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
="
040/01/202.jpg
"
pagenum
="
184
"/>
another point in the contact being taken as D, conjoyn the two
<
lb
/>
right lines A D and B D, ſo as that they make the triangle A D B;
<
lb
/>
of which the two ſides A D and D B ſhall be equal to the other one
<
lb
/>
A C B, both thoſe and this containing two ſemidiameters, which
<
lb
/>
by the definition of the ſphere are all equal: and thus the right
<
lb
/>
line A B, drawn between the two centres A and B, ſhall not be the
<
lb
/>
ſhorteſt of all, the two lines A D and D B being equal to it: which
<
lb
/>
by your own conceſſion is abſurd.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg373
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
A demon ſtration
<
lb
/>
that the ſphere
<
lb
/>
cheth the plane but
<
lb
/>
in one point.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>This demonſtration holdeth in the abſtracted, but not in
<
lb
/>
the material ſpheres.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Inſtance then wherein the fallacy of my argument
<
lb
/>
ſiſteth, if as you ſay it is not concluding in the material ſpheres, but
<
lb
/>
holdeth good in the immaterial and
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg374
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg374
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Why the ſphere in
<
lb
/>
abſtract, toucheth
<
lb
/>
the plane onely in
<
lb
/>
one point, and not
<
lb
/>
the material in
<
lb
/>
conerete.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>The material ſpheres are ſubject to many accidents,
<
lb
/>
which the immaterial are free from. </
s
>
<
s
>And becauſe it cannot be,
<
lb
/>
that a ſphere of metal paſſing along a plane, its own weight ſhould
<
lb
/>
not ſo depreſs it, as that the plain ſhould yield ſomewhat, or that
<
lb
/>
the ſphere it ſelf ſhould not in the contact admit of ſome
<
lb
/>
on. </
s
>
<
s
>Moreover, it is very hard for that plane to be perfect, if for
<
lb
/>
nothing elſe, yet at leaſt for that its matter is porous: and
<
lb
/>
haps it will be no leſs difficult to find a ſphere ſo perfect, as that
<
lb
/>
it hath all the lines from the centre to the ſuperficies, exactly
<
lb
/>
equal.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>I very readily grant you all this that you have ſaid; but
<
lb
/>
it is very much beſide our purpoſe: for whilſt you go about to
<
lb
/>
ſhew me that a material ſphere toucheth not a material plane in
<
lb
/>
one point alone, you make uſe of a ſphere that is not a ſphere, and
<
lb
/>
of a plane that is not a plane; for that, according to what you
<
lb
/>
ſay, either theſe things cannot be found in the world, or if they
<
lb
/>
may be found, they are ſpoiled in applying them to work the effect.
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>It had been therefore a leſs evil, for you to have granted the
<
lb
/>
cluſion, but conditionally, to wit, that if there could be made of
<
lb
/>
matter a ſphere and a plane that were and could continue perfect,
<
lb
/>
they would touch in one ſole point, and then to have denied that
<
lb
/>
any ſuch could be made.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>I believe that the propoſition of Philoſophers is to be
<
lb
/>
underſtood in this ſenſe; for it is not to be doubted, but that the
<
lb
/>
imperfection of the matter, maketh the matters taken in
<
lb
/>
crete, to diſagree with thoſe taken in abſtract.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. What, do they not agree? </
s
>
<
s
>Why, that which you your
<
lb
/>
ſelf ſay at this inſtant, proveth that they punctually agree.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>How can that be?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Do you not ſay, that through the imperfection of the
<
lb
/>
matter, that body which ought to be perfectly ſpherical, and that
<
lb
/>
plane which ought to be perfectly level, do not prove to be the </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>