in these

fractions was denoted by the first letter of the word -- nothing, hence

our figure 0 came.

The Greek letters and their names came from Phoenician letters. These

letters were invented in the city of Biblos where Egyptians imported Lebanese

cedars. Phoencians replaced Egyptian hieroglyphs denoted the things imaging

by them by the letters denoting the first sounds of the names of these things.

Phoenician letters are images of things whose names begin from these letters,

for instance, the letter aleph meaning bull head, has the form of the turned

A, and hence Greek alfa came, the letters beth meaning house has the form

of the rectangle with the gap in the lower side, hence Greek beta came

Phoenician letters likewise have numerical values.

The Greek letters from to have the same numerical values as corresponding Phoenician letters. The value 90 was denoted by the Phoenician letter

cade from which the letter came, whose name is sampi or sabi. The numerical values of the Phoenician letters corresponding to Greek letters

, , , and are 100, 200, 300, and 400.

From Phoenician letters also Hebrew and Arabic letters came .The names

of Hebrew letters are the same as of Phoenician ones. Arabs added to these letters, which came from Phoenician ones, six new letters. The names of Arabic

letters are simplified Phoenician names. The numerical values of Hebrew and

Arabic letters, which came from the same Phoenician letters, have the same

values of these letters.

The names and numerical values of arabic letters are as follows:

alif 1, ba2, te400, tah500, jiv3, ta, dal4, dhal600, ra200, za7, sin

60, shin300, ad90, ad800, ta9, a900, ain70, gain1000, fa80, qaf100,

kaf20, lam30, mim40, nun50, waw6, ha5, ia10.

In editions [Ap5] and [Ap6], Greek letters in Apollonius diagrams and

text are represented by Latin letters. In edition [Ap5], Greek letters are represented by the different Latin letters.

In proposition 53 of Book 2 in edition [Ap5], the archaic letters and

are represented by the letters X and Y.

In edition [Ap7] Arabic letters in Thabit ibn Qurras diagrams are represented by Greek letters with the same numerical values. The letter waw with

11

numerical value 6 is represented not by F, but by , the letter ghayn with numerical value 1000 is represented not by A but by .

Edition [Ap12] shows that in the translation by Hilal al-Himsi of Books 1-4

Greek letters in Apollonius diagrams are represented by Arabic letters which

came from the same Phoenician letters, but in the translation by Thabit ibn

Qurra of Books 5-7 Greek letters of Apollonius are represented by Arabic letters

according to a more complicate rule. For instance, the first three letters , ,

and he transcribes by the first three Arabic letters alif, ba, and ta.

In our translation we transcribe Arabic letters in diagrams and text in

Books 5-7 by the same Greek letters as in the translation by Toomer.

Preface to Book I

1. Apollonius dedicated Books 1-3 of Conics to his teacher Eudemus of

Pergamum (see Introduction, B), with whom he discussed the structure of this

work. Last books of Conics finished after Eudemus death Apollonius dedicated

to Eudemus student Attalus.

The preface to Book1 is essentially the general preface to the whole of

Conics.

2. Apollonius information on geometer Naucrates is the only known to us

mention of this scholar. Naucrates was a friend of Apollonius, visited him at Alexandria, discussed with him theory of conics, and Apollonius gave him the first

variant of Conics.

The name of Naucrates is connected with the word - power of

seamen. The name Naucratis of the town founded by Greek seamen in the

delta of Nilus in 5th c. B.C. is connected with the same word.

3. Apollonius words that the first four books of Conics contain the elements of theory of conics show that these four books are revisions of Euclids

Elements of conics.

12

4. Three sections are three conics which Euclid and Archimedes called

sections of right, obtuse and acute cones. Apollonius called them a parabola,

a hyperbola, and an ellipse. Like his precursors, Apollonius used the term hyperbola only for a single branch of a hyperbola.

Unlike his precursors, Apollonius considers two branches of a hyperbola

and calls them - opposite. In [Ap5], [Ap6], and [Ap7], this term

is translated as opposite sections.

5. A locus with respect to three straight lines l1 , l2 , and l3 is a locus of

points whose distances di from the lines li satisfy the equation

d1d3 = kd22 .

(1.1)

points whose distances di from the lines li satisfy the equation

d1d3 = kd2 d4 .

(1.2)

The loci with respect to three or four straight lines are conic sections.

Apollonius believes that Euclids proof of this fact in his Elements of Conics is

not sufficient and can be completed by the theorems in Book 3 of Conics.

This proof was fulfilled by R.C.Taliaferro in Appendix A to his translation of Conics [Ap5, pp.267-275].

This fact was proved by means of analytic geometry by the creator of

this discipline Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) in his Geometry.

First Definitions

6. Apollonius defines a conic surface as a surface described by a straight

line of an indefinite length passing through a fixed point called the vertex and

through points of the circumference of a circle the plane of which does not pass

through the vertex. This surface consists of two surfaces located vertically on

both sides of the vertex.

The straight line joining the vertex of a conic surface with the center of

the circumference determining this surface Apollonius calls the axis of this surface.

13

Apollonius definition differs from the one by Euclid. For Euclid a conic

surface was the surface of a right circular cone formed by a rectangular triangle

revolving around one of its catheti.

The Greek word originally meant pine cone.

Ancient mathematicians used the terms straight line only for rectilinear

segments, plane- only for bounded parts of planes, usually rectangles, surface- only for bounded parts of surfaces.

Ancient mathematicians never used the term infinite for lines, planes,

and surfaces and replaced it by words of indefinite length and of indefinite

size.

7. Apollonius defines the cone as a solid bounded by a conic surface and

the circle whose the circumference determines this surface. Apollonius calls the

vertex of the conic surface vertex of the cone, the circle with circumference

determining the conic surface the base of the cone, and the segment of the

axis of the conic surface between the vertex and the base of a cone the axis of

the cone.

Unlike Euclid who considered only right circular cones, Apollonius considered cones that can be both right and oblique.

8. In the case when a plane curve has a family of parallel chords whose

midpoints are on a straight line, Apollonius calls this straight line a diameter

() of this plane curve.

Apollonius definition of a diameter of a plane curve is the generalization

of Euclids definition of a diameter for the circumference of a circle. Diameters

of circumferences are perpendicular to the chords bisected by them. Diameters

of plane curves in a general case are not perpendicular to such chords.

If on the plane there is a system of oblique coordinates whose axis 0x coincides with a diameter of a plane curve and axis 0y is parallel to the bisected

chords, the curve maps to itself by reflection

x = x , y = -y .

(1.3)

the coordinate angle x0y is right or acute, respectively.

The points of intersection of a diameter of a plane curve with its diameters Apollonius calls vertices of this curve.

The term diameter for curves that are not circumferences of circles was

used by Archimedes, but only in the cases when the diameter is perpendicular

to the bisected chords.

Diameters of conic sections are considered by Apollonius below.

14

9. An oblique reflection (1.3) is a particular case of an affine transformation in a plane, which is a bijective transformation in a plane mapping straight

lines to straight lines.

Right and oblique contractions to a straight line and right and oblique dilatations from a straight line (0.4) are also affine transformations.

Since parallel lines have no common points, affine transformations map

parallel straight lines to parallel ones. Therefore affine transformations map parallelograms to parallelograms and vectors to vectors, and if vectors x and y are

mapped to vectors x and y, the sum x + y is mapped to the sum x + y and a

product kx by an arbitrary real number k is mapped to the product kx. Therefore if , , are three points in a straight line, the affine transformations preserve simple ratios of oriented segments = /, and, in a general case, affine transformations in rectangular and oblique coordinates have the form

x = x + y + ,

y = x + y + . (1.4)

Under the affine transformation (1.4) the areas of all figures in the plane

are multiplied by the absolute value of the determinant AE-BD. In the case when

this value is equal to 1, the transformation (1.4) is an equiaffine one.

Since the determinants - of the reflections (1.3) are equal to -1,

they are equiaffine transformations too. In particular, if transformation (1.3)

maps a point to a point and points and are fixed points of this transformation, the triangles and have the same base and equal heights

and, therefore, equal areas.

Equiaffine and general affine transformations were used by Thabit ibn

Qurra and by his grandson Ibrahim ibn Sinan (908-946), respectively.

For the affine geometry and its history see [Ro1, pp.106-114] and [Ro2,

pp. 130-133, 143-146].

10. The segments of the bisected chords between the curve and the diameter are called by Apollonius -- applied in order.

Federigo Commandino (1509-1575) in his Latin translation [Ap1] of

Conics wrote the above expression as ordinatim applicatae from which the

term ordinates had come. Therefore in editions [Ap5], [Ap6], [Ap7] this

Apollonius expression is translated as lines drawn ordinatewise.

11. If two plane curves have a family of parallel chords whose midpoints

are on a straight line, Apollonius calls this line a transverse diameter of the two

plane curves. The points of intersection of the transverse diameter with the

curves Apollonius calls vertices of these curves.

15

If the midpoints of the parallel straight lines joining two plane curves are

on a straight line, Apollonius calls this line an upright diameter of these plane

curves.

The segments of parallel chords between the curves and the transverse

diameter are called the ordinates of points of these curves.

Transverse and erect diameters were used by Apollonius for two opposite hyperbolas.

12. The diameter drawn in the direction of parallel chords is called by

Apollonius a conjugate one with the diameter bisecting these chords.

13. The diameter of a plane curve as well as transverse and upright diameters of two plane curves are called by Apollonius axes when these diameters are perpendicular to the chords bisected by them. Two perpendicular axes

of one or of two plane curves Apollonius calls conjugate axes.

Later Apollonius considers axes of conics.

14. Modern mathematicians use the terms diameter and axis for

conic sections in the same sense as Apollonius, while the term vertex is used

in the same sense as by Apollonius precursors, i.e. as a point of intersection of

a conic section with its axis.

Propositions I.1-I.5 on cones

15. In Prop. I.1 Apollonius proves that a straight line joining the vertex of

a conic surface and any point on the latter lies entirely on this surface.

In the porism (corollary) to this proposition, Apollonius proves that the

straight line joining the vertex of a conic surface with any point which is within

this surface lines entirely within this surface, and the straight line joining the

vertex of the conic surface with any point which is outside this surface lies entirely outside this surface.

16. In Prop. I.2 Apollonius proves that the segment joining two points of a

vertical sheet of this conic surface and its continuation and not passing through

the vertex of the cone lies within the cone, and continuations of this segment

lie outside the cone.

Apollonius does not prove an analogous proposition: the segment joining

two points of two vertical sheets of a conic surface and not passing through the

vertex of the cone lies outside the conic surface and continuations of this segment lie within the conic surface.

No doubt that Apollonius did not prove this proposition since it was not in

Euclids Elements of conics.

16

Note that the line which is the sum of two abscissas of a point of the ellipse (0.7) joins two points of a surface of a cone, and the line which is the difference of two abscissas of a point of the hyperbola (0.8) joins two points of

different sheets of a conic surface. Apollonius calls these segments latera

transversa of an ellipse and a hyperbola.

17. In Prop. I.3 Apollonius proves that the section of a cone by a plane

passing through its vertex and meeting its base is a triangle.

18. In Prop. I.4 Apollonius proves that the section of the surface of a circular cone by a plane parallel to its base is the circumference of a circle.

19. In Prop. I.5 Apollonius proves that the surface of an oblique circular

cone besides sections parallel to its base has another family of circular sections.

It can be explained by the fact that the section of the surface of an oblique circular cone by a plane perpendicular to its axis is an ellipse, therefore the solid

bounded by this plane and the conic surface is a right elliptic cone. Since the ellipse has two perpendicular axes of symmetry, the right elliptic cone and its surface have two perpendicular planes of symmetry passing through the axes of

symmetry of an ellipse and the vertex of a cone.

The reflection with respect to one of these planes maps any circular section of the cone parallel to its base to itself. The reflection with respect to the

second plane maps circular sections parallel to the base of the cone to circular

sections of the second family. Apollonius calls the circles bounded by circumferences of different families and the planes of these circles , which we

following P. Ver Eecke [Ap 9, p.10] translate as antiparallel. The expressions

of Apollonius the line is equal in square to the rectangular plane means that

the square on the line is equal to mentioned plane.

20. Apollonius abbreviations , , , and ,

which mean a rectangular plane with sides and , a rectangular plane with

sides and , and a square with a side , we translate by the abbreviations

pl., pl., and sq., respectively.

Prepositions and mean under and on.

The expressions of Apollonius the line is equal in square to the rectangular plane means that the square on the line is equal to mentioned plane.

21. Prop. I.5 forms the basis for the theory of stereographic projection,

that is the projection of a sphere from its point P onto the plane tangent to the

sphere at its antipodal point. If a curve on the sphere, not passing through the

point P under this projection is mapped onto the circumference of a circle, then

the projecting lines are rectilinear generators of a circular cone.

If this cone is right, the plane of the projected curve is parallel to the

plane of projection. If the cone is oblique, the plane of the projected curve is

17

antiparallel to the plane of projection. In both cases, the projected curve is the

circumference of a circle. Thus stereographic projection maps circumferences of

circles on the sphere not passing through the point P to circumferences of circles on the plane.

If the circumference of a circle on the sphere passes through the point P,

its plane intersects the plane of projection in a straight line, and the stereographic projection maps these circumferences to straight lines.

Apollonius knew stereographic projection. This is clear from the description by a Roman architect of the 1st c. B.C. Vitruvius Pollio in his Ten Books on

Architecture of an astronomical instrument called spider ( ), invented

by the astronomer Eudoxus, or as some say, Apollonius [Vi1, p.256; Vi2,

p.320].

Vitruvius wrote that the instrument contained bronze rods and behind

these rods there is a drum on which the firmament and zodiac are drawn and

figured: the drawing being figured with the twelve celestial signs [Vi1, p.261

Vi2, p. 322].

Daniele Barbaro (1513-1570) in his commentary on this Vitruvius work

describes the projection (analemma) in a spider as follows: Analemma is projected from the pole of the sphere onto a plane. To project the sphere onto the

plane [by means of an analemma] is to describe in the plane all circles and all

[zodiacal] signs that are on the sphere. Thus all that is on the sphere is represented in the plane according to the same optical mode as in making of the table of an astrolabe [Vi2, p. 322].

These words show that the projection in a spider is stereographic.

Therefore this instrument could not have been invented by Eudoxus who lived in

4th c. B.C. when the stereographic projection based on Proposition I.5 of Apollonius Conics was not known yet.

The drum portrays the tropics, the ecliptic (the zodiacal circle), and the

images of some most bright stars. These circles and images of stars form the

figure similar to a spider, this fact explains the name of the instrument. The

drum can rotate by means of a hydraulic machine.

The rods form a motionless part of the instrument. This part portrays the

celestial equator, the tropics, the horizon, and circles of altitude over the horizon that is the parallels of the horizon. These circles form the spider-web in

which the spider movies.

The ecliptic is the circumference of the great circle on celestial sphere

where the visual annual way of the Sun is realized. Every day the Sun

makes its way along the ecliptic about 1o . The ecliptic is divided into 12 zodiacal signs corresponding to the months. The ecliptic intersects the celestial

18

equator at the beginnings of the signs of Aries and Libra where the Sun is on

the days of the spring and autumn equinoxes. The Sun is at the maximal distance from the celestial equator at the beginnings of the signs of Cancer and

Capricorn where the Sun is on the days of the summer and winter solstices.

These last points under diurnal rotation of the celestial sphere describe the circumference of circles called tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

The celestial equator as well as tropics is invariant under the diurnal rotation of the celestial sphere.

No doubt Apollonius knew that stereographic projection is conformal, that

is it preserves the magnitudes of the angles between curves, because this property can be proved by means of Euclids Elements. Let the stereographic projection with the pole maps the point and circular arcs on the sphere with the

tangents and to point and the circular arcs on the plane with tangents

and . Let the points and be the points of the intersection of the

tangents and with the plane tangent to the sphere at . The segments

and are equal as two tangents to the sphere drawn from one point, and,

analogously, =. Therefore the triangles and are equal, because the

angles and are equal.

Since the lines and are parallel, as the lines and , the angle

is equal to the angle . This equality means that stereographic projection is conformal.

It is well known that the celestial equator on the terrestrial equator is

perpendicular to the horizon, and at the terrestrial poles it coincides with the

horizon. If an observer is at the point with latitude , he sees that the celestial

equator intersects the horizon under an angle equal to 90o - .

The celestial equator and the tropics are represented by rods by circumferences of three concentric circles. Since the ecliptic touches both tropics, the

image of it also touches the images of the tropics.

If the instrument is used at night, the altitude of a bright star is measured; at daytime, the altitude of the Sun is measured. The drum is turned to

such position that the image of the star with the measured altitude or the image of the point of the ecliptic corresponding to the day of measuring the altitude of the Sun will be under the image of a circle of the measured altitude.

Then the image of the whole firmament will be obtained at the moment of the

observation and the spherical coordinates of all its points and stars can be

found too. The altitude of a celestial point over the horizon is determined according to the altitude circle passing through the image of this point, the azimuth of this point is determined by the position of the image of this point on

the altitude circle. In particular, the position of the horoscope, that is the

19

point of intersection of the ecliptic and the eastern part of the horizon, which is

important for astrological predictions, will be found.

The angle by which the drum turns determines the exact time of the moment of the observation.

Probably, the invention by Apollonius of an instrument for measuring time

connected with a hydraulic machine described by an architect was known in medieval East, and therefore an Arabic treatise on a water clock dedicated to an

architect (al-najjr al-muhandis) was ascribed to Apollonius. There are three

manuscripts of this work entitled Treatise on construction of [an instrument

with] a flute (Risala san a [cla] al-amr) kept in Paris, London, and Beirut. The

German translation of this treatise according to all manuscripts was published

by E. Wiedemann [Wie]. When the surface of the water in this clock is dropped

to a certain level, the sound of the flute is heard. F.Sezgin [Sez, p.143] also believes that this treatise is only ascribed to Apollonius.

An instrument similar to Apollonius one called horoscopical instrument

was described by Claudius Ptolemy in Planispherium.

Later, analogous instrument called - little [instrument]

seizing stars was invented by Theon of Alexandria in 4th c. A.D. He replaced

Apollonius motionless spider-web by a motionless metallic continuous disk

called tympanum, and the rotating drum - by a rotating fretted disk, also

called spider. Unlike in Apollonius instrument, in Theons astrolabon the

motionless tympanum is located under the rotating spider.

This instrument was very popular in the medieval East by the name asturlab and in medieval Europe as astrolabium.

Now these instruments are called astrolabes. Medieval astrolabes were

portative circular cylinders, with a radius of 10 to 20 cm and a height of 4 to 5

cm. The cylinders contained 10 to 20 tympanums for different latitudes.

The operations with the medieval astrolabes were similar to ones with

Apollonius instrument.

On the lower base of medieval astrolabes the instrument for measuring

altitudes of the Sun and the stars was situated. This instrument contained

an alhidad with two diopters and arrows at the ends, which could rotate around

the center of the cylinder base and whose arrows pointed out altitude on the

degree scale on the circumference of the base. To measure the altitude of a celestial point, the astrolabe was suspended vertically, and the ahidad was directed to this point. The arrow of the alhidad showed the altitude of this point

Both Apollonius instrument and the medieval astrolabes can be regarded

as transparent nomograms, in which the role of the transparent is played by the

upper part of the instrument.

20

295-206] and [Ro2, pp. 121-130].

Propositions I.6 - I.10 on diameters and ordinates of conics

22. In Prop. I.6 Apollonius considers a circular cone, right or oblique, with

the vertex and the base . The triangle containing the axis of the cone

is called an axial triangle. From the point of the circumference of the base, the

perpendicular to the diameter of the base is dropped.

Apollonius proves that the line that is drawn from the point on the

surface of the cone parallel to and reaches the surface of the cone again is

bisected by the plane .

23. In Prop. I.7 Apollonius considers the same cone as in Prop. I.6. This

cone is cut by the plane passing through the point of the rectilinear generator

of the cone and along the line in its base perpendicular to the diameter

of the base or to continuation of this diameter. This plane cuts off from the

surface of the cone the conic section . Apollonius proves that chords of this

conic parallel to are bisected by the plane , and the line of the intersection of the planes and is a diameter of this conic.

Apollonius proves that these chords are perpendicular to the diameter bisecting them if the cone is right, and if the cone is oblique, and the axial triangle

is perpendicular to the plane of the base of the cone.

The plane can be inclined to the line under an arbitrary angle unequal to the angle of the inclination of planes parallel or antiparallel to the plane

of the base of the cone. Therefore an arbitrary section of the cone that is not a

pair of intersecting straight lines can be obtained from the circumference of the

base of the cone by the central projection from the vertex of the cone.

24. Since every section of a cone that is not a pair of intersecting

straight lines can be obtained from a circumference of a circle by a central projection, every such conic section can be obtained from the circumference of a

circle by a projective transformation.

Projective transformations in a plane can be defined as follows. If the

plane is located in the space and is projected from a point which is outside

this plane onto another plane , the plane is projected from a point onto a

plane , the plane is projected from a point onto a plane , and after

several such projections the plane (k) is projected from a point (k) onto the

plane E, we obtain a projective transformation in the plane . This transformation is not bijective, and for it to become bijective all planes , , , . . ., ( k )

must be supplemented by new points ,so that the supplemented planes will be

21

the space. These supplemented planes are called projective planes, the new

points of these planes are called points at infinity.

The point in the plane is represented by the infinite straight line in

the space or by vectors directed along this line. These vectors are determined

up to a non-zero real multiplier. Elie Cartan (1869-1951) called these vectors

analytic points. Points at infinity are represented by lines and vectors parallel

to the plane .

If three linearly independent vectors e1 , e2 , e3 are given in the space,

vectors x representing the point M in the projective plane can be written in the

form of x1e1 +x2e2 +x3e3. The numbers xi are called projective coordinates of

points in the projective plane. These coordinates, as well as the vectors x representing the points, are determined up to a non-zero multiplier.

If vectors e1 and e2 are parallel to the plane , then affine coordinates x

and y of a point in the plane are connected with projective coordinates xi

of this point by correlations x = x1/x3 , y = x2/x3 .

Points in the projective plane that are on one straight line are represented

by the lines of the bundle that are in one plane. These lines form a plane pencil

of straight lines. Therefore straight lines in the projective plane are determined

by equations

u1x1 + u2x2 + u3x3 =0 .

(1.5)

projective coordinates of points, are determined up to a non-zero real multiplier.

Since points at infinity of parallel straight lines in the plane E are represented by the same straight line of the bundle, parallel straight lines in the projective plane have a common point at infinity, that is they meet at this point. All

points at infinity in the projective plane are represented by straight lines of a

plane pencil and form a straight line called the straight line at infinity.

Projective transformations in the projective plane can be defined as bijective transformations in this plane preserving straight lines. These transformations map points at infinity to usual points, and therefore they map parallel lines

to intersecting ones.

In projective coordinates, projective transformations have the form

xi = jji xj .

22

(1.6)

x= (x + y +)/(x + y + ) ,

y = (x + y + )/(x + y + ). (1.7)

Since conics can be obtained from the circumferences of circles by projective transformations, these transformations map conics to conics.

Conics in the projective plane that have no common points with the

straight line at infinity are ellipses. Conics that touch this line are parabolas.

Conics that intersect this line at two points are hyperbolas, the straight line at

infinity divides hyperbolas into two branches.

In Apollonius Conics many theorems of projective geometry are proved,

but he never uses the term point at infinity. This term was first mentioned in

Optical Part of Astronomy by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).

Important theorems of projective geometry were proved by Pappus of Alexandria in his commentary on Euclids Porisms.

Ibrahim ibn Sinan considered the projective transformation x = a2/x,

y = ay/x mapping the circumference of a circle x2 + y2 = a2 to the equilateral

hyperbola x2 -y2 = a2. More complicated projective transformations were considered by Abul-Rayhan al-Biruni (973-1048) in the theory of an astrolabe

based not on a stereographic projection but on the central projection from an

arbitrary point of the axis of the celestial sphere.

On projective geometry and its history see [Ro1. pp.114-122, 125-128],

[Ro2, pp.116-121, 133-142, 147-150], and [RoY, pp. 470-475].

25. In Prop. I.8 Apollonius finds the conditions for conics to be continued

indefinitely, that is, as modern geometers say, to extend to infinity. These conics are parabolas or hyperbolas.

26. In Prop. I.9 Apollonius proves that sections of an oblique circular cone

by planes intersecting both lateral sides of an axial triangle are not circumferences of circles if these planes are not parallel or antiparallel to the plane of the

base of the cone. In this proof, Apollonius supposes that the section of a cone

by a plane not parallel to the plane of the base of the cone is a circumference of

a circle and proves that this plane is antiparallel to the plane of the base of the

cone.

27. In Prop. I.10 Apollonius proves that conic sections are convex curves.

In this proposition the notions of interior and exterior points of conics are

mentioned for the first time. The propositions on these points are analogous to

the propositions of Book 3 of Euclids Elements on interior and exterior points of

circles. The interior and exterior points of a circle are points whose distances

23

from its center are less or greater than its radius, respectively. This metric definition is impossible for conics.

Apollonius does not give the definitions of interior and exterior points of

conics but essentially transfers these notions from circles to conics by projective transformations.

Propositions I.11- I.16 on equations of conics

28. In Prop. I.11-I.13 Apollonius finds the equations of conics in systems

of coordinates whose axis 0x is a diameter of a conic, ordinates are parallel to

the diameter conjugate to this diameter and the point is the end of first diameter.

Apollonius called any such equation , meaning case, coincidence. The ordinates of points of a conic in these equations were determined

in Prop. I.7. The abscissas of these points are segments of the diameter from

the vertex to the ordinate. See Note 9 for the term ordinate. Apollonius called

abscissa -- cut off from the vertex . Our term

abscissa came from Latin translation by Commandino in [Ap1] of these words

by expression ex verticis abscissa.

Apollonius proves that the equations of conics in these coordinates which

can be rectangular or oblique have the same forms (0.3), (0.9), and (0.10) as

given by his precursors in rectangular coordinates.

In those equations Apollonius uses the expression the line is equal in

square to a rectangular plane (see Note 19 on this book).

29. In Prop. I.11 a circular cone has the same vertex , base , and axial

triangle , as in Prop. I.7. This cone may be right or oblique, the angle at the

vertex of this cone can be an arbitrary angle less than 180 o. This cone is cut by

a plane meeting the line at a point , parallel to the line and intersecting

the diameter of the base of the cone at a point . This plane cuts off the

conic from the surface of the cone. The line is perpendicular to the line

and meets it at the point . The line is a diameter of this conic.

If is an arbitrary point of the conic, its ordinate y = is parallel to the

line and its abscissa x = .

To obtain the equation of the conic, Apollonius determines the line ,

which he called - right side (some rectangular plane).

We, like the majority historians of mathematics, translate this term of Apollonius by Latin translation latus rectum . The line is the perpendicular to the

diameter at point . The length of the line is given by the proportion

/ = 2/. . (1.8)

24

Apollonius often calls the latus rectum by one word and by long expression the straight line of application [of rectangular planes] to which the

ordinates to the diameter are equal in square, but we in all cases call this

straight line the latus rectum. We denote latus rectum by 2p. Proportion (1.8)

shows that latus rectum 2p is proportional to the segment . Therefore every

diameter of a conic corresponds to a certain value of latus rectum.

Since the segment p in the equations of conics in rectangular coordinates

is called parameter, sometimes the segment 2p in oblique coordinates is also

called parameter.

30. The term compounded ratio was used by ancient mathematicians

for ratios of geometrical magnitudes which modern mathematicians call products of ratios. This is explained by the fact that the term product ancient

mathematicians used only for integer and rational numbers.

In Book 5 of Euclids Elements, only particular cases of compounded ratios

were defined - double, triple and multiple ratios, that is ratios compounded from

equal ratios. The general compounded ratio was considered by Euclid only in

Prop. VI.23 of Elements where in he proved that the ratio of two equiangular

parallelograms is compounded from the ratios of corresponding sides of these

parallelograms.

The definition of a compounded ratio in the original text of Elements was

absent. It was added only by Theon of Alexandria in 4th c. A.D., who defined

compounded ratio by means of multiplication of quantities of ratios, which

was not used by Euclid. But the proof of proposition VI.23 shows that a ratio

: is compounded from ratios : and : if there are such magnitu