Salusbury, Thomas
,
Mathematical collections and translations (Tome I)
,
1667
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
Page concordance
<
1 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 90
91 - 120
121 - 150
151 - 180
181 - 210
211 - 240
241 - 270
271 - 300
301 - 330
331 - 360
361 - 390
391 - 420
421 - 450
451 - 480
481 - 510
511 - 540
541 - 570
571 - 600
601 - 630
631 - 660
661 - 690
691 - 701
>
Scan
Original
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
<
1 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 90
91 - 120
121 - 150
151 - 180
181 - 210
211 - 240
241 - 270
271 - 300
301 - 330
331 - 360
361 - 390
391 - 420
421 - 450
451 - 480
481 - 510
511 - 540
541 - 570
571 - 600
601 - 630
631 - 660
661 - 690
691 - 701
>
page
|<
<
of 701
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
040/01/201.jpg
"
pagenum
="
183
"/>
But the curve-line A C B, is greater than the two right-lines A C,
<
lb
/>
and C B; therefore,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
à fortiori,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
the curve-line A C B, is much
<
lb
/>
greater than the right line A B, which was to be
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg372
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg371
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The
<
lb
/>
tion of a
<
lb
/>
tick, to prove the
<
lb
/>
right line to be the
<
lb
/>
ſhorteſt of all lines.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg372
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The Paralogiſm
<
lb
/>
of the ſame
<
lb
/>
tetick, which
<
lb
/>
veth
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
ignotum per
<
lb
/>
ignotius.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>I do not think that if one ſhould ranſack all the
<
lb
/>
logiſms of the world, there could be found one more commodious
<
lb
/>
than this, to give an example of the moſt ſolemn fallacy of all
<
lb
/>
fallacies, namely, than that which proveth
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
ignotum per ignotius.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>How ſo?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Do you ask me how ſo? </
s
>
<
s
>The unknown concluſion
<
lb
/>
which you deſire to prove, is it not, that the curved line A C B, is
<
lb
/>
longer than the right line A B; the middle term which is taken
<
lb
/>
for known, is that the curve-line A C B, is greater than the two
<
lb
/>
lines A C and C B, the which are known to be greater than A B;
<
lb
/>
And if it be unknown whether the curve-line be greater than the
<
lb
/>
ſingle right-line A B, ſhall it not be much more unknown whether
<
lb
/>
it be greater than the two right lines A C & C B, which are known
<
lb
/>
to be greater than the ſole line A B, & yet you aſſume it as known?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>I do not yet very well perceive wherein lyeth the
<
lb
/>
lacy.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>As the two right lines are greater than A B, (as may be
<
lb
/>
known by
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Euclid
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
) and in as much as the curve line is longer than
<
lb
/>
the two right lines A C and B C, ſhall it not not be much greater
<
lb
/>
than the ſole right line A B?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>It ſhall ſo.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>That the curve-line A C B, is greater than the right
<
lb
/>
line A B, is the concluſion more known than the middle term,
<
lb
/>
which is, that the ſame curve-line is greater than the two
<
lb
/>
lines A C and C B. </
s
>
<
s
>Now when the middle term is leſs known
<
lb
/>
than the concluſion, it is called a proving
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
ignotum per ignotius.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
But to return to our purpoſe, it is ſufficient that you know the
<
lb
/>
right line to be the ſhorteſt of all the lines that can be drawn
<
lb
/>
tween two points. </
s
>
<
s
>And as to the principal concluſion, you ſay,
<
lb
/>
that the material ſphere doth not touch the ſphere in one ſole
<
lb
/>
point. </
s
>
<
s
>What then is its contact?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>It ſhall be a part of its ſuperficies.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>And the contact likewiſe of another ſphere equal to the
<
lb
/>
firſt, ſhall be alſo a like particle of its ſuperficies?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>There is no reaſon vvhy it ſhould be othervviſe.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Then the tvvo ſpheres vvhich touch each other, ſhall
<
lb
/>
touch vvith the tvvo ſame particles of a ſuperficies, for each of them
<
lb
/>
agreeing to one and the ſame plane, they muſt of neceſſity agree
<
lb
/>
in like manner to each other. </
s
>
<
s
>Imagine now that the two ſpheres </
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg373
"/>
<
lb
/>
[
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
in Fig.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
6.] whoſe centres are A and B, do touch one another:
<
lb
/>
and let their centres be conjoyned by the right line A B, which
<
lb
/>
paſſeth through the contact. </
s
>
<
s
>It paſſeth thorow the point C, and </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>