Sources

in the History of Mathematics and

Physical Sciences

Editor

G. J. Toomer
Advisory Board

R. P. Boas P. J. Davis T. Hawkins

M. J. Klein A. E. Shapiro D. Whiteside

Sources in the History of

Mathematics and Physical
Sciences

Studies in the History of

Mathematics and Physical
Sciences

Vol. 1: G.l. Toomer (Ed.), Diocles on

Burning Mirrors: The Arabic
Translation of the Lost Greek
Original, Edited, with English
Translation and Commentary by
G.l. Toomer

Vol. 1: O. Neugebauer, A History of

Ancient Mathematical Astronomy

Vol. 2: A. Hermann, K.V. Meyenn, V.F.

Weisskopf (Eds.), Wolfgang Pauli:
Scientific Correspondence I:
1919-1929
Vol. 3: l. Sesiano, Books IV to VII of
Diophantus' Arithmetica: In the
Arabic Translation of Qustii ibn
Liiqii
Vol. 4: P.l. Federico, Descartes on
Polyhedra: A Study of the De

Solidorum Elementis
Vol. 5: O. Neugebauer, Astronomical
Cuneiform Texts
Vol. 6: K. yon Meyenn, A. Hermann, V.F.
Weisskopf (Eds.), Wolfgang Pauli:
Scientific Correspondence II:
1930-1939
Vol. 7: l.P. Hogendijk, Ibn AI-Haytham's

Completion of the Conics

Vol. 2: H. Goldstine, A History of

Numerical Analysis from the 16th
through the 19th Century
Vol. 3: C.C. Heyde/E. Seneta, J.J.
Bienayme: Statistical Theory
Anticipated
Vol. 4: C. Truesdell,The Tragicomical
History of Thermodynamics,
1822-1854
Vol. 5: H.H. Goldstine, A History of the
Calculus of V&riations from the
17th through the 19th Century
Vol. 6: l. Cannon/So DostroYsky, The
Evolution of Dynamics: Vibration
Theory from 1687 to 1742
Vol. 7: l. Liitzen, The Prehistory of the
Theory of Distributions
Vol. 8: G.H. Moore, Zermelo's Axiom of
Choice
Vol. 9: B. Chandler and W. Magnus, The
History of Combinatorial Group
Theory
Vol. 10: N.M. Swerdlow/O. Neugebauer,
Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus's De Revolutionibus

J. P. Hogendijk

Ibn al-Haytham's

Completion of the Conics

With 153 Illustrations

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

J. P. Hogendijk
History of Mathematics Department
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
U.S.A.

AMS Subject Classifications: 01A20, 0lA30

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Alhazen, 965-1039.
Ibn AI-Haytham's Completion of the conics.
(Sources in the history of mathematics and
physical sciences: 7)
Translation of: aJ-MaqaJah fi tamam kitab
al-makhnJtiit
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
1. Apollonius, of Perga. Conics. 2. Mathematics,
Greek. 3. Mathematics, Arabic. 4. Conic sectionsEarly works to 1800. I. Hogendijk, 1. P. II. Title.
III. Series.
516'.15
84-5568
QA31.A5 1984

1985 by Springer Science+Business Media New York

Originally published by Springer-Verlag New York Inc. in 1985
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1985
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any
form without written permission from Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Typeset by Composition House Ltd., Salisbury, England.

9 8 7 6 543 2 1
ISBN 978-1-4757-4061-5
ISBN 978-1-4757-4059-2 (eBook)
DOl 10.1007/978-1-4757-4059-2

To my mother

Preface

This book is a revised and slightly augmented version of my doctoral

dissertation (Utrecht 1983).
The Subfaculty of Mathematics of the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht generously enabled me to pursue the necessary research. I thank Prof. Dr. F. van
der Blij for his interest in my work and for his many stimulating questions
and remarks. The discussions with Dr. Henk Bos and his criticisms of
earlier drafts have resulted in essential improvements in method and style.
Prof. Gerald Toomer (Brown University) suggested the topic of the thesis
and assisted in all stages of its preparation, even at the expense of his own
research. He discussed the entire Arabic text and the English translation
with me during my visit to Providence (1981), which was financially supported by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure
Research (Z.W.O.). I wish to express my sincerest thanks to Dr. Remke
Kruk for teaching me to read Arabic manuscripts, and for constant advice and
encouragement in the past nine years. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. H. Daiber
(Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam) for a number of valuable remarks and
suggestions in philological matters. My colleagues Jan van Maanen (Utrecht)
al1~_ ~r. Len Berggren (Vancouver) read large parts of the thesis with
meticulous care and suggested many improvements. All errors and inadequacies that remain are entirely my own.
Thanks are due to Dr. J. Hamadanizadeh (Teheran), who sent me a
microfilm of the entire codex Manisa, Genel 1706, and to Prof. Dr. A. I.
Sabra (Cambridge, Mass.) and Dr. Yvonne Dold (Heidelberg) for help and
advice. Miss S. M. McNab (Utrecht) suggested linguistic and stylistic
improvements. As it is impossible for me to mention all the other persons
who have contributed to my work, I take this opportunity of thanking
them collectively.
Finally I should like to thank Mieke for her help and understanding, and
my mother for supporting and encouraging me for so long in the pursuit of
my studies. I dedicate this book to her.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Mathematical Summary

Chapter 3. The Conics of Apollonius

30

3.1. Introduction
3.2. Books I-VI
3.3. Book VII

30
31
37

Chapter 4. Traces of Conics VIII

41

4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.

41
43
47
48

Introduction. Conics I-VII

The Collection of Pappus
Halley's Reconstruction
Arabic Sources

Chapter 5. Life and Works of Ibn al-Haytham

52

5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.

52
53
55
57
62

Introduction. Sources
Life ofIbn al-Haytham
Astronomical and Optical Works
Mathematical Works
Ibn al-Haytham's Authorship of the Completion

Chapter 6. The Completion as a Reconstruction of Conics VIII

6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.

Introduction: Reconstructions of Lost Greek Works

Nature of Ibn al-Haytham's Reconstruction
Basis for the Reconstruction
Plausibility of the Reconstruction
Preliminary Character of Most of the Extant Text

64
64
65
66
72
73

Table of Contents

Chapter 7. Mathematical Aspects of the Completion

7.1. Introduction
7.2. Greek Influence on Style and Presentation
7.3. Some Sources of the Solutions in the Completion
7.4. Analysis in the Completion
7.5. The Role of Constructions
7.6. The Diorismoi
7.7. The Completion and the Problem of Alhazen
7.8. Conclusion

93
97
105
113

Chapter 8. The Date of the Completion

116

Chapter 9. Interpolations in the Text

9.1. Criteria
9.2. The Author(s) of the Interpolations

120
120
121

Chapter

to. The Influence of the Completion

75

75
76
81
85

123

Chapter II. Conclusion

125

Chapter 12. Manuscript and Editorial Procedures

12.1. The Manuscript
12.2. Linguistic Remarks and Editorial Procedures

127
127
129

Chapter 13. Text and Translation

133

Appendix: Facsimile of One Page and All Geometrical Figures in the

Manuscript

300

Chapter 14. Notes to the Translation

311

Appendix: The Diorismos of Propositions 12-13

382

Chapter 15. Indices

391

15.1. Glossary of Technical Terms

15.2. Index of References in the Text of the Completion to Propositions in the

391

Conics

402

15.3. Index of References to the Conics in the Notes and the Commentary
15.4. Index of Names
15.5. Bibliography

403
405
411

Chapter 1

Introduction

Arabic science began to flourish about A.D. 800, nearly a century after the
great conquests oflslam. Baghdad, the recently founded capital of the empire,
became the cultural and intellectual centre of the world and attracted many
scholars with different backgrounds. In the process of translation and
transmission of older scientific texts, the Arabic language became the vehicle
par excellence for scientific and philosophical thought. Thus began what is
called the Arabic scientific tradition, l i.e. the activity of scholars of different
nationalities, who came from various parts of the Muslim world (Persia,
Arabia, Syria, etc.), who had different religions (mainly Muslim, but also
Christian, Jewish, and others) and who mainly wrote in Arabic. Arabic
science flourished with interruptions till ca. 1450. The transmission of Arabic
texts or Arabic translations of Greek texts to (Western) Europe was a decisive
factor in the development of Latin science and philosophy in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, which in turn paved the way for the Renaissance in
Europe. However, Arabic science remained for the most part unknown in the
West.
Arabic mathematics 2 drew from Greek and Indian sources, but the
influence in geometry was almost exclusively Greek. The Elements of Euclid
had already been translated into Arabic by the beginning ofthe ninth century,
and many other Greek works were translated soon afterwards. The study of
Greek science was much encouraged by Caliph Hartin aI-RashId (reigned
786-809), also known from the tales of 1001 Nights, and even more by his son
Caliph AI-Macmiin (reigned 813-833). In this period a large number of
Greek manuscripts were collected in Baghdad. One of these manuscripts
1 A valuable introduction to Arabic science is still A. Mieli, La Science Arabe. S. H. Nasr,
Islamic Science is to be recommended (only) for its splendid photographs.
2 The best survey is in A. P. Juschkewitsch, Mathematik im Mittelalter (1964). There is a French
translation of the chapter on Islamic mathematics: A. P. Youschkevitch, Les Mathematiques
Arabes, Paris 1976.

Conics in the Arabic Tradition

contained the first seven of the eight Books of the Conics (KrovlKcX) of Apollonius of Perga (ca. 200 B.C.).
The seven extant books of the Conics are among the most fascinating
Greek mathematical works which have come down to us. Conic sections had
already been studied since the middle of the fourth century B.C., but Apollonius' approach to the theory was much more general than that of his
predecessors. 3 His Conics was unequalled until the advent in the seventeenth
century of new methods such as the analytic geometry of Descartes and the
projective methods of Desargues.
The Banii Miisa (sons of Musa), three ninth-century geometers, set themselves the task of making sense of the Greek text. This was by no means easy.
The Greek manuscript was hardly legible and contained many scribal errors.
The Conics contains an esoteric theory, explained in a difficult way, and there
was obviously nobody in Baghdad who was competent in conic sections. The
Banii Miisa only succeeded in understanding the Conics as a result ofenormous
efforts, and not before a second manuscript had been found, containing the
first four Books with the commentary of Eutocius of Ascalon (fl. A.D. 510).4
The seven Books of the Conics could then be translated, and the Greek
tradition of conic sections had at least partially been revived.
Conic sections were studied by a considerable number of geometers
writing in Arabic. F. Sezgin mentions in his Geschichte des arabischen
Schrifttums (GAS V,134) five Arabic re-editions of the Conics, all made
between A.D. 900 and 1400. It seems that the Arabic geometers did not
make any new breakthroughs in the theory of conics. Their contributions
seem to have been: the application of the Greek theory of conics in the
solution of numerous geometrical problems and in the construction of
roots of cubic and quadric equations, and further, the calculation of volumes
and centres of gravity of several solids of revolution of segments of conics. 5
However, many more Arabic manuscripts in libraries throughout the
world will have to be studied before a detailed survey can be made.
The purpose of this book is to publish and discuss an Arabic treatise with
a special position in the history of conic sections. It is the Treatise on the
Completion of the Conics (maqata fi tamam kitab al-makhrufat) by the mathematician and scientist AI-l:Iasan ibn al-l:Iasan ibn al-Haytham (in Latinized
form: Alhazen), who was born in Ba~ra ('Iraq) in 965 and died in Cairo about
1041. This Completion of the Conics (henceforth abbreviated to Completion)
is an attempt to reconstruct the lost Book VIII of the Conics. Between 1600
and 1900 many lost Greek geometrical works were reconstructed by European geometers, but the Completion is the only extant medieval reconstruction of this kind.
The best account of the ancient theory of conics is still Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte (1886).
See Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist (tr. Dodge 11,637) who summarizes the account of the Banii
Miisii in their preface to the Arabic translation of the Conics (a facsimile of the Arabic text of
the Banii Miisii is available in TerziogJu, Vorwort; TerziogJu's German translation is unreliable).
S See Juschkewitsch, Mathematik im Mittelalter, 256-269, 288-295 for examples.
3

The Completion of the Conics

The Completion survives in only one manuscript, written at an unknown

date by an unknown scribe, and at present preserved in Manisa (Turkey). The
University Library in Teheran possesses a microfilm of the manuscript; thus
the Completion was mentioned in the 1969 catalogue of microfilms (Danish
PaZiih 1,521) and in Sezgin's Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (V,134) in
1974. Also in 1974, N. Terzioglu published a booklet entitled: Das Achte Buch
zu den "Conica" des ApoUonius von Perge, Rekonstruiert von Ibn al-Hayam
(Istanbul, Mathematical Research Institute). This publication consists of a
facsimile reproduction of the Arabic manuscript of the Completion, together
with a Turkish and a German translation ofIbn al-Haytham's preface, and a
short introduction by Terzioglu. 6 However, the introduction by Terzioglu
gives hardly any information about the actual contents of the Completion.
In 1981, Abdukabirov published a survey of the problems in the Completion
as well as a description of some of its propositions. 7 I am unaware of other
modern publications on the Completion.
This book contains a critical edition of the entire Arabic text of the
Completion with English translation and footnotes (Chapters 12-14), preceded by a commentary (Chapters 2-11), and with a glossary (15.1).
Chapters 2 and 3 serve as preliminaries for reading the text of the Completion in Chapter 13. Chapter 2 is a mathematical summary of the Completion
in modern notation. Chapter 3 explains the ancient theory of conics as far as
is necessary to understand the text of the Completion.
Chapters 4-11 can be read separately from each other and from the text in
Chapter 13; see the Table of Contents for the subjects of the individual
chapters. A discussion of the manuscript and editorial procedures (Chapter
12) precedes the text and translation (Chapter 13) and the notes (Chapter 14).
The book ends with a glossary of technical terms in the Completion (15.1),
Indices (15.2-15.4) and a Bibliography (15.5).
To facilitate reference to the text of the Completion (Chapter 13) it will be
useful to define a few abbreviations.
The Completion consists of a preface and 31 propositions of variable
length, numbered 1, ... ,31. I have subdivided the preface and the propositions into smaller sections, indicated by roman lower-case letters a, b, ...
6 Terzioglu's German translation of Ibn al-Haytham's preface contains many errors, but
Mr. Kevin Meskill (Providence) informs me that the Turkish translation is more accurate.
7 Abdukabirov's paper, entitled Some problems in the effectuation by Ibn al-Haytham of the
reconstruction of the eighth Book of the Conics of Apollonius (in Russian), appeared in S. Kh.
Sirazhdinov (ed.), Mathematics and astronomy in the work of Ibn Sina, his contemporaries and
successors (in Russian), Tashkent 1981, pp. 80-94. Abdukabirov's description of Ibn
al-Haytham's Completion is based on the facsimile publication of the manuscript Manisa,
Genel 1706, Ib-25a by N. Terzioglu. Abdukabirov gives an introduction (pp. 80-81), a list of
pro blems in the Completion (pp. 81-82), summaries of Ibn al-Haytham's solutions of P5( 14-15),
P6(18-19) and Pll(28-29) (pp. 82-92) and a conclusion, containing a short discussion of the
reconstruction of Conics VIII by E. Halley (pp. 92-94).
I thank Professor B. Rosenfeld (Moscow) for sending me a xerocopy of the paper of
Abdukabirov.

Conventions

A notation such as 2ld, e refers to sections d and e in proposition 21. Oe refers

to section e in the preface.
In the Completion Ibn al-Haytham solves 11 geometrical problems; most
solutions extend over more than one proposition. I shall denote the problems
(in the order of the text) as PI, P2, ... , Pll. The numbers of propositions will
sometimes appear in parentheses, as in Pl(3-5): the part of the solution of PI
in propositions 3-5. The exact correspondence between problems and
propositions is as follows: Pl(1-5), P2(6-7), P3(8-9), P4(10-13), P5(14-l7),
P6(18-l9), P7(20-23), P8(24-25), P9(26-27k), PlO(271-p) Pll(28-3l).
P12 refers to a problem mentioned in the preface (Og) but not treated in the
text.
The footnotes to each chapter of the commentary are printed at the end of
the chapter. Notations such as "note 8.4" refer to footnote 4 to proposition 8
(the note is in Chapter 14). For references to the Bibliography (15.5) the
author's name will be used, followed, if necessary, by an abbreviated title
or the year of publication. Arabic words have been transcribed according to
the conventions of the Journalfor the History of Arabic Science (Aleppo). For
the transcription of Arabic letters in geometrical figures cf. p. 131.
Since the readers of this book are likely to come from different disciplines
and have different backgrounds and expectations, I have tried to strike a
happy medium in the level of mathematical exposition. The result, however,
cannot be in tune with every reader's preferences. For this I must ask the
reader's indulgence.

Chapter 2

Mathematical Summary

The following mathematical summary renders the more important constructions in the Completion in modernized language, by means of analytic
geometry, equations, and a few mappings of the Euclidean plane. Thus the
essential relations can be stated and derived more easily than in Ibn
al-Haytham's text, and complicated arguments involving similar triangles and
proportions can be avoided. The reader should realize that this procedure
distorts Ibn al-Haytham's reasoning to some extent. Ibn al-Haytham's
arguments will be summarized and commented upon in the footnotes to the
text (Chapter 14) and in Chapter 7 in a way which is more adapted to his own
reasoning. In the present summary I render the equations of the conics in such
a way that the correspondence with the text is obvious. Points in the geometrical figures will almost always be denoted by the same letters as in the
translation (Chapter 13). The summary includes some comments of my own
in italics.
In the preface Oa-j to the Completion Ibn al-Haytham says that the first
seven Books of the Conics are extant, but that Book VIII is lost. He then lists
12 problems (Pl-12) which had not been treated in Conics I-VII, and he
explains that these problems must have formed the subject of Conics VIII
(see Chapters 4 and 6).
Ibn al-Haytham says that he will solve these problems and give the
analysis (roughly speaking backward solution, see 7.4 for a more precise
definition), synthesis (actual construction and proof) and diorismos
(necessary and sufficient condition(s) for the existence of a solution). Analysis,
synthesis and diorismos in the Completion will be discussed in 7.4-7.6.
The extant text of the Completion appears to be a preliminary version, and
it is likely that Ibn al-Haytham never finished his reconstruction of Conics VIII
(6.5). A few passages in the extant text must have been added or changed by
one or more anonymous commentators (Chapter 9).

Summary: Preliminaries on Conic Sections

Before the constructions in the Completion can be summarized, it will be

necessary to give preliminary definitions of the angle of arrangement, the
latus rectum and the latus transversum, three fundamental concepts in the
Apollonian theory of conics. I state the definitions in modern terminology and
refer to 3.1 for a discussion which is more satisfactory from a historical point
of view.
For every point P on a conic section (Fig. 1) we define a system of affine
x - y coordinates. We let the diameter through P (see 3.1) and the tangent
to the conic at P be the coordinate axes, oriented as in Fig. 1. It can be shown
that the diameters of a parabola are the parallels to the axis of the parabola
and the axis itself, and that all diameters of the hyperbola and ellipse pass
through a single point. This point is called the centre C of the hyperbola or
ellipse.
The term angle of arrangement (OJ) is used for one of the two angles between
the x- and y-axis. OJ is often, but not always, the smaller angle; the precise
meaning is always clear from the context. OJ is a right angle if and only if P is a
vertex (in the modern sense).
The latus rectum r and the latus transversum d occur in the equations of the
conics
y2 = rx
y2 = rx

(parabola),
r

dx 2

(hyperbola and ellipse).

In the symbols or =+= the upper sign will always refer to the hyperbola. d
is only defined for the hyperbola and ellipse, and sometimes loosely called
" diameter".
If pi is the second point of intersection of the hyperbola or ellipse with the
x-axis, we have d = PP' and PC = CP'. A notation such as PP' will refer both
to segment PP' and to its (positive) length; the meaning will be clear from the
context.
d, r and OJ are of course dependent on P, but d 2 =+= dr is constant for any
given hyperbola or ellipse, and d = r for the circle and the equilateral
hyperbola. The relation between rand P in the case of the parabola will be
given below, p. 27.
y
,,

"\

P,'"
/

x
Fig. 1

Summary Pl(I - 4)

I n the last part of Conics I, Apollonius constructs the parabola with given
P, r, cu, as well as the hyperbola and ellipse with given P, r, d, cu (3.1). The
construction of a hyperbola with given asymptotes and passing through a
given point is an easy corollary (Conics II : 4).
Finally, it should be noted that the ancient and medieval geometers
considered the two branches of a hyperbola in the modern sense to be two
separate" opposite" hyperbolas.
The propositions in the Completion are arranged thematically. They are
about problems on tangents (PI-5, propositions 1-17), two segments intersecting in a point on the conic (P6-7, propositions 18-23), diameters and
latera recta (P8-1O, propositions 24-27) and secants (Pll, propositions
28-31). The problems and constructions in the Completion are as follows.
Pl(1-5). To construct a tangent to a given conic ~ such that the ratio of (i)
the part of the tangent between the point of contact and the axis of ~ (the
transverse axis of the hyperbola) to (ii) the shorter segment of the axis intercepted by the tangent and the conic is equal to a given ratio ex.
If ~ is a parabola (1-2) the problem can easily be reduced to the construction of a tangent to ~ making a given angle with the axis (Conics II: 50).
The problem has a solution if and only if ex > 2.
Next (3-4) Ibn al-Haytham solves the problem for a (single-branch of a)
hyperbola or ellipse ~ (Figs. 2a-b).

I
I
I

'0
I

o
x

"'-'~ " " C{Xl.yJ

,'.,

. .. .
"',. ,

\
r

i
I

,, '

.'

Fig.2a

Fig. 2b

_,,/

OJ
(7"

..
M'(()()

Summary Pl(3-4)

Let the equation of'?! in rectangular coordinates be y2 = f rx rd - 1 X2,

with x :$ 0 for the hyperbola. Then A(O, 0) is a vertex, E(!d, 0) is the centre, r
and d are the latus rectum and the latus transversum corresponding to the axis
y = 0 of '?!. Put D = (d, 0), then d = AD.
It is required that we construct a tangent BK as in Figs. 2a-b such that
BK/KA = rx.
Analysis (prop. 3): Suppose that BK is a solution Draw AG \I BK to meet
'?! in G. Since E is the centre of '?!, EB is a diameter of '?!, hence EB extended
will bisect AG in a point S (see 3.1). Drop perpendiculars GW, ST, BF
onto the axis.
Let (J be the dilatation with centre E which maps K on A. Then (J maps
triangle KBF on triangle AST. From the geometry of '?! it follows that
EF/EA = EA/EK(BFisthepolarofK),hence(J(A) = F.WehaveSA/AF =
BK/KA = rx because (J preserves ratios, so AF = rx- 1 AS.
Put F = (- Yl> 0), T = (Xl> 0) and let C(X1' Y1) be on ST such that
CT = AF. Then YI = AF2 = rx- 2 AS2 = 4rx- 2 AG 2.
Using AG = 2AS and the equation of'?! we obtain
G

= (2X1'

J + 2rx1 4rd

1xi)

so AGcan be expressed in Xl' It follows that Cis on a conic Yl'(rx) with equation
2

Y =

(d

r) ( _ rd )
X + 2(d r) .

7dX

If '?! is a hyperbola or an ellipse with major axis AD, then d r > 0, so

Yl'(rx) is a hyperbola with vertices A and M(rd/[2(d r)], 0). I shall denote
the branch through A as Yl'A(rx).
If'?! is an ellipse with minor axis AD, d - r < 0, so Yl'(rx) is also an ellipse.
If'?! is a circle, Yl'(rx) can be defined to be one of the parabolas 2a 2y2 = frx,

but an easy ruler- and compass-construction is also possible because

KD BK2 KAKD
2
KA = KA 2 = KA 2 = rx
Ibn al-Haytham does not, however, discuss these cases.
From EA2 = EK EF it follows, by application of (J, EF2 = EA ET,
that is to say (Y1 + !d)2 = !d( -Xl + !d). So C is on the parabola [ljJ with
equation (y + !d)2 = !d( -x + !d), vertex (!d, -!d) and axis y = -!d.
Note that [ljJ does not depend on rx.
Because rx is given, Yl'A(rx) and [ljJ can be constructed using the constructions
in the last part of Conics 1. So C can be found, and the construction of the
desired tangent BK can easily be completed (see the synthesis in prop. 4).
It can be shown that the tangent BK cannot, in general, be constructed by
means of ruler and compass only (note 4.15).

Summary PI(4-5)

We now study the number of solutions.

For each point oJintersection C(Xl' Yl) oj Jf'A (a) and [ljJ such that Yl > 0 (if
~ is a hyperbola) or -td < Yl < 0 (if ~ is an ellipse) there are exactly two

solutions BK, B'K symmetrical with respect to the axis y = O. Band B' are the
intersections of ~ with the perpendicular to the axis through F( - Yl ' 0).
Ibn al-Haytham only counts solutions on one side of the axis, thus his
number of solutions is exactly the number of intersections of [ljJ and Jf'A(a)
with the above-mentioned properties.
It is easily proved (in 4h-m) that the number of solutions is one if ~ is an
ellipse and a > 1. IJ a = 1, Jf'A(a) passes through (td, - td), so the tangent at B
is parallel to the axis Y = O. For a < 1 see my discussion oj P2(6- 7).
Ibn al-Haytham discusses in a separate proposition (5) the diorismosJor the

hyperbola ~. First I shall rephrase one oj his basic ideas in modern notation
(Fig. 3).
The equations oj [ljJ and Jf'(a) can be rewritten as
y
x

d
2(y

+ d)

an

Y _ 2(r + d)x - rd
respectively.
x2a 2 dy
,

So any point oj intersection C(x, y) oj [ljJ and Jf'(a) Jor which x =P 0 (C =p A) is

also on f(a):
-d
2(r + d)x - rd
2(y + d) =
2a 2 dy
,or (y

+ d)

(a 2 d 2
2(r

rd

+ d) + x

)
=

a2 d 3
2(r + d)'

f(a) is an equilateral hyperbola with asymptotes y = -d and x =

- rd)/ [2(r + d)], which passes through M(rd/ [2(r + d)], O)Jor every

_(r:x 2 d 2

-'"' '\0;1 .. .:. . :..:~...': .

~~

'"

-"

..... ... ,,"

.. ---- A
&.(~ )
A

Y: - d
5
Fig. 3

Summary PJ(5)

JO

a. Let ffM(a) be the branch through M. The number ofsolutions ofthe problem is
now easily seen to be equal to the number of intersections C(x, y) of [lJ and ffM( a)

o.

such that y >

Now to turn to Ibn al-Haytham's argument in proposition 5.

Ibn al-Haytham begins by stating the diorismos: let al > 0 be such that

al = 4 + 6 d +
2

r)

~(
\Id
\ 1 + d)

The problem has two solutions if a ~ aI' but no solution if a < a l . The
diorismos is wrong; a ~ a l is only a sufficient condition. The question of how

Ibn al-Haytham arrived at this wrong lower bound a l will be discussed below.
Ibn al-Haytham then constructs a certain point C(XI' YI) on [lJ (5b), such
that
Xl

fr
..J--;+d'

-rd
+ d) - d

= 2(r

--d
d~
r+

Yl = 2

(compare 5c-e).

In 5n MC is seen to be tangent to [lJ.

Assume a = al. In 5h-i it is proven that C has the following property:

2(~i:2d): (

-Xl

+ 2(rr! d)

(YI

+ d):YI

If one substitutes X, y, a for Xl' YI' aI' (*) becomes the equation of ff(a).
Ibn al-Haytham does not yet mention ff(a) at this stage.
Because C is a point on [lJ satisfying (*), C is also on 'ia l ) (5j-m). So if
lXI' the problem has at least one solution.
5n contains the proof that MC is tangent to [lJ at C. In 50 ffM(a l ) is introduced and it is proved that C is on this hyperbola.
MC is a chord of ffM(a l ) but it is tangent to [lJ at C, so [lJ and ffM(aJ must
have exactly one more point of intersection C 2(X2, Yl) such that Y2 > 0
(5p, Fig. 4). Since C 2 has property (*) (for xz, Yz, a l ) and since it is on [lJ, it is
also on 'A(a l ). So the problem has exactly two solutions if a = a l (5q).
IX

Fig. 4

Summary PI(5)

II

For IX =1= 1X1 Ibn al-Haytham first studies the points of intersection of g M(IX)
and the tangent I to gM(1X 1) at M.
If IX> 1X1 (5r-u) gM(IX) intersects I between M and the vertical asymptote
of gM(IX). Ibn al-Haytham concludes that gM(IX) and flJJ intersect in two
points and that the problem has two solutions (see note 5.31).
If IX < 1X1 (5v-y) g M(IX) intersects I between M and the horizontal asymptote y = -d. Ibn al-Haytham wrongly concludes that g M(IX) and flJJ do not
intersect (in a point (x, y) with y > 0) and that the problem has no solution.
Apparently he confused the tangent I (to gM(1X 1) at M) and MC (to flJJ at C).
If gM(IX) intersects MC extended between M and the line y = -d, gM(IX) and
flJJ do not have a common point (x, y) such that y > 0, so the problem has no
solution. Points of intersection (x, y) with -d < y < 0 are of no importance

here.
As a matter offact, there is an 1X0 such that flJJ, gM(IXO) (and JIl'A(lX o)) have a
common tangent at a point (x, y) such that y > O. The problem has two solutions if IX > 1X0, one solution if IX = 1X0 and no solution if IX < 1X0. I t can be shown
that 1X0 > 2 and that z = 1X6 is a root of the irreducible cubic equation Z3 +
Z2( -8 - 111]) + z(16 + 121] - 1]2) + 1]2 = 0, with 1] = rid (note 5.36). Thus
Ibn al-Haytham may well be excused for not having found the correct diorismos
with the limited means he had at his disposal.
However, the diorismos given by Ibn al-Haytham is immediately seen to be
wrong, since he does not mention a limiting case in which the problem has one
solution. Because the mistake seems so elementary one might wonder whether
Ibn al-Haytham was aware of any error: Did he perhaps consider 1X1 only as an
approximation to the true limiting value 1X0?
This question must be answered in the negative, not only because ofthe lack of
any positive textual evidence, but also for the following three reasons:

o;t'(O<\
M

Fig. 5

Summary PI(5)

12

Ibn al-Haytham believed that his problem had already been solved by
Apollonius in Conics VIII. Apollonius always rigorously discusses the
diorismos of problems, not only in the Conics but also in his other works
which were extant in Ibn al-Haytham's time (7.6.1). So Ibn al-Haytham
must have believed that Apollonius also dealt with the diorismos of the
present problem; hence the diorismos could be (and should be) treated
rigorously.
(ii) Apparently Ibn al-Haytham did not (yet) have a clear conception of a
limiting case (such as (X = (Xo) in which 9 and ~(X) are tangent. In
P7(22-23) he made an error which must also be attributed to the absence
of this conception. See 7.6.2for afurther discussion.
(iii) (Xl is not a good approximation of (Xo. One obtains a better one by considering the tangent to 9 through the midpoint of AM. If
(i)

(X~ = 4+ ~.~ + 4ji. J~ (1 + ~),

passes through the point of contact, so the problem has a solution
for (X = (X2. We have (X~ < (X~ < (X~ + r/2d (note 5.36) and (X~ + r/2d

~(X2)

< (Xi
Thus one wonders how Ibn al-Haytham arrived at his lower bound (Xl. I shall
finish my discussion of proposition 5 by giving a tentative answer.
Ibn al-Haytham probably discovered at an early stage that the relevant
points of intersection of9 and .n"A(X) are also on ~M(X). This is an interesting
and non-trivial discovery, with very few parallels in the extant Arabic and
Greek geometrical literature. (One might compare it with the simplification,
mentioned by Pappus, of the construction of normals to a parabola in Conics V,
see Heath HGM II,166-167, Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte, 286-287.)
From a modern point of view, however, ~M(X) does not make the problem
easier. Ibn al-Haytham may have introduced ~M(X) because the intersections of ~M(X) and 9 are more easily visualized than those of9 and .n"A(X).
Ibn al-Haytham must have realized that 9 does not depend on (x, and that
~M(X) passes through M for all (X. Thus it would be natural to connect 9 and M
by means of the tangent Me, and tofind outfor which (X ~M(X) passes through
C. In this way Ibn al-Haytham may have found (Xl.
(X ~ (Xl' as stated in Ibn al-Haytham's own words, resembles some of the
diorismoi in On Cutting-Off a Ratio of Apollonius (note 5.2), a work which
played an important part in the transmission of the concept diorismos to the
geometers writing in Arabic. In 7.6.l I shall argue that this work was known to
Ibn al-Haytham when he wrote the Completion.
Thus Ibn al-Haytham may have arrived at the idea that IX ~ 1X1 is the
necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a solution to his problem.
P2(6-7). To construct a tangent to a given (single-branch) hyperbola or
ellipse ~ such that the ratio of (i) the part of the tangent between the point of

13

Summary P2(6-7)

contactB and the intersection with the axis of~ to (ii) the part of the axis AD
between its more distant endpoint D and the intersection with the tangent,
is equal to a given ratio IX. The axis is understood to be the transverse axis of
the hyperbola or the major axis of the ellipse.
Put AD = d, letE be the centre, let r be the latus rectum of~ corresponding
to the axis. Choose coordinates as in P1(3-4).
P1(3-4) already suggest the solution (Figs. 6a-b, notations as in Fig. 2). If
~ is a hyperbola, fjJ and 'A(IX) intersect in C(Xl' Zl) with Zl < -d.
Then F 1 ( - Zb 0) is inside the" opposite hyperbola" ~ 1 through D(d, 0). Ifwe
intersect ~ 1 with the perpendicular x = - Z1 through F 1, we obtain the point of
contact B 1 of a tangent B 1 K 1 to ~ 1 which intersects AD in K 1 such that
BIKdKIA

= IX.

is an ellipse and IX < 1, one obtains in the same way a point F 1( - Z1, 0)
between D and E, and a tangent BIKI such that BIKdKIA = IX.
For both the hyperbola and the ellipse~, let B, K, F be the mirror images of
B 1, K 1, Fl on x = td, and let " and C(Xl' Yl) be the mirror images of 'A(IX)
and Con y = -td. Then C is the point of intersection of fjJ (which is its own
If~

'.

y= -ld

,,
i

Fig.6a

14

Summary P2(6- 7)

,.

x=!d

~
81

T
E

~(z,.O)

Kl

8 f(0I)
A

.. ,,
..'
, .

&"

y=-id
,

..
,,

'PX"Z,J

..
\

Fig. 6b

mirror image) and Yt",further AF = I-Zl - dl = IYll = C'T and BK/KD = a

as required.
The preceding considerations may serve as an introduction to the solution of
Ibn al-Haytham, but they do not represent his own reasoning. Mappings of the
plane were unknown to him, and he considered the opposite branches rc and rc 1 as
very different (7.2.8). So Ibn al-Haytham did not solve P2(6-7) by means of
Pl(3-4), but he made a fresh start. By and large the reasoning follows the
pattern of Pl(3-4), though there are many differences in detail (for example,
between 6f-g, 7j-m and 3c, 4g).
In P2(6-7) points in the figure are denoted by letters in a way which is
extremely confusing for an ybod y who wants to make a comparison with P 1(3-4):
S, K, F and Tin P2(6- 7) correspond to K, F, T and S, respectively in P1(3-4).
A brief summary of Ibn al-Haytham's argument will be sufficient
(Figs.7a-b).

15

Summary P2(6- 7)

L---------~~--~~~~~--~~------~--x

'.,

'.\

.-

: \

.: ,?
I

....

./

.'

,.,/

,,{

Fig. 7a

In the analysis (prop. 6) BS is supposed to be the required tangent, so

BS/SD = (1.. Chord AG is parallel to BS, EB is extended (if necessary) to meet

AG in T and the perpendiculars GO, TF and BK are drawn (6b). Put K =
( - YI' 0), F = (Xl' 0).
Ibn al-Haytham proves

(1)
He then proves that DK/AT is known (6f-g), whence
(YI

+ d)

(_

= CXI Xl

dr

+r

+ 2(d r)

for known c.

In fact
DK
AT

DS
BS

1
(1.

and

d;2 .

(2)

Summary P2(6- 7), P3(8- 9)

16

~S~--~~~~~~--~E--O~--------~D---X

"'. <~,{Xl ' Yl)

'ff

'.

:' !}tt

o
I

,!

lcf/J

Fig.7b

If this value of c is substituted in (2) and if the indices in (1) and (2) are omitted,
(1) and (2) become the equations of & and Jf'.
Ibn al-Haytham does not mention these conics in the analysis, but he
refers to the synthesis for the actual construction of AF. In the synthesis
(7c-e) & and Jf' are drawn and J(Xl' Yl) is found as a point of intersection.
Ibn al-Haytham says that the problem can always be solved (7n-p).
This is true for the hyperbola ~. If~ is an ellipse there is only a solution ifIX < 1.

P3(8-9). Let ~ be a (single-branch) hyperbola with centre E. To construct

a tangent BK to ~, meeting ~ in B and its transverse axis in K such that
BK/BE = IX for given IX < 1.
Analysis (prop. 8, Fig. 8): Choose coordinates such that the vertex A is the
origin and AE is the positive x-axis. Put AE = td.

Summary P3(8-9), P4(1O-1l)

17

----4-------~.---=~~~-r--~~E~------~---x

;;.,,--, "..-

Fig. 8

Suppose BK is the required tangent. Draw AG II BK to meet rtf in G, and

extend EB to meet AG in T. Then TAITE = BKIBE = 0(, so it can be proved
that Tisonacircle$'withcentreF( -d0(2/2(1 - 0(2), 0) and radiusdlX/2(1 _1( 2).
Ibn al-Haytham does not mention $', but he proves that AF and FT have a
known length.
Let u(x, y) = (2x,2y). Then G = u(T) is on the circle u($') with centre
S( - d1X 2/1 - 1X2, 0) and radius dlX/(1 - 1(2). So G can be constructed as a point
of intersection of u($') and G, hence BK can easily be found. The synthesis
(prop. 9) is clear, and the problem has one solution on each side of the axis
AE for every IX < 1.
The problem can be solved in a similar way for the ellipse (0( = 1 is a special

case), but Ibn al-Haytham does not provide a solution.

P4(10-13). To construct a tangent to a given conic rtf which intersects a
given tangent to rtf in such a way that the segments intercepted by the point of
intersection and the two points of contact have a given ratio IX.
Analysis for the parabola (prop. 10, Fig. 9): Suppose that the given tangent
GD meets the required tangent AD in D. Then AD/GD = IX. Draw AT1
parallel to the axis of the parabola. It can be shown that GD = DT1 Hence
AD/DT1 = IX. LAT1D is known because line GD is known. So the shape of
l::.AT1D is determined (there are at most two possible shapes).
Synthesis (prop. 11): Let the axis ofthe parabola intersect GD in T2 , and
let K be a common point of the axis and the circle with centre G and radius

Summary P4(IO- 12)

18

~--------------~~

F ig. 9

GT2 It is not difficult to construct a tangent to the parabola parallel to GK,

let it be tangent AD, meeting GT2 in D. If Tl is on GT2 such that A Tl II KT2 ,
L::.ADTl = L::.KGT2 , so AD/DG = AD/DTl = KG/GT2 = IX, as required.

IX'

I have made afew simplifications in Ibn al-H aytham's argument, which do not
affect its substance.
The problem has a solution if IX ~ c/GT2 , c being the distance between G
and the axis. Ibn al-Haytham does not mention the number ofsolutions, nor does
he treat the case where G is on the axis.
Analysis of the problem for a (single-branch) hyperbola or ellipse C(j (prop.
12, Figs. lOa-b): Let H be the centre ofC(j and suppose that the given tangent
meets C(j in B. Let d, r and OJ denote the latus transversum, the latus rectum and
the angle of arrangement corresponding to the diameter through B (see the
definitions on p. 6).

,," 8'

"
T
Fig. lOa

Summary P4(l2)

19

cYr'
L

Fig.lla

Suppose that the required tangent AD meets ((j in A and the given tangent
in D. Then AD/BD = (/.. Extend AD to meet HB in F, let HN II BD meet AD
(extended) in N. Draw AT II BD to meet HB in T, and draw DS, AK I BH to
meet HN in Sand K. We have d = 2HB, W = LNHB.
In paraphrasing the analysis I shall make some simplifications, in order to
avoid the detours and the auxiliary segments in the text.
By Conics 1:37 we have

AT2
FTTH

r
d

(this is a consequence of the equation of((j in the affine coordinates defined at the
beginning of Chapter 2 (with P = B), and ofthefact that T and F are harmonic
conjugates with respect to the two endpoints B, B' of the latus transversum).
But AT = KH, TH = AK and by similar triangles AT/FT = NK/AK.
So (NK/AK) (KH/AK) = rid, whence A is on a hyperbola or ellipse .Y(
through N with latus transversum NH, latus rectum dr-1NH and angle of
arrangement LAKN = w (12j).
The ellipse .Y( passes through H and is similar and similarly situated to
ellipse ((j. The hyperbola .Y( is similar and similarly situated to (a branch of) the
hyperbola conjugate to hyperbola ((j (note 12.12).
Since TH HF = HB2 (Conics 1:37), also AN NF = ND2 and KN . NH
= NS 2 (121).
Because AN . NF = ND 2 , we have
ND
AN

NF

= ND

AD
so AN

IAN NDI
AN

IND

NFl
ND

DF
ND

=-

20

Summary P4(12-13)

(in which both signs can refer to the ellipse, according to the position of A).
By similar triangles

DF
ND

BD
NS'

So

AD
BD
=AN NS

AN AD
whence =- =
NS
BD

0(

(12m).

Define 0 on NH (or NH extended) such that NA z = KNNO, as in

Fig. 10. Then

NO
NH
From NA z

KNNO
NA z
-=cK:-::-N-=-.----:N--H= = -N-Sz =

Z
0(

NK NO it follows that
NA
NO

NK
NA'

But LANO= LKNA,sof:::.NAO=f:::.NKA,hence LNAO= LNKA=w.

So A is on a segment of a circle 2 with base NO and" admitting" an angle w
(that is to say L N XO = w for any X on the segment). 2 and the ellipse ff are
tangent at N (see p. 384). Let 'P be the figure consisting of points N, A, F, H, K,
o and curves :1t and Y. The size of 'P depends on the length of N H, which is
dependent on the required tangent AD, but the shape of'P is known, because the
shapes of ff and 2 are entirely determined by d, rand w.
The last part of the analysis will be discussed in 7.4.3. This last part sheds
light on the way in which Ibn al-Haytham found his solutions of other geometrical problems,for example, the problem of Alhazen in the Optics (see 7.7).
In the synthesis (13a-p) Ibn al-Haytham constructs an auxiliary figure 'P'
similar to 'P, by means of two curves ff' and 2' similar to ff and 2 (Figs.
lla-b). Then he constructs the required tangent AD in the original figure
(Figs. lOa-b).
Ibn al-Haytham states that ff' and 2' always intersect (13c). In the
appendix to Chapter 14 (pp. 382-390) I show, by giving a shorter construction of
the problem, that the problem can only be solved (for 0( # 1) on the following
conditions: ifCfl is a hyperbola with" erect axis" 2b (see 3.11 0( ~ 2b/jdrJiCfl
is an ellipse with major axis 2a and minor axis 2b, 2a/J dr ~ 0( ~ 2b/J dr. I
also show that finding the diorismos by means of ff' and 2' is much more
difficult.
The text includes a "diorismos" 13q-w, which was interpolated by somebody who did not really understand what a diorismos involves.
13x-y is a construction for the case 0( = 1, which seems to be genuine.
Ibn al-Haytham does not deal with the special case O(Z = d/r for the ellipse Cfl; in
this case the required tangents are parallel to HB.

21

Summary P5(14- 16)

F
Fig. lOb

F ig. l Ib

P5(14-17). To construct a tangent to a given conic ~ such that the part of

the tangent between the point of contact and the axis of ~ is equal to a given
segment w. Let A be a vertex of ~ on the axis m. Assume that BH is a tangent
at B, intersecting m in H such that BH = w. Drop the perpendicular BT
onto m.
Analysis for the parabola ~ (prop. 14, Fig. 12). Draw the normal BD (that
is, the perpendicular to the tangent) to intersect m in D.
Ibn al-Haytham proves DT = !r, with r the latus rectum corresponding to
the axis. Since BT is altitude in the right-angled triangle BHD, BH2 =
HT HD, so x = HT is the positive root of the quadratic equation w2 =
x(x + !r). HT can be found by Elements VI,29. Since HA = AT (Conics
I: 35), Hand T can be found.

22

Summary P5(l6)

B
w

m
A

Fig. 12

Analysis for the (single-branch) hyperbola or ellipse ~: (prop. 16, Figs.

13a-b): Let the equation of ~ in rectangular coordinates be y2 = =Frx
rd- 1 x 2 , with x ~ 0 for the hyperbola; I recall that the upper sign refers to the
case where ~ is a hyperbola. Then A(O, 0) is the vertex, E(td, 0) is the centre,
d and r are the latus transversum and the latus rectum of the axis m (which is
assumed to be 'the transverse axis of the hyperbola ~). Suppose that the
required tangent is BH, meeting ~ in B and the axis in H. Draw chord A G II BH,
let EB (extended) meet AG in K, drop perpendiculars GF and KL onto m and
extend KL to N such that LN = ET. Put T(Y1 + td, 0), L(x!> 0), N(x!> Yl)'
As in Pl(3-4) and P2(6-7) we have ET2 = EA EL. So N is on the parabola f!jJ with equation y2 = td(td - x).
Let a be the dilatation with centre E such that a(H) = A. Then a(A) = T
and a(B) = K as in Pl(3-4). Since a preserves ratios, ETI AK = EAIBH =
dj 2w. But IETI = IYll, and using the equation of~ and AK = tAG we can
y

.--,' N(X1,Y,)

Fig.13a

Summary P5(l6- 17), P6(18-19), P7(20- 21)

23

Fig.13b

express AK in Xl as in P1(3-4). It follows that N(xl' Yl) is on the conic yt

with equation
2

Y =

rd 2 x
8w 2

d(d

r)x 2

4w 2

The wording of the argument in 16f is strange (note 16.7, 7.4.2).

Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes that "the axis" ofct is the transverse axis
of the hyperbola ct or the major axis of the ellipse ct. Then yt is a hyperbola.
However, ifct is an ellipse and the" axis" is the minor axis, d - r < 0, so yt
is an ellipse. If~ is a circle, ' is a parabola.
N can be found as a point of intersection of &> and yt, so the problem can
be solved. The problem is easily seen to be soluble for any segment w.
BH can also be constructed by means ofruler and compass, but the available
evidence does not suggest that Ibn al-Haytham knew a ruler- and compassconstruction of the problem (note 16.6).
P6(18-19). Given: A conic ct, two points D and E on its axis and a ratio
Required: Two straight lines DB and EB meeting in a point B on ct in such
a way that DB/EB = rt..
Solution: B is found as a point of intersection of ct and the locus of all X
such that DX/EX = rt.. This locus is a circle if rt. =I 1 and a perpendicular
through the midpoint of DE if rt. = 1.
The diorismos of the problem (19d -j) was muddled up by a later commentator
(note 19.4).
rt..

P7(20-23). Given: A conic~, two points D and E on its axis and a segment
Z. Required: Two straight lines DB, EB, meeting in a point B on ct in such a
way that DB + EB = Z.
Solution: B is found as a point of intersection of ct and the ellipse g with
foci D and E and major axis equal in length to Z. Ibn al-Haytham gives the

Summary

24

P7(20~23)

diorismos for different positions of D and E with respect to C(;' (21d-23). Two
cases merit our attention here (Figs. 14a-b).
Let Hand T be the endpoints of the major axis of Iff, let M be its centre. J
and p stand for the latus transversum and the latus rectum of Iff corresponding
to the major axis 2a (J = 2a, pa = 2b 2 if 2b is the minor axis). As usual A is the
vertex of C(;' and r is its latus rectum corresponding to axis DE.
In 22-23 Ibn al-Haytham supposes that D and E are inside the parabola
(22) or hyperbola (23) C(;', and thattlZ - DEI:::;; AD as in Fig. 14. Then Tis
also inside C(;' (or on C(;').
IfC(;' is a parabola and (!J)2/(MA r) = J/p, C(;' intersects Iff in the endpoint
M' of its minor axis (22d-e) and in another point (Fig. 14a): Define 0 on MT
such that MA MO = MT2. Draw perpendicular 00 1 to Iff and 00 2 to C(;';
then it can be shown that 0 1 = O2 (22i-n).
If (!J)2/(MA . r) > J/p, C(;' and Iff are easily seen to intersect in two points
on each side of the common axis (22f-h). Apparently Ibn al-Haytham believed
that Iff and C(;' do not meet If(!J)2/(MA r) < <>/p.
In proposition 23 the hyperbola C(;' is treated in the same way (Fig. 14b).
Let d = AR be its transverse axis.
If (!J)2/(MA MR) = Jr/pd, C(;' and Iff intersect in M' (23d-e), and in
another point: construct 0 such that MA MO = MT2 as above, and divide
OA in I such that OI/IA = Jr/pd, then I is between 0 and T, so we can draw
perpendicular I I 1 to Iff and I I 2 to C(;'. Ibn al-Haytham's proof of I 1 = I2 is very
ingenious (23i-o).
M'

HEM

Fig. 14a

H E

Fig. 14b

Summary P7(20- 23), P8(24- 25)

25

U(t<5)Z /(MA. MR) > <5r/pd, rI and tff also intersect in two points on each
side of the common axis (23f-h). Ibn al-Haytham claims that rI and tff do not
meet if (t<5)z /(MA . MR) < <5r/pd (23c), but he does not attempt to prove this
assertion.
Ibn al-Haytham says that the diorismos for the ellipse rI is the same as that
for the hyperbola (23q).
Thus, in the same way as in proposition 5, Ibn al-Haytham gives a wrong
diorismos: his condition is sufficient but not necessary. Again the error has to be
attributed to a lack of insight into the nature of limiting cases (7.6). The correct
diorismos of propositions 20-23 was wholly within the reach of ancient geometrical methods (notes 21.13,22.14,23.18).
As a preliminary to my discussion ofP8-1 0 I recall the system ofaffine x - y
coordinates, used at the beginning of this chapter to define the latus rectum rand
the latus transversum d corresponding to a diameter through a point P on a
hyperbola or ellipse rI (Figs. 15a-b). Here I draw attention to thefact that the
term diameter is used not only for the x-axis, but also for the segment d (which is
part of the x-axis). Similarly, the conjugate diameter (corresponding to P) is
defined to be the line through the centre ofrl parallel to the y-axis, but the term
conjugate diameter is also used for a segment a (such that a z = dr). The terms
axis and conjugate axis ofrl also refer to segments do and a o in exactly the same
way. do and a o are the transverse and the "erect" axis of the hyperbola, or the
major and the minor axis of the ellipse. See 3.3 for more details.
I shall now summarize Ibn al-Haytham's geometrical constructions of
P8-10 in the above-mentioned notations. The solutions are based on Conics
VII: 12 -13, to the effect that for a given central conic d Z a z = d~ aUor all
d (that is to say: d 2
dr is constant). The upper sign refers to the hyperbola.

P8(24, 25). For a given central conic rI and a given rectangle c to construct
d such that d . r = c. Solution : Since d . r = a z we have d Z = d~
a~ c, so d
can be found.

.Y

Fig.15a

. -x

Fig. 15b

Summary P9-PlO(26-27), Pll(28)

26

P9(26, 27a-k), For a given central conic rti and a given segment c, to
construct d such that d + r = c. Solution: If rti is a hyperbola, put x = d - r.
If d + r = c, then x(x + c) = (d - r)2d = 2(d 2 - 2 ) = 2(d~ - a~), so x is a
root of a quadratic equation with given coefficients. Hence x can be constructed
by means of ruler and compass.
If rti is an ellipse and d + r = c, dc = d2 + J2 = d~ + J~, so d can easily
be found.

PlO(271-p). For a given central conic rti and a given ratio c, to construct d
r) = cj(c 1), but
such that djr = c. Solution: If djr = c, also dj(d

d(d

+ r) = d + a = d~ + a~,
2

so d2 =

~ I (d~

c+

+ a~),

so d can be found. Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes c + 1 i= O. This assumption

can be made ifrti is not an equilateral hyperbola.
Ibn al-Haytham's solutions ofP8-10 stand in a curious relation to Conics
VII. For example, the diorismoi given by Ibn al-Haytham are not always
correct, although the correct diorismoi are immediate consequences of propositions in Conics VII (note 27.10). This suggests that Ibn al-Haytham did not
have the full text of Conics VII at his disposal, when he wrote the Completion
(7.3).
Pll. Given: A conic rti, a point Q and a segment w. To construct a straight
line through Q which intersects the conic in two points such that the part
intercepted is equal in length to w. This is the way in which Pll is formulated
in the preface Og. But in the text Pll is only solved for Q on the part of the
axis of a parabola or hyperbola rti "outside" the conic. The general problem is

more difficult (note 31.12).

Analysis for the parabola rti (prop. 28, Fig. 16). In Fig. 16 A is the vertex of
rti, Q = D is on the axis outside rti. Suppose that the straight line DBG intersects rti in Band G such that BG = w.

Fig. 16

Summary PI 1(28- 30)

27

The basic idea is the introduction of the diameter I of C(j through the midpoint K of BG.
Let I meet C(j in N, draw the tangent NX to meet the axis in X, and draw
chord AE II BG, to meet I in T. Then N X II BG and AT = TE.
Draw perpendiculars EZ, TO, NM to the axis, and put AZ = z. Because
AT = TE, AO = OZ =
Further MO = NT = XA and XA = AM
because NX is tangent to C(j. So XA = AM = MO = iz.
Let r 1 and r be the latera recta of C(j corresponding to I and the axis, respectively. Then AT2 = rl' NT = irlz, but AT2 = iAE2 = -AZ 2 + ZE2)
= -Z2 + rz). So r, = z + r. Therefore w2 = BG 2 = 4BK2 = 4r, . NK =
4(z + r)(!z - AD) = (z + r)(z - 4AD).
Because wand AD are given, z = AZ can be constructed by means of ruler
and compass. Thus AE and DBG can be found. The synthesis (prop. 29) is
clear, and the problem has one solution on each side of the axis for every w.
Analysis for the hyperbola C(j, and for Q = H between the vertex A and the
centre E (prop. 30, Fig. 17): I render the solution in the usual rectangular
coordinates, with the origin in A and positive x-axis AE. The equation ofC(j is
y2 = -rx + rd-'x 2 = rd-1x(x - d), x ~ 0, E = (td, 0), so if H = (I}, 0),
0<1} < td.

tz.

Fig. 17

28

Summary Pll(30-31), P12

Draw the tangent HZ to C(j and drop perpendicular ZT to the axis. Then
T = (-td,,(td - ,,)-1, 0).
Suppose that the straight line HBG intersects C(j in B and G such that
BG = w. Let K be the midpoint of BG. Draw chord AN II BG, draw diameter
EK and extend it to meet AN in O. Ibn al-Haytham shows that K can be
found.
First, let u be the dilatation with centre A and ratio of magnification t,
and let r be the dilatation with centre E and such that r(A) = H.
In coordinates: u(x, y) = (tx, ty), r(x, y) = (cx + ", cy) with c =
(1 - 2,,/d).
Then K = r(O) = ru(N), so K is on the hyperbola C(j1 = ru(C(j). The
equation of C(j 1 is

(d)
-"2 '

r (x -,,) x
y2 = d

x ::::;; fl.

C(j 1 contains all midpoints of the chords of C(j with rectilinear extension
through H, so it is clear that C(j1 passes through Z. Ibn al-Haytham shows that
Z is on C(j 1 by proving that Z satisfies a property equivalent to the equation of
C(j l'
Put K = (Xl> Y1)' Using the equation ofC(j 1 and the theorem of Pythagoras
we obtain

r+d
HK2 = -d- (" - x1)(d("

+ tr)(d + r)-l - Xl)'

(1)

Let ZT and BG intersect in L. Then line ZT is the polar ofH, so L and Hare
harmonic conjugates with respect to G and B, that is to say GH:HB = GL:LB.
Ibn al-Haytham proves this proportion by a reference to Conics 111:37. It
follows that HK . KL = KB2, so HK2 = (HK/KL) KB2 = (HI/IT) KB2.
But I = (Xl' 0), H = (",0) KB = tw, and T is known (see above). So
(2)

Combining (i) and (ii) we obtain a quadratic equation in Xl' so I(x1' 0) can
be found by means of ruler and compass.
The synthesis (prop. 31) is clear. Ibn al-Haytham constructs K as a point
of intersection of C(j 1 and the perpendicular X = Xl through 1.

Of course it would be possible to construct K by means of ruler and compass,

but it seems that Ibn al-Haytham was not especially interested in a ruler- and
compass-construction of the problem.
Ibn al-Haytham shows in an interesting heuristic argument (310-r,
7.5.2) that the problem has a solution for each w.
P12. Given: A conic C(j, a point Q outside C(j and a ratio oc. To construct a
straight line QBG which intersects C(j in Band G such that GB/BQ = oc (Fig. 18).
P12 is mentioned in the preface (Og), but it is not treated in the text. The
solution is easy, because G can be found as a point of intersection ofC(j and u(C(j),

Summary P12

29

Q.
O'(~)

Fig. 18

u being the dilatation with centre Q and ratio of magnification 1 + ex. Ibn
al-Haytham could have shown (by similar triangles) that G = u(B) satisfies a
property equivalent to the equation ofu(1i&') with reference to the diameter ofu(li&')
through Q (the dotted line in Fig. 18).
This summary has been written with the purpose ofmaking the subject-matter
of the Completion quickly accessible to the modern reader. However, my
presentation in modern notation has distorted Ibn al-Haytham's reasoning. One
can only experience the atmosphere of the Completion by reading some of its
propositions (in Chapter 13). This summary will enable the reader to make his
choice. All necessary information on the ancient theory of conics can be found
in the next chapter.

Chapter 3

The Conics of Apollonius

3.1. Introduction
In this chapter I explain the concepts and terminology in the extant
Books of the Conics of Apollonius (ft. 200 RC.; DSB 1,179-193) that are
needed to understand the text of Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction of Book
VIII. In 3.3 I shall discuss Book VII in some detail, since this book seems to
be related to the lost Book VIII. A more detailed summary of Conics I-VII
may be found in Heath, HGM II,126-174.
We know that the Conics consisted of eight books because Apollonius
enumerates the eight books in his preface to Book I. Only Books I-IV
are extant in Greek, in an edition by Eutocius of Ascalon (ft. A.D. 510, DSB
IV,488-491). In the ninth century, the Banii Miisa (see GAS V, 246-252),
already mentioned in Chapter 1, had the Books I-VII translated into Arabic.
The translators were Hilal ibn Abl Hilal al-I:Iim~1 (GAS V,254), who translated Books I-IV from the edition of Eutocius, and Thabit ibn Qurra
(GAS V,264-272), who translated Books V-VII, apparently from another
edition. 1 The entire translation was corrected by the Banii Miisa. This
translation is extant in several manuscripts (GAS V,139-140). Book VIII
seems to have disappeared altogether.
The Greek text of Books I-IV has been published several times; the
standard edition is that of J. L. Heiberg (1891-1893). A Latin translation of
the Arabic text of Books V-VII was published by E. Halley in 1710. In
1889, L. Nix edited and translated the Arabic text of the beginning of Book V.
The entire Arabic text of Conics I-VII is currently being edited by G. J.
Toomer.
1 For information on the translation see Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, ed. Flugel, 267; tr. Dodge,
p. 637 (Hiliil); and the facsimile of the preface of the Bam1 Miisii, ms. Aya Sofya 4832 f. 224a,
esp. line 15, in TerziogIu, Vorwort (Thiibit).

Definitions of Cone and Conic Section

31

The extant text ofthe Conics was translated into French by P. Ver Eecke
(1922), who based his translation of Books V-VII on the translation of
Halley. German and English versions of the Conics exist (H. Balsam 1861,
T. L. Heath 1896). However, these are not translations but re-editions in
modern notation. It would certainly be worth while publishing an English
translation of the whole text of Conics I-VII with a detailed commentary,
taking all different versions of the text and all Greek and Arabic commentaries
into account (in the style of Heath's translation of the Elements of Euclid
(1925)).
In this chapter a notation such as (I :43) refers to proposition 43 in Book I
ofthe Conics. For Books I-IV, I shall refer to the numbering ofthe propositions in the edition of Heiberg. The numbering in the Arabic version is
slightly different from the numbering in Heiberg's edition in the last part
of Book II (see p. 403) and in Book IV. For references to the unedited Arabic
text I have used the manuscripts Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marsh 667
(used by Halley and Nix)2 and Istanbul, Aya Sofya 2762 (copied by Ibn
al-Haytham in 415 H./A.D. 1024V

3.2. Books I-VI

Apollonius begins the first book of the Conics with a preface. He then
defines the (double-napped) conical surface and the cone (Fig. 19). The
conical sUrface is described by an indefinitely extended straight line, passing
through a fixed point A, and moving around the circumference of a circle CC
not coplanar with A. The cone is the solid contained by the conical surface
between the apex A and the base CC. The cone is right if the straight line through
A and the midpoint of CC is perpendicular to the plane of CC; otherwise it is
oblique (as in Fig. 19).
Apollonius defines a conic section as the intersection of a cone with a
plane not passing through the apex. But in the Conics, a conic section is in
fact the intersection of the indefinitely extended single-napped conic surface
with the plane (compare 1:7); a conic is a line (yp(X~~~). However, inside
See Beeston. 1 use the following numbering: f. la = title page; f. Sa = beginning of preface
Book I; f. 83b = beginning of preface Book V; f. 84a = V: 1 ; f. 141 inserted page; f. 163a = end
of Book VII.
3 See Krause, Stambuler Handschriften, 449; 1 use the following numbering: f. 4a = 1:1;
Books II-VII begin on If. 56b, 93b, 137b, 165b, 236b, 267a, respectively.
A facsimile off. 135a, on which Ibn al-Haytham wrote his name and the date, is in Schramm,
Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur Physik, XI, tr. on pp. IX-X. The date 415 H./A.D. 1024 is confirmed
by an owner's mark on f. 135b: "I acquired this book on Friday, when six (days) of Mul;!arram
of the year 420 had passed" (that is on January 24, A.D. 1029). Arabic text: malaktu hadha
l-kitab jI yawmi I-jum'a /i-sitt khalawna min mu~arram min sana 'ishrln wa-arba' mi'a
2

Diameter and Ordinate

32

.t

Fig. 19

(outside) the conic section means inside a (or outside any) cone which produces the section (compare 1:31).
Apollonius was aware of the fact that a plane may intersect a cone in a
circle, but he did not call the circle a conic section. In the manner of Euclid,
Apollonius conceives a circle as the part of the plane enclosed by the circumference of the circle (KUKAOU 1tept<j>epeicx), that is the curve we call a
circle.
The concepts diameter and ordinate are fundamental in the Apollonian
theory of conics. A straight segment is called a chord of a curve if its endpoints
lie on the curve. A diameter of a plane curve is a straight line 15 which bisects
all chords of the curve parallel to another straight line I (Fig. 20). These
chords are said to be drawn ordinate-wise (rercxYJlvO)~, literally: arranged,
Arabic: 'alii I-tartlb) with respect to 15. The term ordinate (khatt al-tartlb)
is usually reserved for the halves ofthe chords, although the word may be used
for any segment or line parallel to I (7.2.S). The angle of arrangement w
is the angle between 15 and its ordinates.
A point common to 15 and the curve is called a vertex, 15 is called axis if it

Fig. 20

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

Parabola, Hyperbola, Ellipse

33

is perpendicular to its ordinates (I, defs. 4, 7). I is parallel to the tangent at

the vertex of fJ (I: 17,32, see below).
The concepts diameter, axis and ordinate are also defined for a pair of
curves in one plane (I, def. 5); they will be used for the two branches of what
we call a hyperbola. Here a diameter is a straight line bisecting a series of
parallel chords of the two curves as in Figs. 21-22. Figure 21 illustrates the
case of a transverse diameter, that is a diameter which intersects the curves.
A diameter which does not intersect the curves is called an erect or vertical
diameter, see Fig. 22. The definitions of ordinate and axis are the same as
above.
Apollonius proves by stereometric considerations that every conic
section has a diameter fJ, which is sometimes called the original diameter
(Fig. 23). He notes that the angle between fJ and its ordinates need not be a
right angle if the cone is oblique.
Let P be the vertex corresponding to fJ (Fig. 23). If fJ does not intersect
the conic surface in another point, the conic is a parabola. In all other cases
fJ must intersect the conic surface in exactly one other point P'. If P and P'
are on the same nap of the conic surface (as would be the case if fJ were
extended in Fig. 23) the intersection is an ellipse or a circle. If P and P'
are on different naps, the intersecting plane intersects the conic surface in
two branches of a hyperbola in the modern sense. Apollonius calls each
branch a hyperbola, and the two branches opposite sections (1:14). The
midpoint C of PP' is called the centre of the ellipse, the (single-branch)
hyperbola or the opposite sections. We call an ellipse, a hyperbola or a pair
of opposite sections a central conic.

For any central conic, PP' is called the latus transversum with respect to

o(~ TtArxYlrx TtAWpa, al-qutr al-mujanib, transverse side). For all conic sections
A

Fig. 23

Fundamental Properties of Conic Sections

34

Apollonius defines the latus rectum (~ opeilX 1tAWPcX, ai-qil e al-qa'im erect
side) as a segment PL through P, in the plane of the conic, perpendicular
to (j and with length determined by the conic surface and (j in a way which is
of no importance here (Figs. 24-26). The latus transversum of a central conic
and the corresponding latus rectum contain a rectangle called the figure
of a conic (with respect to (j).
The Greek names parabola, hyperbola and ellipse (and their usual
Arabic translations al-qi( al-mukaJI, al-qi( al-za'id, al-qi( al-naqi~, i.e. the
sufficient, exceeding and deficient section) are explained by the fundamental
properties proved in I: 11-13. Let Q be a point on the conic, and let Q V be
an ordinate corresponding to (j, as in Figs. 24-26. PV is the corresponding
abscissa.
Then for the parabola (Fig. 24)

QV 2 = PV . PL

(1)

PV . PL is the rectangle applied to PL, with width PV (Fig. 24). Apollonius

uses 1tlXpcXKE1't1X1 "to lie beside ", but 1tIXPIXI3cXAAEcr.9lXl was also a standard
term.4
For the hyperbola (Fig. 25) and the ellipse (Fig. 26) we have, if Z: PV =
PL:PP',
(2)
QV 2 = PV PL PV Z
the plus sign refers to the hyperbola. PV . PL PV . Z is in the words of
Apollonius: the rectangle applied to PL, with width PV, and exceeding
(tJ7tEPl3cXnov) or deficient (knEi1tov) by a rectangle similar and similarly
situated to the figure of the conic section; the figure is the rectangle contained
by the latus rectum and the latus transversum, that is PP'L'L in Figs. 25-26.
Putting y = QV, x = PV, r = PL, d = PP' we obtain the equations in
Chapter 2:

Fig. 24

F ig. 25

4 1tCXp<XKE1'tCXl is used in Conics I: 12,13 (ed. Heiberg 1,44: 17-18,46:23). For

Heath, Elements 1,343- 345.

Fig. 26
1tCXPCX/yxAAE1V

see

Conics I: \5- 51; "Constructions" of Conics

35

The main purpose of 1:15-51 is to prove the following theorems:

(i)

All parallels to the original diameter (j ofthe parabola are also diameters
of the parabola. The ordinates are parallel to the tangent at the "vertex"
and satisfy an identity like (1).
(ii) All straight lines through the centre of a central conic which intersect
the conic are diameters of the conic. The ordinates are parallel to the
tangent at the" vertex", and satisfy an identity like (2).
In (1) and (2) PL is of course dependent on the diameter. The centre C
is always midpoint of PP'.
For my purposes it will be sufficient to draw attention to two features
of the proofs in 1:15-51. The approach of Apollonius is entirely plan imetrical; he only uses (1), (2) and the fact that (j bisects all chords drawn
ordinate-wise. Thus the propositions which he proved for the original
diameter (j are seen to be valid for any other diameter (j' as well, and the
concept of original diameter loses much of its meaning (I :51).
Apollonius introduces the tangents to the conic as follows (Fig. 27):
Through the vertex P of the original diameter (j he draws PR parallel to the
ordinates. He proves that PR does not meet the conic (I: 17), and that no
straight line through P "can fall between" PR and the conic (I :32). In other
words: the tangent at P is unique.
For any point Q on the conic but not on (j he draws the ordinate QV;
he chooses (for V =F C) T =F V on (j such that PT = PV (parabola) or
PT: TP' = PV: VP' (central conic). He then proves that QT only meets the
conic in Q, and that no straight line through Q can fall between QT and
the conic (1:33-36). The proofs are based on (1) and (2).
In 1:52-57 Apollonius "finds" a conic section with given latus rectum,
latus transversum (for a central conic) and angle of arrangement, that is, he
provides a three-dimensional construction of the apex and the base of a
right cone which intersects the original plane in the desired conic section.
The Arabic geometers attempted to perform similar constructions in
practice, with an instrument which they called the perfect compass (al-birkar

R
p'

Fig. 27

36

Books II-VI

al-tamm) or the conic compass (birkar al-qutii" Fig. 28). One arm, of fixed
length, could be fixed at an arbitrary angle IX to the plane of the paper, while
the second arm, of variable length, could be revolved at another given angle
p around the first arm. The second arm then described a right cone, so its
endpoint described a conic section on the plane of the paper. The constructions in Conics 1:52-57 required some modification because the fixed length
of one of the arms imposed a restriction.
A number of Arabic geometers, including Ibn al-Haytham (5.4) and
AI-Kiihl (fl. 970) wrote treatises on the subject,S but I do not know of any
manuscript in which conic sections are actually drawn by this procedure.
Conics are usually drawn as arcs of circles. Thus it is doubtful whether the
perfect compasses had any real practical value.
The contents of Books II - VI will be indicated briefly. Book II begins with
propositions on the asymptotes of the hyperbola. The propositions are
followed by some results on conjugate hyperbolas (see 3.3). At the end of
Book II Apollonius solves a few problems, which inspired Ibn al-Haytham
in his reconstruction of Book VIII (6.3).
The very interesting Book III contains theorems leading to what would
in modern terms be called harmonic properties of conic sections. The foci
ofthe ellipse and hyperbola are introduced and some of the familiar properties
are proved, but the focus-directrix property and the focus of the parabola
are not mentioned.
Book IV deals with the question of in how many points a conic (or a pair
of "opposite sections") can intersect or touch another conic (or another
pair of" opposite sections ").
Book V is devoted to the problem of how many maximum and minimum
straight segments can be drawn from a given point X to a given conic
(compare the appendix to Chapter 14). Apollonius proves that a maximum
or minimum straight line is a normal (V:27).
Book VI deals with equality and similarity of conics and segments of
conics.

Fig. 28
Woepcke, Trois traites Arabes sur Ie compas parfait contains an edition and a French translation of treatises of Mu~ammad ibn al-J:Iusayn (fl. 1200, Suter, Mathematiker und Astronomen,
139) and AI-Kiihi (fl. 970, GAS V,317, 1) and an abstract of a text of AI-Sijzl (fl. 970, GAS V,331,6).
S

Conjugate Diameters, Conjugate Hyperbolas

37

3.3. Book VII

Before discussing Book VII I shall collect a few definitions and results
from Books I-II concerning conjugate diameters and conjugate hyperbolas.
Let b be a diameter of an ellipse or a pair of "opposite sections". The
ordinates of b are parallel to another diameter $, which is said to be conjugate
to b. In the case of the opposite sections, $ will be an erect diameter if b is a
transverse diameter, and $ will be a transverse diameter if b is an erect
diameter, see Figs. 21-22. Thus in all cases, the ordinates of $ will be parallel
to b, so $ = b. band $ are said to be a pair of conjugate diameters of the
ellipse or the" opposite sections " (compare I, def. 6, I: 15-16).
Next some terminological ambiguities in the Conics will have to be noted.
The terms diameter and conjugate diameter are not only used for indefinitely
extended straight lines such as b, $, but also for certain segments d, having
a definite length. 6
I shall first discuss the ellipse (Fig. 29). The latus transversum d = PP'
corresponding to a diameter b is also called diameter. The latus transversum
= QQ' corresponding to $ is said to be the diameter conjugate to d. We
r, where r, r denote the latera recta corresponding to
have 2 = d . r, d2 =
d, (I: 15). We also have d = d.
Next let Jf, Yf' be a pair of "opposite sections" (the two branches of a
hyperbola in the modern sense, Fig. 30). Again, the latus transversum d = PP'
corresponding to a transverse diameter b is also called (transverse) diameter.
The segment of $, bisected by the centre and such that 2 = d . r is also called
the diameter conjugate to d ("secondary diameter" in def. 3 after 1:16,
compare note 24.3). The hyperbolas ~ .ie' conjugate to Jf, Yf' are the two
(single-branch) hyperbolas with transverse diameter and latus rectum r

Fig. 29
6 The Baml Miisa called 15 "free diameter" (quir mursal), d "transverse diameter" (quer mUjanib)
(preliminaries to the Arabic translation of the Conics, ms. Oxford, Bod!. Marsh 667. 6a: 13-14:
Terzioglu, Vorwort, Facsimile of ms. Aya Sofya 4832, 226b:4-7). This convention is not kept in
the Arabic translation of the Conics.

Key to Conics VII

38

a.

such that d2 =
r (I :60). In (II: 17) it is proved that the definition of ~ ' is
independent of the choice of (j. In suitable Cartesian coordinates the equations
of Jr, Je' and ~ ' are

x2 y2
x2 y2
.
a2 - b2 = 1 and a2 - b2 = -1, respectIvely.
If (jo, 80 are the axes, the corresponding latera transversa do, ao are also
called the axes of the conic (they are the major and minor axis of the ellipse,
and the transverse and erect axis ofthe hyperbola).
In the following summary of Book VII, r and will stand for the latus
rectum and the conjugate diameter corresponding to a diameter (latus
transversum) d. do will be one of the axes of the ellipse or the transverse
axis of the hyperbola, with corresponding latus rectum roo The preface to
Book VII will be quoted in 4.1.
The key to the entire Book VII is in VII :6-8. I shall denote the points in
the same way as Heath in HGM II,168-174 or his re-edition of the Conics,
pp.221-254.
Let do = AA'. Let H, H' be between A and A' (for the hyperbola, Fig. 31a)
or on AA' extended (for the ellipse, Fig. 31 b) such that

HA:HA'

= H'A':H'A = ro:do.

Then HA = H'A'. HA and H'A' are called the homologues (note 3.4).
Let d = PP' be a diameter, = DD'. Draw AQ II DD' to meet the conic
in Q. Apollonius remarks that A'Q " P'P because PP' bisects AA' as-well as
the ordinate AQ. Drop a perpendicular QM onto AA' or AA' extended.
Apollonius proves in VII:6-7 2 :d2 = MH:MH', and in the course of
VII:8 d~:d2 = AH':MH'. Hence a2:d2:a~:d~ = MH:MH':AH:AH' and
r:d = MH:MH'; note that ro:do = AH:AH' by the definition ofthe homologue.
The purpose of Book VII in modern terms is: to investigate for a given
hyperbola or ellipse the (local and global) extrema and the increase and

d:PP
d:Q<i
Fig. 30

39

Conics VII :7-20

decrease of the following functions of variable diameter d: did, d + d,

d - d, dd, d Z + dZ, Id z - dZI, r, Id - rl, d + r, dr, d Z + rZ, Id z - rZI.
Apollonius does not use the terms function, extremum, increase or decrease.
I refer to the enunciation of VII: 40, quoted in note 27.10, for an example of his
terminology.
In VII:7-20 Apollonius expresses the functions in terms of A, A', H, H'
and M in Figs. 31a-b. Thus
d~:(d

d)Z

AH' MH':(MH'

JMH. MH')Z,

= AH':JMH. MH',
dZ) = AH':(MH' MH),

(VII:8-9)

d~:dd
d~:(dZ

(10)
(11, 12, 13, 14)

both the plus and the minus sign can refer to the ellipse as well as the opposite
sections.
Hence for the ellipse
(12)
for the hyperbola
(13)

For every central conic

d~:rz =

AH' MH':MH z,

(15)

d6:(d - r)Z = AH' MH':(MH' - MH)Z,

(16)

+ r)Z = AH' MH':(MH + MH')Z,

(17)

d~:(d

d~:dr

= AH':MH,

(18)

d~:(dZ

+ rZ) = AH' MH':(MH'Z + MHZ),

(19)

d~:ldz

- rZI = AH' MH':IMH'z - MHzl.

(20)

D'

H'

P'
D'-----~

Fig.31a

Fig.31b

40

Conics VII:21-51

Thus the investigation of the maxima, minima, decrease and increase of

d:d (21-24), r (33-35), Id - rl (36-37), d + r (38-41), dr (42-43), d2 + r2

(44-48) and d2 - r2 (49-51) amounts merely to the study of the behaviour

of an expression in M.
Apollonius bases his investigations of d + d (25-26), Id - dl (27) and
dd (28) not on VII: 8-10, mentioned above, but rather on d2 d2 = d~ a~,
in which the upper sign refers to the hyperbola. So VII:8-10 are not necessary in the sequel.
The extant text does not contain investigations of d2 + d2 for the hyperbola
and d2 - d2 for the ellipse. It is conceivable that these were omitted by some
scribe or editor in ancient times.
Book VII contains two propositions on the latera recta of different
diameters of the parabola (VII:5,32) and a proof that the parallelogram of
tangents to an ellipse or to conjugate hyperbolas, the tangents being parallel
to two conjugate diameters, has a constant area, i.e. an area independent of
the choice of the diameters (VII :33, dotted lines in Figs. 29-30).

Chapter 4

Traces of Conics VIII

4.1. Introduction. Conics I-VII

This chapter is devoted to such information on the lost Conics VIII as
can be derived from extant sources. The most important of these are the
extant part of the Conics, and the Collection of Pappus of Alexandria (fl. 320,
DSB X,293-304) which will be discussed in 4.2. The available evidence will
only enable us to draw conclusions of a very general nature. However, the
subject-matter of Conics VIII was probably not identical to that of the
reconstruction which E. Halley published in 1710 (4.3). A discussion of the
Arabic sources will be postponed till 4.4, because these sources do not
give new information about the contents of Conics VIII.
In the extant books of the Conics, Book VIII is mentioned briefly in the
prefaces to Books I and VII. In the preface to Book I Apollonius says that
Books I-IV form a basic introduction, and he gives a brief description of
their contents. He continues:

The rest of the books are more specialized (literally: more superfluous,
1tEplOU(J1CX(nn:mn:pcx). One (V) deals morefully with minima and maxima,
one (VI) is about equal and similar conics, one (VII) is on theorems related
to diorismoi, one (VIII) is on conic problems requiring a diorismos.
(Greek text in ed. Heiberg 1,4:22-26, compare translation in Heath HGM
11,129-130).
The diorismos of a problem is the condition (or the set of conditions)
necessary and sufficient for the existence of a solution (or a certain number of
solutions). A problem "requiring a diorismos" can only be a problem to
construct a geometrical 0 bject. So Book VIII must have contained geometrical
constructions.

42

Preface of Conics VII

The preface of Book VII refers to a special relation between Book VII
and Book VIII. The following translation of this preface (which is only
extant in Arabic) is more literal than the Latin translation by Halley!
(Conica, p. 99), on which the translations by Ver Eecke (p. 549) and Heath
(HGM II, 132, Conics p. LXXXV) are based. The Arabic text is in footnote 2.
From Apollonius to Attalus. Peace be with you. I send you the seventh
book from the Conics together with this letter. In this book are many
wonderful and beautiful results on diameters and the figures 3 constructed
on them, set forth in detail. All of this is very useful in many kinds of
problems, and they (the results) are very necessary in the problems in
conic sections which we mentioned, which occur among (those) that will be
mentioned and explained in the eig~th book of this work, that is the last
book of it. I shall strive to send it to you quickly. Farewell.

The problems in conic sections which we mentioned are probably the

problems (in VIII) requiring a diorismos in the preface to Book I. The two
prefaces suggest that the theorems related to diorismoi in Book VII were
used in the diorismoi of some of the problems in Book VIII.
The Arabic translation of Book I renders the passage one (VIII) is on
conic problems requiring a diorismos ('to bE npopA:rlllcX'tIDv KIDVlKroV
blIDPl(j'~tVIDV) incompletely as and in the fourth one (of the last four books)
are problems in conics (wa-fi l-rabica minha masa)ilu taqaCu fl l-makhrii(iit).
It is therefore conceivable that in the Greek preface to Book VII there was
a reference to the diorismoi in Book VIII and that this reference was also
misunderstood by the translators. 4

1 Halley translated the preface to Conics VII in accordance with his own suppositions about
Book VIII. After: all of this is very useful in many kinds of problems, he interpolated especially
in their diorismoi (praecipueque in eorum OlOptO"lloie;); the problems in conic sections ... which
occur (among those that will be mentioned) in my translation are in his translation determinate
conic problems (problematis conicis determinatis), that is, problems requiring a diorismos.
The passage the eighth Book, that is the last Book of it in my translation is (the eighth Book),
which is by way of an appendix (qui loco appendicis est), in his translation (Conics, tr. Halley, 99).
2 Min AbulUniyus ila Ara1us. Saliimun 'alayka. Qad wajjahtu ilayka bi-I-maqalati l-sabi'a min
kitabi l-makhrutiit maca kitiibl hadhii. Wafl hiidhihi l-maqiila ashyii'u kathlratun ghar/batun
hasanatun fl amri l-aq!ar wa-I-ashkali lIatl tu'malu 'alayhii, mufa'Hilatun (?). Wa-jaml'u dhalika
'a:;lmu l-marifa'a fl ajnasin kathlratin min al-masa'il wa-l-haja ilayhi shadldatun flmii yaqa'u
min al-masa'il fi qutu'i l-makhrutiiti lIatl dhakarna mimma yajrl dhikruhu wa-bayanuhu fl
l-maqalati l-thiimina (fl l-maqiila h (A)) min hadha l-kitab wa-hiya iikhiru maqalatin flhi, wasa'ahri~u 'alii ta'jllihii ilayka Calayka (0)) wa-l-saliim.
0= ms. Oxford, Bod!. Marsh 667, 137a:4-7, A = ms. Aya Sofya 2762, 267a:4-9.
3 The" figure" is the rectangle contained by the latus transversum and the latus rectum, compare

3.1.
The word OlOptO"ll0e; and its derivatives are translated in different ways in the Conics. Compare
the preface to Book I npoe; roue; OlOptO"llou~for the diorismoi (ed. Heiberg 1,4:8) = fl tal]didi
l-qulii' in the definition of conics (0 Sa: 17, see note 2) np6e; r rrte; O"UV9EO"te; rwv O"rpwv
4

Pappus' Lemmas to the Conics

43

In Book VII, Apollonius investigates for a given hyperbola or ellipse the

relative and absolute extrema and the decrease and increase of certain
functions f of a variable diameter d. The results can be used to determine for
any given c the number of diameters d such that fed) = c. Thus the theorems
in Book VII provide the diorismoi of the problems to construct for given c
a diameter d such that fed) = c. Thus it seems that these problems had something to do with some of the problems in the lost Book VIII. This relation will
be further discussed in 4.3, in connection with the reconstruction of Book
VIII by Halley.

4.2. The Collection of Pappus

Pappus of Alexandria in Book VII of his Mathematical Collection comments on a group of ancient geometrical works, which he calls the
cXv(XAu6J.levo~ 't'61to~ (translated by Heath as "treasury of analysis"), and
which included the Conics. At the end of a short description of the Conics,
which is based on the preface of Book I, Pappus says that he will give 70
lemmas to the Conics (ed. Hultsch, 682). The edition of Hultsch (pp. 9181004) has in fact 72 lemmas to the Conics. There is no ancient authority for
the numbering of the lemmas because the archetype (A) of all extant manuscripts of the Collection gives the lemmas without numbers (cf. the apparatus
in the edition of Hultsch). I shall use the numbering defined by Hultsch.
The lemmas are divided into six sections:
(a)
(c)
(e)

11 lemmas to Book I;
13 lemmas to Book II I;
11 lemmas to Book VI;

13 lemmas to Book II;

(d) 10 lemmas to Book V;
(f) 14 lemmas to Books VII
and VIII.
(b)

The importance of Pappus' lemmas to the Conics should not be overestimated. Most of the lemmas are concerned with proofs of trivial steps in
the reasoning, which Apollonius leaves to the reader. If, for example, the
text of Book VII had been lost, the lemmas to it would not have given us any
r07tOlV KCXt rou~ IhoP10'J.lOU~ for the syntheses of solid loci and the diorismoi (ed. Heiberg
1,4: 11-12) = fi tarkibi ashkiilin wa-tafiIiha for the synthesis of propositions and their diversification (0 5a: 19).
to oE 7t&pi 01OplO't\K&V 9&OlPTlJ.lCXtOlv one on theorems related to diorismoi (ed. Heiberg
1:4:24-25) = wa-fi l-thalitha minha ashkalun cala qismatin in the third (of the last four books)
are propositions on division (0. 5a:24). Clearly the translator did not always understand what
was meant. In the preface to Book IV (ed. Heiberg 11,4; 0 70a) diorismos is translated as taqsim
division (into cases). The preface to Book V mentions the knowledge of division (into cases) and
the diversification ofproblems and their synthesis (maCrifat taqsim wa-taf~ili l-masa'iJ wa-tarkibiha)
o 84a: 5. Here the lost Greek text probably had something like for the diorismoi of problems
and their synthesis.

44

Lemmas to Books I ~ VI

definite impression of its contents. But since we have so few traces of Book
VIII, I shall discuss the lemmas to this Book in some detail.
Unfortunately Pappus does not mention the numbers of the propositions
to which his lemmas refer. Nor does he say which of the lemmas in section f
refer to Book VIII. Our first problem is therefore to determine which lemmas
they were. 5
Heiberg studied the relation of the lemmas in sections a-c to Books
I-III in his edition of the Conics (II, pp. LVIII-LXI). He did not draw a
general conclusion; yet the following conspectus shows that Pappus'
presentation of the lemmas follows the order of the text. The lemmas (in
order) refer to the following definitions and propositions.
(a) (Book I): def. 1, def. 1, def. 1, props. 5, 34, 37*, 41 *,41,41,43* (see my
note 6), 50 (see my note 7), 54*.
(b) (Book II): - (see my note 8), 20, 24, 24, 50, 50, 50, 50, 51 *, 51 *, 52*,
52,52*.
(c) (Book 111):4 (see my note 9), 13, 16,22,24,27,29,30,31,32, - (see my
note 10),42,56.
The symbols * and - mean that the lemma does not refer exactly, or
does not refer at all to the extant text. It should be remembered that Pappus
(fl. A.D. 320) had a version of the Conics which differed from the edition by
Eutocius (fl. A.D. 510) extant today.
Pappus must have had a version of Books V-VI which contained more
material than the extant Arabic translation. But there is no doubt that he
presented the lemmas in sections d and e in the order of the text he had. 11

5 The dissertation of A. Jones (Brown University) will include a study of all the lemmas in
Book VII of the Collection.
6 Ed. Heiberg 1,152: 14~ 15. The lemma proves EB II ALl. It follows that the areas of triangles ELlB
and AEB are equal. This is assumed in 1:52.
7 Ed. Heiberg 1,152: 14~15. The lemma does not refer to 1:49.
8 Related to II: 14?
9 The lemma gives an alternative proof of III:4:TLlE bisects AB, so by the lemma HZ II AB,
hence the areas of triangles AHLl and BZLl are equal. I disagree with Heiberg's suggestion
III: 8.
10 Related to III:35,36?
11 References in parentheses are to pages and line numbers in the translation of the Conics by
Ver Eecke.
Section d (Book V): lemmas 1, 2 and 8 refer to V:27 (385:15~18), 51 (423:27~29) and 55
(438: 12~14), respectively. Lemmas 3~ 7 seem to refer to an interesting part of Book V missing
from the extant text, but related to V:52~55. Lemmas 9,10 do not seem to refer to the extant
text either.
Section e: Lemmas 1,2 and 5 relate to VI: 13 (497:7~8, l5~16, 7~8, respectively). Lemmas
3 and 4 are the converses of lemmas 1 and 2. Lemmas 6 and 7 relate to VI: 18 (508: 12~14).
Lemmas 8 and 9 refer to VI:29 (529:3~5, see Ver Eecke's note 2) and 31 (538: 11, see Ver Eecke's
note 1), respectively. Lemmas 10 and 11 probably refer to a missing part of the text. They are
related to lemmas 1, 3~ 7.

Lemmas to Books VII-VIII

45

In section f, lemma 1 refers to an alternative proof of VII:5 (see my

note 12) and lemma 2 is an analogue of lemma 1. The lemmas 3 and 4 refer
to VII:25 (tr. Ver Eecke 586:20-22). Lemmas 5 and 6 refer to VII:27 and
VII:31, respectively (tr. Ver Eecke 589:3-7, 594:23-24). Lemmas 7-14 do
not seem to refer to the extant text of Book VII.
Lemma 8 has the form of an analysis, belonging to a construction of a
problem. Apollonius says in the preface to Book I that Book VII only
contained "theorems", so lemma 8 must refer to Book VIII. So lemmas
9-14 must also refer to Book VIII because Pappus renders the lemmas in
the order of the text. Because lemma 7 resembles lemma 9, it is likely that
lemma 7 refers not to a missing part of Book VII but to Book VIII. I conclude
that lemmas 7-14 of section f refer to Book VIII. They are as follows (ed.
Hultsch, 994-1004) (Fig. 32):
7. IfAB = LIE and AB = LIE, then AB BH = LIE Ee.
Br
EZ
BH Ee
AHHr Lleez
8. If AB2 + Br 2 and AB2 - Br 2 are given, AB and Br are given.
rB
ZE
AHHB LleeE
9. If AB = Br, LIE = EZ, BH = Ee' then also Br. rH = EZ. ze'

Separate figures are drawn for r between Band H (Z between E and

and H between rand B (e between Z and E).

e)

ALILlB rEEB
10. If AB = Br and BLI < BE, then Br. r LI < BA . AE'

11. The converse of 9: If AB = Br, LIE = EZ,

rB
BH

AH HB LIe eE
=
, then
Br . rH
EZ . ze

ZE
Ee'

Br
EZ
12. If AB = Br, LIE = EZ, rH> ze ' then in the first case (H between
AH LIe.
AH LIe
Band r) _.- > - , III the second case (H on Br extended) <- .
Br
EZ
Br
EZ
AH LIe
Br
EZ
13. If AB = Br, LIE = EZ,- > - , then- > - .
HB
eE
rH
ze
AH LIe
BH
Ee
14. If AB = Br,LlE = EZ,- > - , then - < HB
eE
Hr
ez

I omit the proofs because they are uninteresting.

The lemma refers to an alternative proof of VII:5 without the normal DH (notations as in
tr. Ver Eecke, p. 556): If p' is the latus rectum of diameter BI, then by 1:49 p'. BE = 2BLl . Be.
By the lemma 2BLl . Be = 2(eE EA + LlZ ZA) = BZ 2 + 4ZA 2 = AT ZA + 4ZA2. Since
BE = ZA it follows that p' = AT + 4ZA.

12

Lemmas to Book VIn

46

6.
A
8

9 A
A

B
E
B
E

6.

6.
A

6.
12 A

14

B
E
B
E

B
E
B
E

B
E

B
E

6.

A
13 A

10 A
11

H B

E
B

Z
H

e z

6.

Z
H

e z
H
~ Z

e
r
r

e z

Fig. 32

The lemmas provide only very little information about Book VIII.
Lemma 8 recalls expressions like d2 + J2 and d2 - J2 in 3.3. This lemma
shows that Apollonius gave analyses of the problems in Book VIII.
Lemmas 9-11 seem to relate to one problem. In the course of the solution
Apollonius may have considered a given segment such as Ar with midpoint
B. He may have constructed point H on the segment or its rectilinear extension such that (AH HB)/(Br rH) is given. Lemma 10 probably
refers to a diorismos. In lemmas 9-11 Ar may have been an axis or diameter
of a central conic with centre B. .1EZ e could be an auxiliary segment, and
the two separate figures in lemmas 9 and 11 could refer to the hyperbola and
the ellipse. Numerous other interpretations are also possible.
Lemmas 12-14 mayor may not refer to the same problem.
I have attempted to relate the lemmas to the theory of Book VII (3.3)
in order to find a problem which Apollonius could have treated in Book VIII,
but these investigations have not led to any plausible conjecture.

Halley's Reconstruction of Book VIII

47

One more bit of information can be derived from the Collection. Pappus
says (ed. Hultsch, p. 682) that the Conics contained 487 theorems or diagrams,
which probably means that the number of propositions was 487. The number
of propositions in our Greek text of Books I-IV plus the Arabic text of
Books V-VII is 387. Pappus' version of the Conics must have contained some
material which is now lost.
If we arbitrarily assume that his text of Books I-VII contained 410
propositions, there would have been 77 propositions in Book VIII. This
would make Book VIII the same size as Book V, which is the longest of the
extant books.
I shall conclude my discussion of the Greek sources on Books VIII by
summarizing the positive evidence we have obtained. In Book VIII, Apollonius solved problems (that is, he gave geometrical constructions) relating
to conic sections. Some (but not necessarily all) of these problems were
related to Book VII. Apollonius gave not only syntheses, but also analyses
and diorismoi.

4.3. Halley's Reconstruction

In 1710 E. Halley (1656-1743, DSB VI,67-72) published a reconstruction
of Conics VIII as an appendix to his edition of Books I-IV and his Latin
translation of Books I-VII. A German translation of the reconstruction is
in the re-edition of the Conics by Balsam (1861). I shall now discuss the
reconstruction and comment on its plausibility.
Halley supposed that the theorems in Book VII directly provide the
diorismoi to the problems in the lost Book VIII (compare 4.1). His reconstruction therefore contains solutions of the following problems (notations as in 3.3):
Given: A hyperbola or ellipse; a ratio, segment or rectangle c. To construct
a diameter d such that d:J = c (propositions 7-8), d + J = c (9-10),
d - J = c (11-12), dJ = c (13-14), d2 + J2 = c (15), d2 - J2 = c (16), or
such that the angle between d and J is a given angle (17-18, compare VII :31),
or such that r = c (19-20), d:r = c (21-22), Id - rl = c (23-24), (d + r) = c
(25-26), dr = c (27-28), d2 + r2 = c (29-31) or Id 2 - r21 = c (32-33).
References in parentheses are to the propositions in the reconstruction.
Proposition 2 is a construction of a diameter of a given parabola such that
the latus rectum is equal to a given segment. The other propositions (1,3-6)
contain preliminaries.
Most of the solutions in Halley's restored Book VIII are based on VII :6-20.
In 3.3 we have seen that Apollonius in these propositions expressed d:J,
d + J etc. in terms of the (transverse) axis AA ' , two other points H, H' on
the axis, depending on the conic, and a point M on the axis, depending on d.
Thus the constructions of d such that d:J = c, d + J = c, etc. are seen to be

Implausibility of Halley's Reconstruction

48

equivalent to the construction of a point M on the axis satisfying a condition

(in the examples
MH':MH

= Jc;

(AA')2:C 2 = AH' . MH':(MH'

+ JMH . MHY)

Halley constructs M by means of ruler and compass.

Halley says in the preface to his reconstruction (p.137) that his suppositions
concerning the lost Book VIII are based on the fact that Pappus renders the
lemmas to Books VII and VIII in a single section (f), and on certain other
indications. Halley does not specify these indications, but he seems to refer
to Apollonius' own remarks in Books I and VII. In 4.1 we have seen that
these remarks do indeed suggest a relationship between the theorems in
Book VII and the diorismoi of at least some of the problems in Book VIII.
But it is improbable that the relationship was as close as Halley supposed.
The fact that Pappus rendered the lemmas to Books VII and VIII in one
section can be explained in numerous ways. In any case, lemmas 7-14 do
not refer to Book VII. A comparison between these lemmas and Halley's
restored Book VIII leads to a disappointing conclusion: only lemma 8 can
be related to a modified form of his propositions 15 and 16, and the other
lemmas bear no relation to his reconstruction. Note that lemma 10 seems to
be related to a diorismos, even though all diorismoi to the problems in
Halley's reconstruction are treated in Book VII. So the lemmas of Pappus
do not support Halley's suppositions about the probable contents of Book
VIII.
In view of the scope of the extant books of the Conics it is likely that Book
VIII contained more than trivial elaborations of the preceding books.
However, Halley's reconstruction is a rather trivial appendix to Book VII.
Book VII gives not only all the necessary diorismoi, but also provides
(in VII:6-20) clear indications how the problems in the reconstruction can be
solved. This does not of course exclude the possibility that the subject-matter
of the reconstruction formed part of the lost Book VIII, perhaps in the form of
auxiliary problems. But Book VIII must have contained more than this.
In conclusion: Halley's restored Book VIII may contain some problems
that Apollonius solved in the course of his Book VIII. But Conics VIII must
have contained other more difficult (and more interesting) problems than
Halley's reconstruction of it.

4.4. Arabic Sources

The Arabic accounts do not give new information about the contents of
Book VIII, but they show that the geometers were interested in rediscovering
the book.

1. In the preface to the Arabic translation of the Conics, the Banu Musa
say that the Conics consisted of eight books. They say that the first

Arabic Authors on Conics VIII

49

seven books came down to them, but they do not suggest that Book
VIII was available. 13
2. But in the seventh chapter of the Fihrist, Ibn al-Nadlm (t990) says:

The Banu Musa, however, said that the work (the Conics) had
eight books, the part of it now extant being seven with part of the
eighth ...
The part of the eighth book which has come down to us contains
four propositions. 14
The quoted passages can be explained in many ways. The manuscript of
Conics I-VII which the Banii Miisa had may have contained a fragment of
Book VIII, which they choose not to translate. We cannot exclude the possibility of an alternative translation of the Conics; there are in fact two
references in the Arabic mathematical literature to a translation of the
Conics by an ISQiq (IsQ.aq ibn l:Iunayn ?).15 Such an alternative translation
may have contained a fragment of Book VIII. It is of course equally possible
that the account of Ibn al-Nadlm is based on some misunderstanding. No
definite conclusion can be drawn.

3. Ibn al-Qift1 (t1248) discusses Book VIII in his History of Scholars

(Ta'dkh al-l:Iukama,).16 He says:
When the Books were brought from the Byzantine empire to (Caliph)
al-Macmun, only the first part of the work (the Conics) was brought,
not more, consisting of seven Books. When the work was translated,
its preface indicated that it consisted ofeight Books; that the eighth
Book contained the notions (macanl) of the seven Books and more;
and that he (Apollonius) imposed useful conditions in it, and useful
things which were desired.
From that time until these days, the people concerned with the
matter (the geometers) have searched for this Book. But they have
not obtained any iriformation. No doubt it belonged to the treasures
of the kings, because of the high rank of this science (geometry) in
the opinion ofthe kings of Greece.
0 1b: 28, 2a: 13 (see note 2) or ms. Aya Sofya 4832, 223b: 27, 224a: 5-6 (facsimile in TerziogJu,
Vorwort).
14 For Ibn al-Nadim see EI2 111,895-896. The Arabic text of the quoted passage is in Fihrist, ed.
Flugel, 267. I quote the translation in Dodge 11,637 with slight changes.
15 The references are in a treatise by AI-Sijzl on the regular heptagon and the trisection of the
angle (GAS V,331,8) and in an anonymous abstract of the Correction of the Conics of Abu Ja'far
al-Khiizin (GAS V,307,4). For references to the manuscripts see Hogendijk, Heptagon, 312.
For Is4iiq ibn l:Iunayn see GAS V,272-273.
16 For Ibn al-Qifti see EI2 III,840. The Ta'rikh al-lfukamii' was written after 1227, and is extant
in an epitome made in 1249 by AI-Zawzanl. The Arabic text of the quoted passage is in Ibn
al-Qiftl, ed. Lippert, 61.
13

50

Thirteenth Century Traces of Conics VIII?

Once I mentioned the matter of this (lost) Book to somebody who

was conversant with something of this science in our time or who
claimed to be conversant with it. He said to me :" It has beenfound"
and he started to describe it. But he said (things) which did not agree
with what the author (Apollonius) said in his description. I inferred
that he knew neither root nor branch (meaning: nothing whatever)
so I turned away from him and left him in his ignorance.

A little later (ed. Lippert, p. 62) Ibn al-Qifti repeats the passage from the
Fihrist quoted above. Ibn al-Qifti does not state that this passage contradicts
his own statement that Book VIII is lost altogether.
The account of Ibn al-Qiftl is puzzling. Neither the Greek text nor the
extant Arabic translation of the preface to Conics I indicates that Book VIII
contained the notions of the seven Books and more (yashtamilu cala macanl
l-maqalati l-sab c wa-ziyadatin). The useful conditions and the useful things
which are desired recall the diorismoi in Book VIII. However, the relation
between Book VIII and diorismoi is not mentioned in the extant Arabic
translation (4.1). Thus one wonders whether Ibn al-QiftI had an alternative
translation, or another source, or whether his account was simply inaccurate.
For our purposes, the most interesting conclusion which can be drawn
from the History of Scholars is that there existed in the early thirteenth
century a text which was considered to be Book VIII of the Conics. It seems
to me that this was not a translation of the real Book VIII but Ibn al-Haytham's
reconstruction (see also Chapter 10). It is unfortunate that Ibn al-QiftI
does not give more details of the account of his informant.
4. Mul]yi aI-Din Yal]ya ibn Abll-Shukr al-Maghribi al-Andalusl (fl. 1270,
Suter, Mathematiker und Astronomen, 155) says in his re-edition of
the Conics at the end of the preface by Apollonius:
I say: this Book (VIII) is not extant, but its propositions were
found without premises (i.e. definitions and postulates). The translators did not know to what problems they (the propositions) referred. Therefore they omitted them, and the work (the Conics)
remained in seven Books. 1 7

The account is rather implausible as it stands. One could interpret

it as a distorted version of a report that the figures of Book VIII had
been found without the text, because the word ashkal, which I have
17 Arabic text: aqiilu: amma hadha l-maqala fa-ghayru mawjiidatin bal wujida ashkiiluhii
bila mu~adarat wa-lam ya'lam al-tarajimu 'alii miidhii tadullu min al-masii'il fa-ahmaliihii
wa-baqiya l-kitiib sab'a maqiiliitin. Ms. Manchester, John Rylands 358 (382), 2a: 14-15, New
York, Columbia University Library, Plimpton Or. 302, 1b:16-17. I am indebted to Professor
A. I. Sabra (Cambridge, Mass.) for the reference to this passage.

Arabic Interest in Book VIII

51

translated as propositions, can also mean figures. This interpretation

does not add much to the plausibility of the account.
5. All other sources which I have consulted contain only remarks that
Book VIII is lost or repetitions of the above-mentioned passages
or extracts from the prefaces to Book I and VII (see, for example, Of in
the Completion). Thus the Arabic sources do not provide us with new
insight into the nature of Book VIII, but they do suggest a wide
interest in rediscovering the book. It is in such an atmosphere that
Ibn al-Haytham might have started his work on a reconstruction of
Book VIII.

Chapter 5

Life and Works of Ibn al-Haytham

5.1. Introduction. Sources

This chapter is about the life (5.2) and works (5.3-5.5) of Ibn
al-Haytham (965-ca. 1041). In my account the emphasis will be on aspects
relevant to the Completion of the Conics. More detailed surveys of other
aspects of his work can be found in the article Ibn al-Haytham by Sabra in
DSB VI,189-210 and in Schramm's article Ibn al-Haytham's Stellung in der
Geschichte der W issenschaften.

I shall begin with a brief description of the sources of Ibn al-Haytham's

biography. Ibn al-Haytham is mentioned in general biographies of scholars,
such as the Sources of Information on the Generations of Physicians ('Uyun
al-Anba' fi Tabaqat al-Atibba') of Ibn Abl CU~aybiCa (t1270)1; the History
of the Scholars (Ta'dkh al-l:Iukama') ofIbn al-Qiftl (tI248)2 and the History
of the Scholars of Islam (Ta'dkh I:lukama' aI-Islam) of cAll al-Bayhaql
(t1169/70).3 These biographies give short accounts of the circumstances of
his life. The accounts are sometimes contradictory, and are less specific
than one would expect for a scholar as famous as Ibn al-Haytham.
Another source is of a more exceptional nature. It is a short autobiography
which Ibn al-Haytham wrote in 1027, and in which he informs us about his
own intellectual development. He included a list (I) of 70 of his own works,
written before February 10, 1027, and divided into a list (la) containing 25
titles on mathematics, astronomy and optics and a list (Ib) containing 45
1

Arabic text ed. Miiller II,90-98; German translation in Wiedemann. Ibn al-Haytham, ein

arabischer Gelehrter. On Ibn Abi 'U~aybi'a see El 2 III,693-694.

2 See note 16 to Chapter 4, p. 49; the Arabic text on Ibn al-Haytham is on pp. 165-168 of Lippert's
edition.
3 For AI-Bayhiiqi see El 2 1,1131-1132. The Arabic text on Ibn al-Haytham is in ed. MuJ:!ammad
Kurd 'Ail, pp. 85-88.

Ibn al-Haytham's Autobiography

53

titles on logic, natural philosophy, theology and medicine. The autobiography may have been an appendix to the last item in list Ib:
"a letter in which I have shown that all worldly and religous matters can
be derived from the philosophical sciences". 4

The letter is lost, but the autobiography is quoted by Ibn Abi CU~aybiCa
in the Sources of Information on the Generations of Physicians, mentioned
above. Ibn Abi CU~aybiCa adds a list (II), composed by Ibn al-Haytham and
containing the titles of 21 treatises written between February 10, 1027 and
July 24, 1028, and another list (III), probably not composed by Ibn
al-Haytham, containing 92 abbreviated titles of works which Ibn al-Haytham
wrote before October 2, 1038. 5 Only five or six of these works figure in lists
la, Ib and II. 6
A few of the extant works, including the Completion of the Conics, are not
mentioned in any of the lists,7 so Ibn al-Haytham must have written at least
180 treatises. Thus he was one of the most productive Arabic scientists of the
Middle Ages. About two-fifths of his oeuvre are extant today. None of the
treatises that I have seen provides new biographical information.

S.2. Life of Ibn al-Haytham

All authorities agree that AbU CAli Al-I:Iasan ibn al- I:Iasan ibn al-Haytham
was born in Ba~ra, a city in south-eastern Clraq, and that he spent the first
part of his life in Ba~ra and surroundings. Ibn al-Haytham must have been
born in 355 H.IA.D. 965 because he wrote his autobiography at the end of
417 H./A.D. Feb. 1027 in his sixty-third (lunar) year. s
In his autobiography Ibn al-Haytham says that in his youth he investigated the various doctrines of the religious sects. Then he realized that there
is only one truth, and that the differences in the doctrines must be differences
in approach. When he had completed his intellectual education, he started
searching for a criterion by means of which truth could be discerned. But
4 Ibn Abi 'U~aybi'a ed. Miiller 11,96:8-9: Risiilatun bayyantu Fha anna jam 'a l-umuri
l-dunyawiyya wa-l-dlniyya hiya natii'iju 1-'uLUmi l-falsafiyya.
See Schramm, Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, 9.
5 The autobiography is quoted in Ibn AbI 'U~aybi'a ed. Miiller, vol. ii, 91 :22-96:32. Lists I, II
and III are in 93:20-96:13, 97:1-22 and 97:22-98:29 in the above-mentioned volume.
6 Ia:9 = 111:15. Ia:IO, Ia:13 = 111:70.
Ia:14 = 111:7, Ib:1O = III:I,II:18 = III:8(Schramm,Ibnal-Haytham'sWegzurPhysik,277).
7 See Sabra in DSB VI,208.col. 2; GAS VI,260,27.
8 According to Ibn Abi 'U~aybi'a, ed. Miiller 11,91 :24. See the interesting discussion of Ibn
al-Haytham's date of birth in Sabra's edition of Ibn al-Haytham's Optics. vol. 1 (Arabic text),
pp. 25-26, 30-3\.

54

Life of Ibn al-Haytham

religious sciences did not provide anything useful. Ibn al-Haytham says he
concluded that the only foundation of truth was in rational opinions on
perceptible things, and these he found only in the writings of Aristotle. Mter
having studied the works of Aristotle, he devoted all his energy to the study
of the three philosophical sciences: the mathematical sciences (mathematics,
astronomy, optics, music), natural philosophy and theology (that is, metaphysics).
The sources tell different stories about the middle part ofIbn al-Haytham's
life, that is the period in which he may have written the Completion (Chapter
8). In view of the many uncertainties that are involved, I prefer to render the
stories separately rather than condense them into a synthesis of my own.
Ibn Abi CU~aybra quotes the following account of the mathematician
Qay~ar ibn Musafir (t1251, Suter, Mathematiker und Astronomen, 143):
Ibn al-Haytham was a wazlr (high official) in Ba~ra and surroundings.
Because his official duties left him no time for pursuing his studies, he
simulated madness until he was relieved of his responsibilities. In later
years he moved to Cairo.
cAll al-Bayhaql says that Ibn al-Haytham went to Cairo after he had
composed a treatise on the construction of a dam across the Nile that would
regulate its annual flow. The murderous caliph AI-I:Iiikim, who reigned in
Cairo from 996 to 1021 (EI2 111,76-82), disapproved of the project, and Ibn
al-Haytham then fled to Syria.
Ibn al-Haytham's proposed construction of a dam across the Nile is also
mentioned by Ibn al-Qiffl, who tells the following story: Caliph AI-I:Iiikim
invited Ibn al-Haytham to come to Egypt, and sent him as head of an
expedition to the place in Upper Egypt where the dam was to be constructed.
Upon arrival, Ibn al-Haytham realized that his project was not feasible.
AI-I:Iiikim then put Ibn al-Haytham in charge of an administrative office,
but Ibn al-Haytham feared for his life and feigned madness, so the caliph
and his representatives confiscated his possessions and confined him to his
house. Shortly after the assassination of the caliph (in 1021) Ibn al-Haytham
revealed his sanity. His belongings were then returned to him.
I am unable to determine which of the three accounts is nearest to the
truth. It is of course conceivable that Ibn al-Haytham suffered from one or
more real psychological depressions, which were explained by others as
cases of simulated madness.
The further evidence confirms the information given by Qay~ar ibn
Musiifir and Ibn al-Qif!l that Ibn al-Haytham spent the last part of his life
in Cairo near the AI-Azhar mosque, and earned his living by copying manuscripts. Ibn al-Haytham was in Cairo in 1038-1039,9 and he taught the
Arithmetica of Diophantus to a certain Isl].aq ibn Yiinus in Egypt. 10 The
See reference in Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur Physik, 285.
According to 111:91, notes on the Arithmetica, dictated by Ibn al-Haytham to the physician
Isl]aq ibn Yiinus in Egypt (Mi~r).

10

Astronomical Works

55

manuscript copy of Conics I-VII, made by Ibn al-Haytham in 1024, has

already been mentioned above (3.1). Ibn al-Haytham may have made
occasional journeys, for example to Baghdad in 1027-1028,11 He died in
432 H.IA.D. 1040-1041 or shortly thereafter,12 at the age of about 75 years.
The last period of his life (1021-1041), which he spent near the AI-Azhar
mosque, seems to have been a time of enormous scientific activity. His
production of 21 treatises between February 1027 and July 1028 has already
been mentioned. After July 1028 he must have written many works in list
III, including his most important treatise, the great Optics (Schramm,
Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur Physik, 280).

S.3. Astronomical and Optical Works

About 75 treatises of Ibn al-Haytham on astronomy, optics and mathematics are extant today. Ibn al-Haytham's writings on philosophy, metaphysics, biology, medicine and music are not known to be extant. I shall
briefly mention Ibn al-Haytham's astronomical and optical work, and
discuss his mathematical work in more detail. References to manuscripts
and modern editions and translations can be found in DSB VI,205-208,
where Sabra lists the extant treatises according to their number in the lists
la, Ib, II and III mentioned above (5.1). A notation such as III:74 refers to
item 74 on list III. For the mathematical and astronomical works one may
also consult GAS V,365-374, GAS VI,254-261 and the Nachtrage in GAS
VII.
The most important aspect ofIbn al-Haytham's astronomical work is his
attempt to harmonize the geometrical models of the heavenly bodies in the
Almagest of Ptolemy with the Aristotelian natural philosophic tradition.
Ptolemy in his Planetary Hypotheses had already provided a physical
interpretation of his system. Ibn al-Haytham gave a somewhat different
interpretation in On the Configuration of the World (Fi hay'ati l-calam,
III: 1; GAS VI,254,1). This work was translated into Hebrew, Spanish and
Latin, and influenced later Islamic and medieval European astronomy.
Ibn al-Haytham explains the Ptolemaic system as a system of mutually
tangent spheres and shells. The uniform rotations of these spheres and shells
around their centres produce the apparent motions of the planets along the
Ptolemaic eccentrics and epicycles. Ibn al-Haytham's physical interpretation
is based on four principles: (1) a natural body cannot have more than one
natural movement; (2) the natural movement of a simple body can only be
11 According to II:l3, an answer to a geometrical question addressed to Ibn al-Haytham in
Baghdad in 418 H.

56

The Optics

invariable (meaning: a rotation with constant speed); (3) the celestial bodies
cannot be acted upon; (4) vacuum cannot exist (Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham's
Weg zur Physik, 69,163; Sabra DSB VI,198, col. 1). Principles (1), (3) and
(4) are Aristotelian, whereas (2) is a modified form of the Aristotelian principle that the natural movement of a simple body is a uniform circular
movement around the centre of the earth. This modification had of course
far-reaching consequences for the entire Aristotelian system (see Schramm,
Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur Physik).
In the Doubts on Ptolemy (Al-shukiik cala Batlamiyiis, III :64, GAS
VI,258,14) Ibn al-Haytham criticizes, among other things, the "fifth motion"
of the moon and the equant in the Almagest, on the grounds that they contradict his four principles (Sabra DSB VI,198-199). Other astronomical
works of Ibn al-Haytham relate to questions of astronomical observation
and measurement, and to the theory of the moon.
The most important work ofIbn al-Haytham is the great Optics in seven
Books, dealing with theory of vision, theory of perception, visual deception,
the laws of reflection, mathematical problems concerning reflection in
mirrors, errors of vision due to reflection, and refraction, respectively.
Until recently, the text of the Optics was only accessible in the unreliable
Latin edition of Risner (1572, reprinted 1972). Sabra has published an
excellent critical edition of the Arabic text of Books I-III, to be followed by a
critical edition of the remaining four Books and an English translation.
A detailed summary of the Optics by Sabra is in DSB VI,190-194. Here I
shall only make a few remarks which are relevant for my purposes but do
not do justice to the work as a whole.
Ibn al-Haytham's object in the Optics is: to achieve a synthesis between
the geometrical optics of Ptolemy and Euclid and the traditions of natural
philosophy, including the Aristotelian tradition. Ibn al-Haytham rejects the
Euclidean and Ptolemaic doctrine of visual rays emerging from the eye.
Ibn al-Haytham says that "forms" of light propagate from any point on the
luminous object in all directions (compare Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham's Weg,
204). This Aristotelian theory is mathematized in Book IV by the introduction of physical rays. These rays are different from mathematical straight
lines because they have breadth, but Ibn al-Haytham shows that they
propagate rectilinearly in a homogeneous medium. Ibn al-Haytham proves
that the incident and reflected ray are coplanar with the normal to the mirror
through the point of reflection and make equal angles with the normal.
Following Ptolemy, Ibn al-Haytham argues that the image of an object P
under reflection in any mirror is seen at the intersection pi of the rectilinear
extension of the ray through the eye and the point of reflection with a perpendicular drawn through P to the mirror. This principle is correct for plane
mirrors, but false for curved mirrors (Fig. 33, cf. Lejeune, Recherches sur la
catoptrique Grecque, 43-46).
By means of the above-mentioned laws, problems concerning the positions of the point of reflection or the image can be reduced to geometrical

Minor Optical Works

57

p....,..,-----i:

--.

Fig. 33

problems. Thus Books V and VI of the Optics are entirely geometrical. In

Book V Ibn al-Haytham solves his "problem of Alhazen" (7.7).
Ibn al-Haytham's Optics stands high above the optical works of his
predecessors. The work contains many new results, and many assertions
are proved by systematic experiments. The detailed technical descriptions in
the Optics as well as in other works show that Ibn al-Haytham really performed his experiments.
The Optics was translated into Latin around 1200, and the first printed
edition (by F. Risner)13 appeared in 1572. The work was studied by many
notable European scientists, such as Witelo, Roger Bacon, Leonardo da
Vinci, Kepler, and Descartes.
At least 10 minor optical works ofIbn al-Haytham have come down to us.
In On the Shape of the Eclipse (III :80; GAS VI,257,8) Ibn al-Haytham
discusses the image of the partially eclipsed sun in a camera obscura (see
Sabra in DSB VI,195-196). On Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors (III :19) will
be discussed below (5.4).

5.4 Mathematical Works

Ibn al-Haytham wrote at least 60 mathematical treatises of different
length, about 30 of which are extant. The exact number is to a certain extent
arbitrary, because it is difficult to draw a line between the mathematical and
astronomical works. The chronology of the extant works cannot easily be
determined, though there are cross-references in some of the texts. The
following survey of Ibn al-Haytham's mathematical work is therefore
arranged according to subject-matter.
13 The Latin translation should be used with some caution, because it does not correspond to
the Arabic text in every detail (compare Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur ~hysik, 254-255,
Sabra, Lemmas 310:4-5, 312:4-10).

58

Mathematical Works

Ibn al-Haytham devoted various treatises to the applied mathematics of

his age. Thus he wrote works on commercial arithmetic (111:10; GAS
V,336,6), on a compass for drawing large circles (111:22; GAS V,370,24),
and on various subjects related to measuring. Ibn al-Haytham was well
aware of practical needs, as can be seen in the example of On the Principles of
Measurement (III:15; GAS V,366,7). At the end of the theoretical discourses
in this treatise, there is a summary of the results without proof but with
practical instructions. Yet Ibn al-Haytham's autobiography shows that his
real interest was in science and philosophy for their own sake.
In mathematics he was engaged in working with the Greek heritage, as
was also the case with astronomy and optics. Thus his main interests in
mathematics were: foundations and methodology (Euclid), indeterminate
equations (Diophantus), problems inspired by Greek geometry (Archimedes
and others) and conic sections (Apollonius). Many treatises of Ibn
al-Haytham belong to more than one of these categories.
In Chapters 7 and S I shall refer to three works on foundations and
methodology. In On Analysis and Synthesis (111:53; GAS V,36S,17) Ibn
al-Haytham gives a very didactic description of analysis and synthesis, with
applications to interesting problems such as follow: to find all square
numbers which can be written as the sum of two squares; to find all perfect
numbers 14 ; to draw a circle tangent to three given circles. On known things
(III:54; GAS V,367,12) is about the concept "known" (maCliim) and its role
in analyses. The Commentary on the Premises (mu~addarat) of Euclid's
Elements (III: 2; GAS V,370,2S) deals with the definitions and postulates of
the Elements. It contains among other things a "proof" of the parallel
postulate. Ibn al-Haytham's curious ideas about tangency and concavity of
curves will be mentioned in 7.6.2 and Chapter S. It is a pity that the critical
edition of the commentary on Elements I-VI with English translation by
Sude (1974) has not yet been published. Ibn al-Haytham also wrote a
commentary on the propositions in the Elements: the Solution of the Difficulties in Euclid's Elements and Explanation of its Notions (maCanzhi) (DSB
VI,20S, Add. 1; GAS V,370,27).
Ibn al-Haytham's notes on the Arithmetica of Diophantus (111:91) are
lost, but the extant On Problems of Talaqz (III :S3; GAS V,36S,22) and
Solution of an Arithmetical Problem (111:92; GAS V,366,1O)15 concern indeterminate diophantine equations. The argument in the latter treatise is
based on the (true but unproved) assertion that any prime number p divides
(p - I)! + 1. Ibn al-Haytham's methods to construct a magic square of
arbitrary size have come down to us in a later abstract. 16

In the analysis Ibn al- Haytham tacitly assumes that every perfect number is even.
See the recent edition by Rashed (1980).
16 The abstract is in a treatise on magic squares by Al-Isfara'inl (tea. 1120). recently edited and
translated by Sesiano (1980).
14
15

Treatises Inspired by Greek Problems

59

Next we come to treatises by Ibn al-Haytham on special problems in

(or inspired by) Greek geometry. In On the perpendiculars of triangles
(III:71; GAS V,366,4) Ibn al-Haytham investigates the sum of the perpendicular distances from a point inside a triangle to the sides. He attempts
to generalize a theorem for equilateral triangles, which is found in a treatise
of an unknown Greek scholar whose name was Arabicized as Aqatiin; the
treatise was also attributed to Archimedes (Kitiib al-MafriicjQt, tf. Yv. Dold,
9-11,22). Ibn al-Haytham wrote two treatises on the lunes of Hippocrates
(III:20 and III:21; GAS V,365,3); On the Quadrature of the Circle (111:30;
GAS V,365,2; see 7.5.2 for a summary) and a treatise on the proposition
That the Sphere is the Largest of the Solid Figures Having Equal Surface and
That the Circle is the Largest of the Plane Figures Having Equal Perimeter
(111:26; GAS V,366,9), studied in antiquity by Zenodorus (Heath HGM
11,207-213).
In On the Measurementofa Sphere (III: 16; GAS V,366,8) Ibnal-Haytham
provides an alternative proof to the theorem in Archimedes' On the Sphere
and Cylinder I equivalent to our formula V = j-nr 3. In the Measurement of
the Paraboloidal Solid (III:17; GAS V,365,1)17 Ibn al-Haytham determines

by means of the Greek" method of exhaustion" the volume of two solids

arising from the revolution of a segment of a parabola (1) around its diameter
and (2) around an ordinate. The second result is new; in order to determine
suitable upper and lower limits for the volumes of the circumscribed and
inscribed solids (which are reminiscent of Riemann sums) Ibn al-Haytham
determines L~= 1 nk for k = 1,2, 3,4.
Ibn al-Haytham wrote three treatises in which he, by means of conic
sections, filled in missing steps in Greek geometrical constructions.
1. The construction of the regular heptagon attributed to Archimedes is
based on the assumption that one can draw in a square ABCD a straight line
DEFG as in Fig. 34 such that 6.DEC = 6.BFG.
In the (extant) Chapter on the Lemmafor the Side of the Heptagon (111:42,
GAS V,367,14) Ibn al-Haytham shows how DEFG can be constructed by
means of conics. 18
The treatise inspired other investigations, for example the Treatise on the
Construction of the Heptagon (III :74, GAS V,367,13), containing four
different constructions of the regular heptagon by means of conics.
2. In On the Sphere and Cylinder 11:4 Archimedes reduces the problem of
cutting a sphere by a plane in a given ratio to the following auxiliary problem:
Given: Four collinear points Z, R, B, D. Required to construct H between
Band D such that HZ:ZR = BD2:DH2. In the Treatise on the Division of
Recently edited and translated by Rashed (1981).
For the construction attributed to Archimedes and Ibn al-Haytham's Chapter see Schoy,
Trigonometrischen Lehren, 74-91 (bad translation), Rashed, Heptagone, 378-385 (Arabic text
of Chapter), Hogendijk, Heptagon, 208-209, 217, 226-231; Rashed misunderstood the construction by Ibn al-Haytham. See also pp. 86-87.
17

18

60

Missing Steps in Greek Constructions

Fig. 34

the Line which Archimedes used in the second Book (On the Sphere and
Cylinder) (111:43; GAS V,371,31) Ibn al-Haytham constructs H by means of
conic sections. The beginning of the treatise is interesting in connection with
Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction of Conics VIII. Ibn al-Haytham says:
He (Archimedes) did not use in his book any conics, so he did not deem
it appropriate to introduce into his book something which is not of the
same kind. So he assumed the division (of BD), relying on thefact that this
is possible . . , . Since this is the case, we decided to divide this line and
to prove the possibility of its division (in H) so that the correctness of
what Archimedes used may thus be demonstrated. 19

(my translation from a Leiden manuscript, compare French translation in

Woepcke, Algebre, 91-93) Ibn al-Haytham does not present his construction
as a reconstruction of a missing construction of Archimedes, but he seems
to suggest that Archimedes also had a construction of H by means of conics.
3. Ibn al-Haytham mentions as Ia: 25 a Letter on the Proof of the Proposition which Archimedes used as a preliminary to the trisection of the angle. This
lost letter must have contained a construction by means of conics of the
neusis in proposition 8 of the Lemmata of (pseudo?) Archimedes (compare
GAS V,373,17; Heath HGM 1,240-241).20
19 Ms. Leiden, Or. 14,f. 498:5-7 (Voorhoeve, Handlist, 165): wa-lam yasta'milfl kitiibihi shay'an
min qu?u'i l-makhru!iitfa-lam yara an yakhlu!a bi-I-kitiib mii laysa minjinsihi,fa-yusallimu qismata
l-kha!! tasllman mu'awwalan 'alii anna dhiilika mumkinun ... wa-idhii kiina dhiilika ka-dhiilika
ra'aynii an naqsama hiidhii l-kha!! wa-nubayyina imkiina l-qismaflhi li-ta;;hara bi-dhiilika ~ihhat
mii sta'malahu Arshimldis.
In the Greek text of On the Sphere and Cylinder 11:4, Archimedes says that he will give the
solution of the auxiliary problem at the end (ed. Heiberg II,192:5-6). Apparently this promise
of Archimedes was not mentioned in the Arabic text of On the Sphere and Cylinder II which
Ibn al-Haytham had. See 7.6.2 for a further discussion of the auxiliary problem and Eutocius'
commentary on On the Sphere and Cylinder II.
20 The construction may have been the same as a construction in Optics V (V:33 in ed. Risner,
pp. 143-144; lemma I in Sabra, Lemmas).

Works on Conic Sections

61

Here the list of Ibn al-Haytham's treatises on special problems in (or:

inspired by) Greek geometry comes to an end. This list includes the majority
of the extant treatises of Ibn al-Haytham on conic sections. Only a few
treatises have yet to be mentioned.
The Completion of the Conics, the subject of this book, seems to be the
most important of the extant works on conics. This relatively early work
(Chapter 8) is not mentioned in any of the lists la, Ib, II and III. In 5.5 I
shall discuss the grounds for attributing it to Ibn al-Haytham.
A solid arithmetical problem (III:78; GAS V,367,1l) is a treatise in which
Ibn al-Haytham solves by means of conic sections the following problem:
For a given number k, to find another number x such that x 3 + x = k. 21
A few preliminaries by Ibn al-Haytham for drawing conic sections are
extant. These preliminaries may constitute a fragment of his Treatise on the
Conic Compass, in two books (III:13).22 In the extant Letter on a Proposition
of the BaniiMiisa (III:73; GAS V,372,32) Ibn al-Haytham corrects aproposition which the Banu Musa had prefixed to their Arabic translation of the
Conics as a preliminary to Conics VI :18. However, neither in the proposition
of the Banu Musa nor in its correction by Ibn al-Haytham are conic sections
used.
Two optical works of Ibn al-Haytham also relate to conics. In On
Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors (III: 19) Ibn al-Haytham proves that all rays
parallel to the axis of a concave paraboloidal mirror are reflected to the
focus. Ibn al-Haytham says that he found the ancient proofs of this theorem
unsatisfactory (Toomer, Diocies, 22). The solution of the problem of Alhazen
in Optics V (7.7) is based on simple properties of the hyperbola. In Books V
and VI of the Optics, Ibn al-Haytham presupposes that the intersections of
a cylinder or a cone with certain planes are ellipses. He also assumes that a
normal to a conic can be drawn through any point outside the conic.
The Latin translation of the Optics has already been mentioned above;
On Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors was also translated into Latin in the
twelfth century by Gerard of Cremona. No other mathematical work of
Ibn al-Haytham was translated into Latin in the Middle Ages. The transmission of Arabic mathematics to medieval western Europe was in general
very incomplete.
All extant works of Ibn al-Haytham have now been mentioned, with the
exception of a few treatises of minor importance. Among his lost works on
conic sections are a Summary of the Books of Apollonius on Conics (Ia:12),
Recently edited and translated by Sesiano (1976).
Sabra mentions these preliminaries in A note on ms. Florence... . Following Wiedemann,
Sezgin in GAS V,374,30 incorrectly translates the title Kitab fi birkari l-qu(U' as "iiber die sich
schneidenden Linien". The treatise is probably identical to the work on drawing conic sections
to which Ibn al-Haytham refers in On Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors (printed in Rasa'i/
no. 3, p. 11:10-15, compare Sabra in DSB VI,206 under 111:18, and in Journalfor the History
of Arabic Science 1/1977/282-283).
21

22

62

Examples of Misattributed Mathematical Texts

treatises On the Properties of the Parabola (III :33), On the Properties of the
Hyperbola (III :34) and On the Refutation of the Proof that the Hyperbola
and its Two Asymptotes Approach each other Continuously (Ia: 18). The last
title is puzzling, because the proof in question in Conics II: 14 is correct.
This concludes my survey of Ibn al-Haytham's mathematical works.
Ibn al-Haytham had intensively studied Greek mathematics. His work
shows a profound geometric intuition and perfect command of the Greek
arithmetical and geometrical techniques which had come down to him (as in
the Measurement of the Paraboloid, the problem of Alhazen (7.7) and several
propositions in the Completion of the Conics), but also curious mistakes and
misunderstandings (see 7.6.2, Chapter 8 and On the Perpendiculars of
Triangles; Hermelink, 247). Ibn al-Haytham's work exudes a Greek atmosphere, and new conceptual developments in his work should not be
exaggerated. Yet he applied traditional techniques in new non-trivial
problems, and so he is really one of the outstanding mathematicians of the
Middle Ages.

S.S. Ibn al-Haytham's Authorship of the Completion

The first reason for believing that the Completion is a work by Ibn
al-Haytham is the fact that the manuscript mentions him as the author
(Oa, 31s). The name is erroneously spelt as (Abu 'All) AI-l:Iasan ibn al-l:Iusayn
(rather than ibn al-J:Iasan) ibn al-Haytham. This scribal error is of no consequence; note that the same error is found in On the Light of the Stars
(III :48, printed in Ras(i'i/ no. 1, p. 2), another work of Ibn al-Haytham.
However, one might argue that the attribution of the Completion to
Ibn al-Haytham is incorrect, because the work is not mentioned on any of
the lists la, Ib, II and III quoted by Ibn Abi 'U~aybica. Incorrect attributions
of Arabic mathematical texts occur infrequently; thus an Arabic translation
of an anonymous Greek text on the trisection of an angle is attributed to its
translator A~mad ibn Musa (ninth century, see Hogendijk, Trisection); a
manuscript containing the geometry of Abu I-Wafii' (tenth century) is
wrongly attributed to AI-Farabi (ninth century, see Toomer, Diodes,
23 n.29); and a manuscript of a treatise by AI-Sijzl (tenth century) on the
"fact" that all geometrical figures derive from the circle is incorrectly
ascribed to Nasr ibn 'Abdallah (tenth century? See Hogendijk, Rearranging,
no. A39).
In the case of the Completion the following additional evidence clearly
shows that Ibn al-Haytham must have been the author.
The preceding account of Ibn al-Haytham's mathematical work shows
that a reconstruction of Conics VIII is in line with his other interests. It is
noteworthy that only one reference to another medieval reconstruction of a

Ibn al-Haytham Is the Author of the Completion

63

lost Greek work is known, namely a reconstruction, also by Ibn al-Haytham,

of the lost Book I of the Optics of Ptolemy. 23
Stylistic resemblances between the Completion and other works of Ibn
al-Haytham are numerous. The closing sentence of the preface "This is the
time we begin the treatise" (hadha /:lin nabtadiJu bi-l-maqala) in OJ resembles
similar sentences in On the construction of the Heptagon: "This is the time
we begin the discussion" hadha /:lIn nabtadfu bi-l-qawl, see Rashed, H eptagone,
377:15) and in the Letter on the Proposition of the Banu Musa (in RasaJil
no. 6, 2:13). The dull but precise prose of the Completion is omnipresent in
Ibn al-Haytham's works, compare e.g. 221-m, 23n-p with an arbitrary page
of the Commentary on the Premises of the Elements, or 17a-h with one of the
syntheses in On the Construction of the Heptagon (Rashed, Heptagone,
340-377). For mathematical resemblances between the Completion and
other works of Ibn al-Haytham I refer to 7.4-7.7 and the footnotes in
Chapter 14.
These similarities leave us in no doubt that Ibn al-Haytham is the author
of the Completion.

23 Ibn al-Haytham mentions as item 5 on list Ia in his autobiography: .. A book in which I

summarized the science of Optics from the works of Euclid and Ptolemy, and which I completed
with the notions of the lost first Book of the work of Ptolemy (Le. Ptolemy's Optics)". (Arabic
text: Kitabun lakhkha~tufihi 'i/ma I-mana~ir min kitabay Uq/idis wa-Bar1amlyiis wa-tammamtuhu
bi-ma'anl l-maqalati l-Ula I-mafquda min kitabi Ba{lamiyus) Ibn Abi 'U~aybi'a, ed. Millier
II,94:1-2.

Chapter 6

The Completion as a Reconstruction

of Conics VIII

6.1. Introduction: Reconstructions of Lost Greek Works

In the preface to the Completion Ibn al-Haytham concludes his observations on the supposed contents of the lost Conics VIII as follows (Oi):
We decided that these notions and similar ones were the notions contained
in the eighth Book (of the Conics). When our judgement about that had
been established, we started to derive these notions, to explain them and
to collect them in a book containing them, to replace the eighth Book and
to be the Completion of the Conics.

In this chapter I shall discuss the Completion in its capacity of a reconstruction. The present section (6.1) contains some general information on
reconstructions of lost Greek works. In 6.2 I shall try to find out in what
sense Ibn al-Haytham wanted to reconstruct Book VIII. The basis of his
reconstruction and its plausibility will be discussed in 6.3 and 6.4, respectively. In 6.5 it will be shown that the part ofthe Completion after proposition
5 is only a preliminary version of the text which Ibn al-Haytham intended to
write.
It has already been noted (5.5) that Ibn al-Haytham is the only medieval
scholar who is known to have reconstructed lost Greek works, and that his
reconstruction of Book I of Ptolemy's Optics is only known by reference.
Ibn al-Haytham's reconstructions antedate European reconstructions of
lost Greek works by nearly six centuries. The first European reconstruction
was F. Vieta's Apollonius Gallus (1600), 1 containing a restoration of the
lost work On Tangencies of Apollonius. Between 1600 and 1900 many other
lost works were reconstructed. These included Conics V and On Cutting-Off
a Ratio of Apollonius (before they were rediscovered), Conics VIII, On
1 Printed in Opera, ed. F. van Schooten, 325-338. Biographical details on Vieta are in DSB
XIV.l8-25.

Pappus' Collection as a Source of European Reconstructions

65

Cutting-Off an Area, On Determinate Section, Plane Loci, On Inclinations, all

by Apollonius, and the Porisms of Euclid (these works are now lost). The
reader is referred to Conics, tr. Ver Eecke, XLV-XLIX, XXIV-XXXIV and
Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte 160-161 for further information. In Europe Conics
VIII was reconstructed only once (by Halley, 4.3), but several other works
were reconstructed two, three or even four times.
All European reconstructions are based on information contained in
Book VII of the Collection of Pappus of Alexandria (fl. 320). This work
became available in the Latin translation of Commandinus,2 printed in
1588 and 1589. With the sole exception of Book VIII (on mechanics),3
the Collection of Pappus was never passed down to medieval Arabic geometers, even though the work would certainly have met with a favourable
reception. Thus the Arabic geometers did not have Collection VII, containing references and lemmas to lost Greek works. This provides a partial
answer to the question why there were so few reconstructions in medieval
Arabic geometry.4
Theoretically the Quadrature of the Parabola by Archimedes 5 could have
been reconstructed in the Middle Ages. This work was not transmitted to the
Arabic geometers, but it was known to them through a reference in the
(Arabic translation of) Archimedes' On the Sphere and Cylinder I (GAS
V,128,1). The reference did not fail to have its effect: Arabic treatises on the
quadrature of the parabola by Thabit ibn Qurra (836-901)6 and his grandson
Ibrahim ibn Sin an (909-946)7 are still extant. However, these treatises do
not purport to be reconstructions of the Archimedean Quadrature of the
Parabola.

6.2. Nature of Ibn al-Haytham's Reconstruction

In what sense did Ibn al-Haytham want to reconstruct Conics VIII?
In Oi Ibn al-Haytham states, rather vaguely, that the reconstruction is
to contain the "notions" (macani) which were in Conics VIII. The Arabic
2 Pappi Alexandrini Mathematicae Collectiones, a Fed. Commandino Urbinate in latinum
conversae et commentariis illustratae: dated at the end Pisauri 1588, 2nd printing Venice,
1589. For Commandinus (1509-1575) see DSB 111,363-365.
3 See D. E. P. Jackson, the Arabic translation of a Greek manual of mechanics, Islamic Quarterly
16/1972/96-103.
4 Some of the works which were reconstructed in Western Europe were still extant in the Middle
Ages in Arabic translation, for example, On Cutting-Off an Area (GAS V, 143,4), and On
Tangencies (GAS V,143,6).
5 The Greek text was transmitted to Europe and is extant; Archimedes ed. Heiberg 11,262-314.
6 GAS V,260,1O, German translation in H. Suter Ausmessung ... Thabit.
7 GAS V,293,1, printed in Ibrahim ibn Sinan, Rasa'i/ no. 5, German translation in H. Suter,

Abhandlung ... Ibrahim.

66

Meaning of ma'na in Ibn al-Haytham's Preface

word maCna (plural: macanl) which I translate as notion, can refer to a

concept or to a collection of concepts (note 0.3). So the "notions" in Oi
could be the problems in Book VIII which Ibn al-Haytham mentioned
earlier, but they could also be the problems together with the solutions,
which Apollonius had given.
To determine the exact meaning of maCna we have to take the context
into account. In Oc we read that Apollonius postponed certain "notions"
because he did not need them in Conics I-VII. The notions in Od are notions
"to the knowledge o/which the human mind aspires". In Oh certain "notions"
are said to have been in Book VIII because they" exceed in beauty and understanding the propositions that were transmitted". In Oi Ibn al-Haytham says
that after his "judgement about that (meaning the notions in Book VIII)
had been established", he "started to derive these notions". This strongly
suggests that the "notions" are the problems in Book VIII together with the
solutions which Apollonius had given. So it seems that Ibn al-Haytham
wanted to reconstruct the problems and the solutions of the lost Book VIII.
At the end of the preface Ibn al-Haytham says (Oi):

We make our derivation o/these notions by analysis, synthesis and diorismos, in order that it become the clearest of the eight books.
In the extant books of the Conics Apollonius always discusses the diorismoi
of problems. But the extant text does not always contain analyses. s So
Ibn al-Haytham may have thought that Apollonius had not given analyses
in Book VIII, and he may have wanted his reconstruction to be clearer. I
conclude that Ibn al-Haytham did not explicitly intend to write in the same
style as Apollonius. Nevertheless there are many stylistic similarities between the Completion and the Arabic translation of the Conics (7.2).

6.3 Basis for the Reconstruction

The following discussion of the basis of Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction of Conics VIII also concerns the problems such as P12, which Ibn
al-Haytham mentioned in the preface but which are not treated at all, or
are treated only incompletely in the rest of the text.
Ibn al-Haytham had even less information about the lost Book VIII
than is now available. Ibn al-Haytham did not know the lemmas of Pappus
to Book VIII, because the Collection had not been transmitted to Arabic
geometers. His only sources were the prefaces to Books I and VII (4.I),
which he mentions in Ob and Of. From Ob we gather that he only had access
8 The extant text does not provide the analyses of the constructions in Conics I :52-60, II :4,
V:44-63, VI:28-33. The only analyses are in II:49-53.

Conics II: 49-53 and Ibn al-Haytham's Reconstruction

67

Fig. 35

to the Arabic version, in which Book VIII is said to contain "problems

occurring in conics". The fact that his reconstruction only deals with problems
(not with theorems) concerning conics shows that Ibn al-Haytham made an
effort to base his reconstruction on the available information on Book VIII.
All problems in the Completion are somehow motivated by the extant
part of the Conics; so I shall begin by examining their motivation in some
detail.
In the preface (Od,e,g) Ibn al-Haytham explains that six problems (Pl-3,
P5, Pll-12) in the reconstruction are variations on problems in the last
part in Conics II. In all cases a condition in the problem in Conics II is changed
into another condition involving a ratio between two segments or the length
of a segment.
In Conics II: 49 (Fig. 35) Apollonius draws through a given point Q a
tangent QR to a given conic. He says that QR "meets" the conic "in one
point" (note 0.16). Ibn al-Haytham concludes in Og that Book VIII contained
the construction of a straight line through a given point Q, which intersects
a given conic in two points Rl and R2 such that R1R2 is equal to a given
segment (Pll(28-31 or such that QR 1:R1R2 is equal to a given ratio (P12).
In Conics 11:50-53 (Fig. 36) Apollonius constructs tangents RT to a
given conic, meeting the conic in R and a (transverse) axis of the conic in
T and satisfying certain properties. I use the following notations: Let RR'
be perpendicular to the axis, and let A be the vertex (in the modern sense)
between R' and T. Let C be the centre of the ellipse and the hyperbola, and

D!I

Fig. 36

68

Preface to Conics VII and Ibn al-Haytham's Reconstruction

let axis AC intersect the ellipse or the opposite hyperbola in the vertex D.
The properties are the following:
In Conics 11:50, Apollonius constructs RTsuch that LRTA is equal to a
given angle. Ibn al-Haytham concludes in Od that Book VIII contained the
construction of a tangent RT such that RT: T A is equal to a given ratio
(P1(1-5, or such that RT: TD is equal to a given ratio (P2(6-7), for a central
conic only) or such that RT is equal to a given segment (P5(14-17. He also
relates these problems to the propositions in which Apollonius explained
how the tangent divides the axis (R'A:R'D = T A: TD for a central conic,
see note 0.7).
In Conics 11:51-53 Apollonius considers a central conic, and he draws
RT such that L TRC is equal to a given angle. Ibn al-Haytham concludes
in Oe that Book VIII contained the construction of RT such that RT:RC
is equal to a given ratio (P3(8-9.
Ibn al-Haytham says in Of that Book VIII contained problems" connected
with the diameters and their special properties". This seems to be a reference
to P8-10: to construct a diameter ( = latus transversum) d of a given central
conic such that d . r is equal to a given rectangle (P8(24-25, or such that
d + r is equal to a given segment (P9(26-27k, or such that d:r is equal to a
given ratio (PlO(271-p. As usual r stands for the latus rectum corresponding
to d.
P8-10 are problems to which the propositions in Conics VII provide
the diorismoi, so Halley also treated P8-10 in his reconstruction (4.3).
Ibn al-Haytham cannot have chosen these problems for this reason; his
treatment of P8-10 shows in fact that he was not familiar with the propositions in Conics VII which provide their diorismoi (see 7.3). It is noteworthy
that the Arabic translations of the prefaces to Conics I and VII suggest only
a relation between the propositions in Book VII and the problems in Book
VIII in general, not especially a relation with their diorismoi. Yet one wonders
why Ibn al-Haytham only treated P8-10, and why he did not construct d
such that for example the difference d - r is equal to a given segment.
The answer to this question is to be found in the preface to Conics VII,
which Ibn al-Haytham summarizes in Of. Apollonius refers to "beautiful
results on the diameters and the figures constructed on them ", which will be
very necessary in Book VIII. I recall that the figure constructed on a diameter
d is the rectangle contained by the segments d and r. Note that P8-10 have
a natural interpretation in terms of the figure: to construct d such that the
corresponding figure has a given area (P8), circumference (P9) or shape
(PlO). It is likely that Ibn al-Haytham's choice of P8-10 was motivated by
these considerations, even though he does not mention the word figure
(shakl) in Of or in propositions 24-27.
At the end of his preface (Oi) Ibn al-Haytham argues that Book VIII also
contained "notions ", "similar" to those already mentioned. He does not
specify these additional notions, but it is likely that the reference is to the
remaining propositions in the text:

Ibn al-Haytham's Arguments

69

P4(10-13): Let a conic and a tangent to it at A be given. To construct

another tangent, meeting the conic in B and the given tangent in D such that
AD:BD is equal to a given ratio.
P6(18-19) and P7(20-23): For two given points D and E on the axis ofa
given conic, to construct a point B on the conic such that DB:EB is equal to
a given ratio (P6) or DB + EB is equal to a given segment (P7).
P4 can be considered as a variation on Pl-3, but it is also superficially
related to theorems on intersecting tangents in Conics III :41-42. The figure
for Ibn al-Haytham's solution of P4(12-13) for a central conic resembles
the figure for Conics III :42, although the reasonings are different.
P7 is related to (and solved by) Conics 111:52, proving that the sum of
the focal distances is constant for any point on a given ellipse. P6 is a variation on P7. However, P6 and P7 are not really similar to the other notions in
the reconstruction.
I shall now turn to Ibn al-Haytham's reasons for believing that P 1-12
were the problems in the lost Book VIII.
The presence of P8-10 in Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction is sufficiently
explained by the above-mentioned relation between these problems and the
preface to Book VII.
The other problems are "problems occurring in conics" (Ob) which in the
opinion of Ibn al-Haytham possess certain characteristics:
(i) they are "made necessary" by the "notions" in the extant Books ofthe
Conics (Oc, Oi).
(ii) they (or rather their solutions) are "beautiful" notions, "to the knowledge of which the human mind aspires", as beautiful as the propositions
in the extant Books of the Conics, or even more beautiful (Oh).
Ibn al-Haytham also remarks in Oh that:
(iii) Apollonius postponed the notions (which Ibn al-Haytham believed to
have been in Book VIII) because" he could dispense with using them in
the books which were transmitted" (Books I-VII).
I shall comment on these points in order.
Ad(i). The notions in the lost Book VIII do not fill a lacuna in the extant
books, nor is there any application which makes them necessary. Ibn alHaytham's supposition is that Apollonius gave a complete treatment of
certain classes of related problems. It seems to me that he based this supposition not on evidence in the Conics, but only on his implicit assumption that
Apollonius' interests were identical to his own. A similar desire for completeness was the motivation for other works of Ibn al-Haytham, such as Properties of Triangles with Respect to Perpendiculars (GAS V,366,4, see Hermelink),
the Treatise on the Construction of the Regular Heptagon (GAS V,367,13,
see Rashed, Heptagone, 341:13-18) and the Measurement of the Paraboloid

70

Completeness

(GAS V,365,1, see Rashed, Paraboloi'de, 290). In these works Ibn al-Haytham
intended to give a complete treatment of all "cases" of a problem or of a
class of problems, which had been discussed only incompletely by his
predecessors.
It is interesting that a desire for completeness is also found in the works
of AI-Kfihl (fl. 970) and AI-Blrfinl (972-1048).
In On the Sphere and Cylinder II :5,6, Archimedes constructed a segment
of a sphere similar to a given segment of a sphere, and equal in volume (5)
or in surface (6) to another given segment of a sphere. AI-Kiihl wrote a
treatise On filling the Gap in the Second Book of Archimedes (On the Sphere
and Cylinder), in which he constructed a segment of a sphere equal in volume
to a given segment of a sphere, and equal in area to another given segment
of a sphere. He says that this construction was" omitted" by Archimedes. 9
AI-Blrfinl in the Extraction of Chords constructs in a given segment AC
of a circle (Fig. 37) an inscribed broken line ABC such that
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

AB + BC is equal to a given segment; or

lAB - BC I is equal to a given segment; or
AB BC is equal to a given rectangle; or
AB:BC is equal to a given ratio.

The first three constructions are based on fundamental theorems on inscribed broken lines which AI-Birfinl proved at the beginning of his book.
But the fourth construction has nothing to do with these theorems and is
only given for sake of completeness, as AI-Bironi himself says.10 Note that
the conditions (1) ... (4) recall the four elementary arithmetical operations.
Such a desire for completeness should not be considered as a characteristic of Arabic mathematicians. Apollonius exhibits a similar predilection in

9 There is considerable confusion in the modern literature on AI-Kiihl's letter On Filling the
Gap in the Second Book of Archimedes (fl suddi l-khalal fl l-maqalati l-thiiniya min kitab
Arshimidis). Only part of this letter is extant, in a quotation by Na~ir ai-Din al-Tiisi (1201-1274,
DSB XIII,S08-S17), at the end of his edition (ta/;irir) of On the Sphere and Cylinder II of
Archimedes. For a summary of the contents of the AI-Kiihi fragment see Juschkewitsch,
Mathematik im Mittelalter, 2S8.
Woepcke discussed the fragment in Algebre, 103-114. He noted that it was appended to
On the Sphere and Cylinder II by a commentator, but he did not know that the commentator
was Na~lr ai-Din al-Tiisl.
Sezgin in GAS V,320,24 does not give the correct title, and he only mentions three manuscripts of the extant fragment. But it is likely that the fragment is also found in all or most of the
manuscripts of Al-Tiis\'s edition of On the Sphere and Cylinder mentioned in GAS V,129b.
It is not generally known among historians of mathematics that the Arabic text of the fragment has been printed in the l;:Iaydarabad edition of AI-Tiisl's revisions of Greek works (AI-Tiisl,
Rasii'i/ II, no. 5, 115:8-127: 15).
As far as On the Spherl!. and Cylinder is concerned, the l;:Iaydarabad edition seems to be based
on a manuscript in Rampiir (see p. 133: 14), which must contain the fragment by AI-Kiihi.
10 Suter, Ermittiung, 36; AI-Blriinl, Istikhraj al-Awtar, ed. Dimirdash 100; AI-Blriim, Rasa'i/
no. I. 49-S7.

Beauty

71

Fig. 37

his choice ofthe "functions" of a diameter d, the conjugate diameter and

the latus rectum r in Conics VII (d:a, d + a, Id da, Id 2 - 2 1, r, Id - rl,
2
2
d + r, dr, d + r2, d - r2, see 3.3). It is unlikely that Ibn al-Haytham was
influenced by this completeness of Book VII, because he seems to have been
unfamiliar with the full text of Conics VII when he wrote the Completion
(see 7.3).
In the treatises of AI-Kfihl and AI-Blrfinl and in Conics VII the "completeness" is much more evident than in the Completion of Ibn al-Haytham. It
seems that Ibn al-Haytham did not have a well-defined criterion by means
of which he determined which problems were made necessary by the extant
Books of Conics. The only thing that can be said is that he liked problems
of how to construct a line such that a certain segment has a given length, or
a certain ratio is equal to a given ratio. It is conceivable that he started working on more than twelve necessary problems, and that he struck some of
them off his list because he could not find their solution.

ai,

Ad(ii). Ibn al-Haytham's argument concerning beauty and his reference

to the "notions to the knowledge of which the human mind aspires" may have
been influenced by statements of Apollonius such as the following, found in
the preface to Conics IV:

These things which we have mentioned (the propositions in Book IV)

are also useful in the analysis of the division (of a problem into cases).
But they deserve to be accepted and (they deserve) that one should take
an interest in knowing them, even if they did not have these uses,for their
own sake and for the proofs in them. For we also accept many other things
in the mathematical sciences for this and for no other reason. 11
(translated from the Arabic translation, which is close to the Greek text).
In my opinion Ibn al-Haytham exaggerates when he calls some of the
notions in the Completion (propositions 5, 13, 23, 31 ?) more beautiful than
wa-hadhihi I-ashya'u llatl dhakarna nafi'atun ay4an fi talJllli I-taqsim wa-hiya mustalJiqqatun
li-l-qubUi wa-Wan yu'na bi-ma'rifatiha wa-law lam yakun laha hiidhihi l-manaji' li-I,aliha jianfusiha wa-mafiha min al-barahinfa-inna qad naqbalu ashya'a akhara kathiratan min al-'ulumi
l-ta'lImiyya /i-hadha I-sabab waJ.zdatan La ghaira (Ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marsh 667
f. 70a:17-19, Ms. Aya Sofya 2762, 138a:14-18; Greek text in Conics ed. Heiberg 11,4:16-21,
11

tr. by Heath in HGM 11,131).

72

Completion Is Implausible as a Reconstruction

those in the extant Books of the Conics. The Completion is certainly interesting, but Books I, III and V of the Conics are more impressive.
Ad(iii). Ibn al-Haytham's additional explanation why Apollonius postponed Pl-12 to Book VIII is rather strange. The constructions in Conics
II :50-53 (which motivated Pl-3 and P5) could have been deferred to Book
VIII for the same reason, because Apollonius does not use these constructions anywhere else in the extant Books.

6.4. Plausibility of the Reconstruction

The present state of our knowledge is such that it can neither be proved
nor disproved that the lost Book VIII of the Conics contained some of the
problems in Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction. However, the lemmas of
Pappus (4.2) to Book VIII are not related to Ibn al-Haytham's problems,
so Book VIII must have contained some other problems as well.
Apollonius would not have solved all the problems Pl-ll in the same
way as Ibn al-Haytham. Apollonius knew the relation between tangent
conics and limiting cases (see 7.6.2), so in Pl(5) and P7(22-23) he would
not have made the same mistake as Ibn al-Haytham. Apollonius would
probably have solved P4 by means of Conics III:17,23 (see appendix to
Chapter 14) and P7(20-23) as well as P5(16-17) by means of theorems in
his lost work On Determinate Section (notes 21.13, 16.6). He would have
solved P8-9(24-27k) by means of Conics VII:17-18 (see 7.3) and he would
have avoided the hyperbola ~1 in Pll(30-31) (note 31.5).
Thus, as far as the solutions are concerned, the Completion does not seem
to be a plausible reconstruction of Book VIII. It should be noted, however,
that there is no evidence that Ibn al-Haytham knew On Determinate Section,
or the Collection of Pappus of Alexandria, on which much of our information
on On Determinate Section is based. The Completion is clearly an attempt by
Ibn al-Haytham to find a reconstruction which was consistent with the available information on the lost Book VIII.
One might well ask which of the two reconstructions is the better one
(i.e. the closer to Apollonius), the one by Halley or the one by Ibn al-Haytham.
The question is unfair because Halley knew more about Book VIII than
Ibn al-Haytham, and the answer is largely a matter of taste. Halley's reconstruction has the advantage that all (or at least some) of its problems were
somehow treated in Book VIII, probably as auxiliary constructions. It is
doubtful whether any of the problems in Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction
were really in Book VIII. But on the whole, these problems are more exciting
than the problems of Halley's reconstruction, so Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction may be closer in level to the lost Book VIII.

Incomplete Solutions in the Completion

73

6.5. Preliminary Character of Most of the Extant Text

The propositions in the extant text of the Completion do not agree exactly
with the preface. The last problem in the preface (P12, Og) is not mentioned
in the text. The preface mentions the general problem "to draw a line which
is tangent to the (conic) section and ends at the axis such that the ratio of it
to the diameter drawn from the place of contact is (equal to) a known ratio"
(P3, Oe), but in the text (P3(8-9)) the problem is only solved for the hyperbola, not for the ellipse. In Og Ibn al-Haytham says that he wants to "explain
how we draw from an assumed point a line which meets the (conic) section
in two points such that the part of it which falls inside the (conic) section is
equal to an assumed line" (PI I ). This problem is only solved for a parabola
and a hyperbola, and the assumed point is supposed to be on the axis.
(Pl1(28-31)).
The above-mentioned omissions are not likely to be due to a commentator
or a scribe. If Ibn al-Haytham had worked out the solutions of P3 and Pll
(with the assumed point on the axis) for the ellipse as well, he would have
given a general solution for any central conic, in the style of P1(3-4),
P2(6-7), P4(12-13) and PS(16-17) (compare notes 8.S, 9.1, 31.13). It is
extremely implausible that a scribe crossed out all references to the ellipse
in the solutions of P3 and P11, but left the solutions of P1, P2, P4 and PS in
their original form. We must therefore conclude that the incomplete solutions
are due to Ibn al-Haytham. So the extant text of the Completion cannot be
the final form of the reconstruction of Book VIII which Ibn al-Haytham
intended to write.
The following features confirm that a large part of the text we have is
a preliminary version.
(i) The analysis and synthesis of P4(12-13) are confused (note 13.27).
(ii) In 3f Ibn al-Haytham assumes the result of 4e and 6e (notes 3.7, 3.9).
(iii) The proper place of 8e-f and 16f would be in the synthesis in propositions 9 and 17 (see notes 8.3, 16.7 and 7.4.2).
(iv) The text contains superfluous passages which are probably not interpolations (examples: 6c, 16e, compare notes 6.2,16.6).
In Book V of the Optics, the Treatise on the Construction of the Heptagon,
the Chapter on the Lemma for the Side of the Heptagon, the Treatise on the
Division of the Line which Archimedes used in the Second Book (On the Sphere
and Cylinder), A Solid Arithmetical Problem and in the last part of On
Analysis and Synthesis (see S.4) Ibn al-Haytham treats geometrical constructions comparable in difficulty to those in the Completion. However, features
such as (i)-(iv) hardly ever occur in these six texts (for two exceptions, see
7.4.2 and 7.7). Thus there can be no doubt that Ibn al-Haytham attempted to
eliminate these features in the final versions of his works.
However, it is obvious that Ibn al-Haytham had already done much work
on his reconstruction of Conics VIII when he wrote the extant version of the

74

Why the Completion Is Not Mentioned by Ibn Abi 'U~aybi'a

Completion. The propositions are arranged thematically (see p. 7); clearly

the missing solution of P12 would have had to follow that of Pll(28-31).
The text of Pl(l-S) was composed with care, but the available evidence
suggests that the rest of the extant version of the Completion was written
in some haste. It is likely that Ibn al-Haytham had suddenly to interrupt
his work on the reconstruction of Conics VIII for some reason (for example,
travel or official duties). Thus the part of the Completion after proposition S
is probably a preliminary version, which was written in order to facilitate
continuation of the work at a later date.
The fact that a reconstruction of Conics VIII is not mentioned in Ibn
Abi CU~ayb{a's lists of Ibn al-Haytham's works (S.l) suggests that he never
finished the reconstruction to his own satisfaction. Thus is likely that the
extant version is the only version of the reconstruction which he ever wrote.
It is intriguing how this preliminary version has come down to us. Ibn
al-Haytham could have sent or shown the work to a colleague-mathematician; in this case he would have followed the same procedure as Apollonius,
who also communicated preliminary versions of some of the Books of the
Conics to his friends. 12 It is also conceivable that the Completion was found
among Ibn al-Haytham's belongings after his death, perhaps by the interpolator to be discussed in Chapter 9. No definite conclusion can be drawn;
thus an interesting aspect of the history of the text must remain in the dark.

12 Preface to Conics I, ed. Heiberg 1,2:9-22, tr. in Heath, HGM II,129: The passage is also in the
Arabic version of the Conics; ms. Oxford, Bod!. Marsh 667,5a:lO-14.

Chapter 7

Mathematical Aspects of the Completion

7.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with the mathematics in the Completion. I shall discuss
several aspects of Ibn al-Haytham's method and style in relation to his
sources and his other works.
The most important source is obviously the Conics of Apollonius, or more
generally, the Greek tradition. The examples in 7.2 will show that the Greek
influence pervades Ibn al-Haytham's style and presentation. Some of the
(minor) differences between the Completion and the Greek tradition will
also be analyzed.
Section 7.3 is about the relation between the solutions in the Completion
and the extant Books of the Conics and possible other sources of inspiration.
Sections 7.4-7.6 correspond in a sense to the triplet analysis, synthesis and
diorismos. In 7.4 I shall discuss two abnormal passages in the analyses in
16f and 12q-r. These passages are interesting because they provide some
insight into the way in which Ibn al-Haytham worked and thought. Section
7.5 deals with purpose and means of construction in the Completion. Section
7.6 is about the sources of the diorismoi in the Completion and the obvious
errors which Ibn al-Haytham made. Sections 7.4-7.6 include discussions of
relevant parts of other works of Ibn al-Haytham, such as his two treatises
on the regular heptagon, and On the Quadrature of the Circle.
In 7.7 it will be shown that the Completion and Ibn al-Haytham's solution
of the "problem of Alhazen" in the Optics shed light on each other. In the
conclusion (7.8) I shall compare aspects of Ibn al-Haytham's geometrical
work with the work of other Arabic geometers, and mention problems
which could be the subject of further research.

76

Greek Subdivision of Propositions in the Completion

7.2. Greek Influence on Style and Presentation

The following examples show how strictly Ibn al-Haytham in the Completion adhered to the methods and conventions of the Greek tradition of
Euclid and Apollonius.
7.2.1. The solutions in the Completion are subdivided according to
Euclidean conventions (compare Euclid, Elements, tr. Heath I: 129-131).
For example, propositions 1-2 of the Completion consist of:
(i)

(ii)
(iii)

(iv)
(v)

1tp6't(un~,

i.e. statement of the problem in general terms, as in la:

" If there is a known conic section . .. how do we draw a tangent to the

section such that the ratio of it to the part of the axis which is cut off
by it and which is adjacent to the section is equal to an assumed ratio?"
EKeEcrt~, i.e. introduction of suitable notations, as in Ib "let it be
(conic) section ABG, ... , let the ratio of HT to KL be assumed"
olOptcr~6~ in the sense of: statement of the problem in these notations
(here OlOptcr~6~ does not have the meaning of necessary and sufficient
condition). This is Ib: "We want to draw a tangent ... such that the

ratio of it . .. is equal to the ratio of HT to KL."

&V&AUcrt~ (tal;lll, see 7.4), solution backwards, in lc-d.
OlOptcr~6~ (tal;did), the necessary and sufficient condition for the

existence of a solution. In Ie Ibn al-Haytham states the diorismos

HT> 2KL.

The following parts (vi)-(ix) belong to the

cruveEm~

(tark/b):

(vi) Construction, in 2b.

(vii) Statement of the assertion to be proved, introduced by "I say that",
(AEYro on, aqUlu inna) This is 2c: "I say that the ratio of BE to EA is
equal to the ratio of HT to KL ".

(viii) ci1t6oEt~t~ (burhan), the proof, as in 2d.

(ix) cru~1tPC()WX, conclusion, as in 2e: "That is what we wanted to do ".
Ibn al-Haytham does not repeat the 1tp6'tCtcrt~ here.
The solutions in the Completion are presented according to this scheme,
with only a few variations:
- Propositions 6, 8, 10,24,26,28 have no 1tp6'tCtcrt~. This is also frequently
the case in the Arabic translation of the Conics.
- Ibn al-Haytham sometimes abbreviates the analysis or the synthesis by
means of a cross-reference, as in 6h and 29d.
- The usual order of presentation is analysis, synthesis, diorismos.
In the presentation of the solutions and in the numbering of the propositions, Ibn al-Haytham may have been influenced by Conics 11:44-63 in the
Arabic (see 15.2). Heath quotes part of Conics 11:50 as an example of a
proposition in the Conics written in the orthodox Euclidean form (Heath,
Conics, XCII-XCIV).

Notations; Products and Rectangles

77

7.2.2. The language of the Completion resembles the language of the

Conics and the Elements in many respects. We mention two examples.
If triangles" ABC" and" DEF" are said to be similar, the notation does
not always take account of the order of the angles. Thus angle A does not
necessarily correspond to angle D (see l2p, 13d, l8b, 19c; Conics 1:28, ed.
Heiberg, 1,88:5-6 KeA = HMN).
A straight line, circle or conic section is always designated by two or three
points on it, as in conic section ABG. The exact position of these points may
be defined at a later stage, or may even remain undefined. Thus in Completion
3a ABG is defined to be a conic section with vertex A; Band G are defined
in 3b to be the point of contact of the desired tangent and the other endpoint
of a chord through A parallel to the tangent at B. Similar examples are the
definitions of Z in Conics 111:15 and r in 111:34 (ed. Heiberg, 1,342:23,25;
396: 1-2). In proposition 18 in the Completion point G remains undefined.
For other similarities the reader is referred to notes 5.22, 31.12 and to the
glossary, nos. 25, 77, 91.
7.2.3. The manipulation of products and proportions in the Completion
corresponds to the Euclidean manipulation of rectangles and proportions,
which is also a basic tool in the Conics.
Ibn al-Haytham uses the arithmetical term 4arb, meaning: product
(oftwo segments), although the geometrical term satb: rectangle (contained
by two segments) would be more in accordance with Greek terminology and
concepts. Only on a few occasions are the products real rectangles in the
figure (22e-h, 23e-h). Arguments involving areas of other figures (triangles,
trapezia, etc.) do not occur in the Completion, even though such arguments
are frequent in the Conics (for example, in 1:42-47; 111:1-15). Thus the
approach of Ibn al-Haytham is somewhat more formalistic than that of
Apollonius. 1
Euclid and Apollonius do not extend their geometrical algebra to more
than two dimensions. Similarly, Ibn al-Haytham does not use products of
more than two segments. Followi~g Euclid and Apollonius Ibn al-Haytham
employs compounded ratios and auxiliary segments.
In 7b, for example, Ibn al-Haytham constructs a segment X'A. such that
CX/X'A. = (ME/EA) (H2/Z2) (the dot indicates composition of ratios)
as follows: Construct an auxiliary segment EQ such that AE/EQ = H2/Z2,

I If Ibn al-Haytham had interpreted "products" as real "rectangles" he could have simplified
50 as follows: In 5i he proved CT TG = XT TM, that is to say (CG) = (XM). Adding rectangle (Tt) we obtain (Ct) = (Mt), or CX Xl = GM MWas required.
The term 40rb (multiplication, product) was already used for rectangles by geometers before
Ibn al- Haytham. Even in the Arabic translation of the Conics we find (in V: 52) ol-mujtoma' min
40rb KX fi KD (the result of the mUltiplication of KX and KD), meaning: the rectangle contained by two segments KX and KD (ms. Aya Sofya 2762,209b:9; Conics tr. Ver Eecke
427:18-20). However, the term soth (rectangle) is also frequent in the Arabic Conics.

78

General Proofs; the Term" Ordinate"

next construct X').. such that CX/X').. = ME/EQ. Similar procedures are
used in the Conics, for example in 1:41.
7.2.4. The Conics contain a number of general proofs of theorems valid
for an arbitrary central conic (for example, 1:34,36,38,43,45,47). In P1(3-4),
P2(6-7), P4(12-13), P15(16-17) Ibn al-Haytham also gives his solutions
for the hyperbola and the ellipse in one general argument. But the correspondence between Conics and Completion extends still further.
The notations in the general proofs of Apollonius usually2 correspond to
the figure for the hyperbola. In Conics 1:45, for example, Apollonius draws
a line" rMA" (ed. Heiberg 1,136:26), which is correct for the hyperbola, but
should be M r A or ArM for the ellipse. He always mentions the conics in
the order hyperbola, ellipse. If a general treatment is not feasible, the discussion of the hyperbola precedes the discussion of the ellipse (as in II :51-53
and in Book VII). So it seems that Apollonius usually worked out the propositions for the hyperbola first.
Ibn al-Haytham seems to have followed the same procedure. The notations in his general proofs do not provide clear information on this point,
because line segments are rarely referred to by more than two letters. 3
However, in his general proofs the conics are always mentioned in the order
hyperbola, ellipse. In P8-1O(24-27) the solution for the hyperbola precedes
that for the ellipse; in P7(23) the diorismos for the hyperbola precedes the
diorismos for the ellipse. P3(8-9) and Pll(30-31) are solved for the hyperbola but not for the ellipse. Only in P1(4), P2(7) and P5(17) does the (easy)
diorismos for the ellipse precede the (more difficult) diorismos for the
hyperbola. The fact that Ibn al-Haytham studied the hyperbola before the
ellipse explains why he gave a clumsy solution of P4(12-13), see p. 384.
7.2.5. In the Conics as well as the Completion ordinates to a diameter of
a conic are usually segments with one endpoint on the diameter and the
other endpoint on the conic. It is remarkable that similar exceptions occur
in both works. Ibn al-Haytham calls in 13e a tangent LI "ordinate" to the
diameter through L, and the "ordinate" as in 30c does not have an endpoint on the conic. In Conics I :47 lines ENZ and BA are called ordinates
(ed. Heiberg 1,142:18), although E is outside the conic, and BA is a tangent
(Fig. 38, drawn for the hyperbola).
The preceding examples show that Ibn al-Haytham had been thoroughly
influenced by the (Arabic translations of) the Greek works he had studied.
2 In Conics 111:45-51, dealing with foci, Apollonius seems to have had the ellipse in mind
(compare Heiberg, Conics, vol. II, p. LXIV). This may be taken as an indication that Apollonius
found these propositions (at least in the case of the ellipse) in another source and took them over
with minor modifications. Compare Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte, 371.
3 In 6b (note 6.1), 6d (note 6.3), 6i ("EBT") and 13c (note 13.7) Ibn al-Haytham must have had
the hyperbola in mind. It is not clear whether he had the hyperbola or the ellipse in mind in 12c
(note 12.4) and 13f (note 13.13).

Stylistic Differences Between the Conics and the Completion

79

Fig. 38

But it would be going too far to say that the style of the Completion is indistinguishable from that of the Arabic translation of the Conics. This can
also be seen in the following examples.
7.2.6. Following Euclid, Apollonius often indicates by means of technical
terms that proportions have been transformed according to certain rules.
For example, if a:b = c:d, it follows oU::AQV'tl (separando, bi-I-taA/1) that
a - b:b = c - d:d, or ciVIXO"'tpEo/lXvn (convertendo, idha qalabna) that
a:a - b = c:c - d, etc. (see, for example, Heath HGM 1,385-391). However, in the Completion Ibn al-Haytham uses these terms only rarely, even
though they would have been very helpful for the reader.
7.2.7. For Apollonius, a conic section is a line (see 3.1); for Ibn
al-Haytham, however, a conic is the collection of all points of the plane
contained by at least one cone which produces the conic; the line is the
boundary (muhif) of the conic. Ibn al-Haytham must have adopted this
concept from a short passage containing preliminaries (muqaddamat),
which was prefixed to the Arabic translation of the Conics, probably by the
Banii Miisii.4 A medieval Latin translation of the passage was edited by
Heiberg (Conics II, pp. LXXVIII:7-LXXX:16). Heiberg did not discuss the
origin of the passage in detail, though he noted that it was Arabic.

7.2.8. Opposite hyperbolas (i.e. opposite branches of one hyperbola)

occur frequently in the Conics, but never in the Completion. It is true that
opposite hyperbolas are not necessary in the complete solution of the
problems in the Completion. However, two of the problems, namely P4
(to construct two intersecting tangents having a given ratio) and Pll (to
The preliminaries are in ms. Oxford, Bod!. Marsh 667,5b-6a, and in ms. Aya Sofya 2762, f.
3a- 4a, between the preface to Book I and the first proposition. In the Arabic translation of the
Conics, however, a conic is a line (kha!!).

80

Absence of "Opposite Hyperbolas" in the Completion

insert into a conic a segment of given length, such that its rectilinear extension
passes through a given point) can be formulated in a meaningful way for
opposite hyperbolas. Apollonius always extended his theorems for the
single-branch hyperbola to opposite hyperbolas in the cases in which the
extension adds something non-trivial. One is therefore likely to ask why
Ibn al-Haytham did not treat P4 and Pll for opposite hyperbolas.
Zeuthen (Kegelschnitte, 126-154) has shown that Apollonius studied
opposite hyperbolas because they occur in the complete solution of problems
which were famous in his time, such as the locus of three and four lines. 5 It
seems that a considerable number of theorems in Conics III were intended to
be preliminaries to the solution of this problem. However, Apollonius'
allusions to loci (in the prefaces to Conics I and IV) are hard to understand
without the explanations given by Pappus in Book VII of his Collection
(ed. Hultsch, 687, cf. Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte, 510). It has already been mentioned above that Book VII of the Collection was not passed down to the
Arabic geometers. The references to loci in the Conics were therefore misunderstood and mistranslated. 6 Thus Ibn al-Haytham did not know the
reason why the Greeks studied opposite hyperbolas. This explains why he
had no special interest in opposite hyperbolas as a subject of study.
7.2.9. In the Completion, the problems PI, P2 and P5, which relate to
the" axis" of the given conic, are solved for the major axis of the ellipse but
not for the minor axis. In corresponding situations in the Conics, the discussion is' either general, or the text has separate figures for the case where
the axis is the minor axis (as in VII :3,7,9). The Conics provide all prerequisites
for the solution of PI, P2 and P5 for the minor axis; the only real difference
is that some of the hyperbolas in the constructions for the major axis become
ellipses in the constructions for the minor axis (see Chapter 2 and notes 3.10,
7.2, 16.4).

5 The locus of four lines is the name of thefollowing problem (Fig. 39): Given: Four lines I" 12 ,
13 ,14 , four directions r" r 2 , r 3 , r4 , and a ratio (X/fl. For any point P in the plane let d i be the
distance of P to Ii, measured along the direction ri (i = 1,2,3,4). Required: To find the locus
of P such that d,d 2 /d 3 d4 = (X/fl. The solution is a conic passing through the points of intersection A = I, n 13, B = I, n 14 , C = 12 n 14 D = 12 n 13 (two conics if the d i , (X and fl are
considered to be absolute values). The locus of three lines is obtained by putting 13 = 14 , r3 = r4,
d 3 = d4 . The solution of the locus of four lines is closely related to the theorem of Steiner. This
is easily seen by observing that the maps P .... ddd 3 and P .... d 2 /d 4 define projective coordinates
in the pencils of straight lines through A and C (cf. Coxeter, The real projective plane, 75-76).
Zeuthen gives a thorough discussion of the locus of three and four lines and the ancient solution
of it (based on Conics III :54-56) in Kegelschnitte, 126-160.
6 The Banii Miisa translated the expressions rrpo~ I Ta~ Cl"UVeo;rl~ nov Cl"TPWV Torrrov "for
the syntheses of solid loci" and 'tOY Errt 'tPEt\; KCXt 'tECl"Cl"CXPCX\; ypcx~~ix\; 'torrov "the locus of three
andfour lines" in the preface to Conics I (ed. Heiberg 1,4:11-12,14-15) as: f1 tarkibi I-ashkal
"for the synthesis of propositions" and thalatha khu!iit wa-arba'a "three and four lines" (ms.
Oxford, Marsh 667,5a:18, 19-20).

Stylistic Deviations from Greek Tradition only Minor

81

Fig. 39

Ibn al-Haytham may have been misled by Conics 11:50, that is, by the
construction of a tangent to an ellipse making a given angle with "axis"
AB. The construction and proof are valid for both axes, but in the figure in
the text AB is the major axis.

7.2.10. The reader is referred to Chapter 8 and the glossary, no. 87 for a
discussion of a difference in terminology between the Conics and the Completion with regard to the concept of concavity.
Compared to the similarities in 7.2.l-7.2.5, the differences between the
Completion and the Greek tradition are really of minor importance. These
differences are either slight modifications (7.2.6, 7.2.7) or they result from
incomplete transmission (7.2.8) or misunderstanding (7.2.9). They certainly
do not stem from an intention to make drastic changes in the tradition.

7.3. Some Sources of the Solutions in the Completion

In 6.3 we have seen that all problems in the Completion are motivated by
the extant part of the Conics. Since the Completion purports to be a reconstruction of the lost Book VIII, it is no surprise that the solutions of these

82

The Completion and Conics I-VI

problems are also based largely on the seven extant Books. The important
role of the Conics is illustrated by the fact that the Completion contains 37
references to the Conics (see index in 15.2), but no references to other works
(such as the Data of Euclid). Ibn al-Haytham omits the title" Conics" on all
but two occasions (13d, By), so the reader is supposed to understand that
references like as is proven in proposition 56 in Book II are to the Conics. The
references in the text are almost all correct, and the few mistakes can easily
be attributed to scribal errors or an oversight. So it is not necessary to assume
that Ibn al-Haytham used an edition ofthe Conics in which the propositions
have numbers different from those in the extant Arabic translation, as,
apparently, 'Vmar al-Khayyam did (see his Algebra).
Ibn al-Haytham did not provide the references to all propositions in the
Conics which he used. The references are in fact unequally distributed
throughout the text. It will therefore be of some interest to add a survey of
the parts of the Conics on which the solutions in the Completion are based.
The Completion presupposes almost the entire theory in Conics I and II,
with the exception of the propositions on opposite and conjugate hyperbolas.
The fundamental properties of the parabola (I: 11) and of the hyperbola and
ellipse (in the form of 1:21) are used on many occasions; but 1:12 and 1:13
are used only in 22e, 22h and 23e, 23h. Ibn al-Haytham often assumes
the propositions 1:17,32-37 on tangents (compare index). The results on
transition to another diameter (I :46-47) and the constructions of the conics
(I :52,54-57) underlie many of the solutions in the Completion (see 15.2 and
3b, 4a b, 13b, 21b, 28b).
Ibn al-Haytham often assumes elementary properties of the asymptotes
of the single-branch hyperbola (II: 1-4,8-14, see, for example, 50 r s, 7d 0).
Some of his conclusions are based on properties of intersecting chords of a
conic (II :5-7,29-30), but in a few cases it is not clear whether Ibn al-Haytham
was aware of this relation (for example, 7e, see note 7.8). Ibn al-Haytham
frequently assumes II :45-48, in which Apollonius shows how one can construct the centre and the axis (or axes) of a given conic. Finally, II :49-53
served in different respects as an example for Ibn al-Haytham (see 6.3,
7.2.1, 7.2.9?). In Id/2b, 12r/13e and 14c/15a Ibn al-Haytham bases his own
construction on II :49-51 in cases where this is unnecessary and even unnatural (notes 2.3, 13.11, 14.3).
Books III-VI are used with less frequency. III:37 is applied in
P11(30f, 311, note 30.7). The definition of the focus of an ellipse in 111:45
and the theorem III :52 are the basis of Ibn al- Haytham's solution of
P7(20-21, note 20.3). The only traces of Book IV are the concept concavity
(see Chapter 8) and IV :35, used in 41 (note 4.14) as well as in other instances.
In his work on the diorismos of P6, Ibn al-Haytham assumed the construction of a normal in V:4-11 (notes 19.4, 19.15; the text was revised by a
commentator). 15c-d resembles V:27 (note 15.5). Book VI is not used at all.
The absence of more traces of Books III-VI in the Completion does not
prove that Ibn al-Haytham had studied these Books only superficially.

The Completion and Conics VII

83

Except in the case of P4(12~ 13, see appendix to Chapter 14), the propositions in III ~ VI cannot serve to simplify Ibn al- Haytham's solutions or to
correct his errors. Note that references to V:34,61 occur in his Optics (Sabra,
Lemmas, 318 :29, see also 7.7). His Treatise on the Proposition of the Banii
Miisii implies that he studied VI :18, where the proposition of the Banii Miisii
is necessary (Ibn al-Haytham, Rasiioil, no. 6, p. 14:17~18).
The solutions of Pl(3~5), P2(6~ 7), P5(16~ 17) and Pll(30~31) are based
on VII:2~3, dealing with the homologue (notes 3.4, 3.6, 6.3,16.4,17.7,30.9).
In P8~1O(24~27) Ibn al-Haytham uses VII:12~13, 21~23 (see the index in
15.2). But the following aspects of the relation between the Completion and
Book VII are curious.
VII: 18 and VII: 17 suggest a simple construction of P8(24~ 25) and
P9(26~27i), by means of the construction of point M in Fig. 31 (3.3). However, Ibn al-Haytham did not follow the suggestion, but he took the trouble
to develop another construction of P8 and P9 based on VII:12~13 and
VII :21 ~23. The diorismos of P8(25k) is incomplete, although VII :43 immediately provides the complete diorismos (note 25.9). The proof of 27f
could have been avoided by a simple reference to VII:38 (see further note
27.7). The diorismos of P9(27i) is incorrect or at least incomplete, although
Ibn al-Haytham could have discovered the error simply by reading the first
few lines of VII:40 (quoted in note 27.10). In 28d Ibn al-Haytham uses VII:l
to prove the result of VII:5 (note 28.5). Thus one wonders how these features
of the Completion are to be explained.
In the preface (Oc) Ibn al-Haytham says that he "went through the seven
Books (of the Conics) many times", so it is difficult to maintain that he had
read only part of Book VII. However, it is clear that he was not really familiar
with the contents of Book VII. The most plausible explanation seems to be
that he did not have the full text of Book VII at his disposal when he wrote
the Completion. If he had had access to the entire Book VII, he would probably have consulted it, which would have saved him much time. He may
have had a summary of Book VII, which included VII:l~3,12~13,21~23;
it could have been part of Ibn al-Haytham's lost Summary of the Conics
(5.4).
To conclude this section I shall examine some of the sources of the
Completion other than the Conics.
The Conics contain many theorems on conics, but few constructions by
means of intersecting conic sections. It seems that Ibn al-Haytham was
inspired by another source in his constructions of Pl(3~4), P2(6~ 7) and
P5(16~ 17). These problems are reduced to the construction of points on a
line segment (the horizontal axis) which satisfy certain relations. Ibn
al-Haytham then considers a perpendicular erected at one of the points and
equal in length to a segment between two of the points. The relations between
the points on the line can then be interpreted as fundamental properties of
two conic sections passing through the endpoint of the perpendicular. Thus
in proposition 3 problem PI is reduced to the construction of T and F on

84

Other Sources of the Completion

'.

,I

Fig. 40

the rectilinear extension of the axis AME such that TE EA = Ep 2 and

Ap2 = c MT T A for a known constant c; A, M and E are known points
(Fig. 40). If the perpendicular CT = AP is erected, the two relations can be
translated into TE EA = (EA + CT)2, meaning that C is on a known
parabola, and CT 2 = c . MT . T A ,meaning that C is on a known hyperbola.
This procedure is also used in many Arabic constructions of the regular
heptagon, including four constructions in Ibn al-Haytham's own On the
Construction oj the Heptagon (Rashed, Heptagone, 340-377) and a construction which was invented by Abu Sahl al-Kuhi shortly after the year 970,
when Ibn al-Haytham was still a child (Samplonius, Siebeneck, compare
Anbouba, p. 369). In On the Construction oj the Heptagon (Rashed, H eptagone,
341: 10, 337: 10) Ibn al-Haytham refers to this construction of AI-Kuhi.
The reference does not prove that the Completion was influenced by this
construction of AI-Kuhi; but it is likely that in some source 7 Ibn al-Haytham
found a similar construction.
Further, Ibn al-Haytham's solutions of P3(S-9) and P6(lS- 19) are based
on the idea that for two given points D and E and for y =I 1 the locus of all
X in the plane for which DX/EX = y is a circle. This idea is found in earlier
sources (see note S.4), and it is likely that Ibn al-Haytham was somehow
influenced. Thus the solutions in the Completion are inspired by at least two
sources other than the Conics.

7 Ibn al-Haytham's procedure bears some resemblance to the constructions of two mean
proportionals by Menaechmus and Diocles, and the constructions by Diocles, Dionysodorus
and Archimedes( ?) of the auxiliary problem in On the Sphere and Cylinder 11 :4 of Archimedes.
These constructions have been preserved in Eutocius' commentary on On the Sphere and Cylinder,
see note 24 below. This commentary was probably unknown to Ibn al-Haytham when he wrote
the Completion , but it was known to AI-Kuht (cf. 7.6.2 and AI-Tust, Rasi'i/ II, no. 5, 125 :11 - 12,
Woepcke, Algebre, 113 and my footnote 9 to Chapter 6). The two above-mentioned constructions
of Diocles have also come down to us in the Ara bic translation of Diodes' On Burning Mirrors
(ed. and tf. Toomer, props. 8, 10, pp. 80- 86,90- 96).

Purpose of Analysis

85

7.4. Analysis in the Completion

7.4.1. I shall begin this section by recalling the purpose and method of the
orthodox Euclidean analysis of geometrical problems. This will serve as a
preliminary for the subsequent discussion of two irregularities in analyses
in the Completion; one concerns the confusion between analysis and synthesis
(7.4.2), the other concerns a change in the assumptions of the problem
(7.4.3). These irregularities occur only occasionally, so they are probably
due to the unfinished character of the Completion (6.5). Apparently Ibn
al-Haytham did not intend to change the classical form, as is confirmed by
his orthodox description of analysis in On Analysis and Synthesis (GAS
V,368,17; ms. Chester Beatty 3652,69b: 18-70a: 1).
The purpose of the analysis of a geometrical problem is to discover a set
of relations between the hypothetical solution of the problem and the data,
and then to work out a proof that these relations determine the solution(s).
In this proof one shows that the solution(s) can in principle be constructed,
or in the Greek and Arabic terminology, that they are given (odioIl8VOC;) or
known (maClfim). In the analysis one is not interested in the actual positions
and magnitudes of the segments, angles, etc. in the construction, but only
in the proof that they are given. The standard reference for such proofs is
Euclid's Data (Kitab al-muc!ayat, GAS V,116), which contains definitions of
the concepts given in size, given in shape, given in position, 8 etc. The Data
also provides theorems involving points, straight lines, circles and proportions, such as the following (Data 25): if two intersecting straight lines are
given in position, their intersection is also given in position.
Ibn al- Haytham mentions the Data in his On Analysis and Synthesis
(ms. Chester Beatty 3652,71a:38) and in On Known Things (S6dillot,
Materiaux 1,380, see also Chapter 8). The analyses in the Completion are also
based largely on the Data, although Ibn al-Haytham does not make any
explicit reference. But the Data does not contain theorems involving conics.
This may be one of the causes of the following irregularity in the analyses in
the Completion.
7.4.2. Two of the analyses in the Completion contain passages (Se, 16f)
whose proper place would be in the corresponding synthesis (9, 17). 16f is
really anomalous, because it is inconsistent with the rest of the analysis to
which it belongs. One could argue that the text in 16f was written by a
8 According to Euclid, a straight line is "given in position" if it always occupies the same place
(Data, Greek text, def. 4, tr. Thaer, p. 5). The Arabic version in the edition of Na~lr ai-Din
al-Tusl (Tus!, Rasa'i/ II, no. t, p. 2) adds: and if we can find its position. The modern reader
should be aware of the fact that in Greek geometry a line is always finite. Thus line PQ is known
in position means not only that the position of the indefinitely extended straight line I through

Q is known, but also that at least one of the endpoints P, Q is known. If P and Q were
both unknown, PQ could occupy different positions on I. Compare Completion 3h (TS), 6i
(EBT), IOf (GD, GA).
P and

86

On the Construction of the Heptagon

commentator. To show that this cannot be the case, I shall presently discuss
a similar passage in an analysis in On the Construction of the Heptagon of
Ibn al-Haytham. This text has been edited and translated by Rashed,
Heptagone.
In an attempt to rescue Ibn al-Haytham's text, Rashed made considerable
additions of his own to the analysis. The additions are in angular brackets
in the Arabic text (p. 361), but the usual distinction between text and additions was not made in the translation (p. 355). It will therefore be necessary
to quote the relevant passages in direct translation from the Arabic text.
I have compared the text with the Arabic manuscript Abf 1714 in Istanbul,
which seems to be the only extant manuscript of the treatise.
The relevant passage occurs in the analysis of the following auxiliary
problem: To construct a straight segment EBGD such that BD DG = BE2
and EG GB = GD 2 (Fig. 41). The size of the segment is of no importance
in the problem; this enables Ibn al-Haytham to make a convenient additional
assumption in the course of the solution.
Ibn al-Haytham supposes that the segment has been found. He chooses
K on EG such that KG = GD (KG < EG because EG GB = GD 2). Then
he draws the perpendicular KZ = KG, and he completes the rhombus
KGZT.9

Fig. 41
9

Rashed wrongly supposed that T is the fourth corner of the square with angular points G,

K.Z.

An Anomalous Analysis

87

One would expect the analysis to continue as follows: Through G draw a

perpendicular GL as in the figure, and through B draw perpendicular HBM
meeting GZ in M and such that HB = BE (this is the clue to the solution).
Then BD DG = BE2 = BH2, so the parabola with vertex D, axis DG and
latus rectum equal to DG passes through H. Further, HM . BG = EG . BG =
GD 2 = KZ KG, so the hyperbola through K with asymptotes LG and GZ
passes through H. We can assume that DG is given (see above). Thus the
two conics are also given, so H is given, etc.
But Ibn al-Haytham says, as if the analysis were the synthesis:

We erect in point G a perpendicular GL. We draw through point D the

parabola with axis line DB and latus rectum DG, let it be (conic) section
DH. We draw through point K the hyperbola with asymptotes lines ZG,
GL. This (conic) section intersects (conic) section DH because this (conic)
section, I mean the hyperbola, approaches line GL continuously, and
(because) the parabola intersects GL, then crosses it and moves away
from it. Let the conics intersect in point H. Then point H is beyond line
GL, I mean, on the (same) side of (GL as) point K,10 because the hyperbola is always beyond line GL. We draw from point H a perpendicular
HB, and we draw HE parallel to line ZG.
(my translation from Rashed, Heptagone, 361 :15-360:5. See remarks in my
footnotes and compare with Rashed's translation on 355 :4-23).
Ibn al-Haytham does not attempt to prove that the newly defined point
B coincides with the point B defined in the beginning. He continues:

If line GD is known, GK is known in size and position. Then figure

KGZT l l is known in size and shape. But point K is known, so the hyperbola is known in position. Because GD is known in size, the parabola is
known in position. So point H is known, and point B is known. This is the
point which solves the problem. 12
(Rashed, Heptagone, 360:5-8, tr. on 355:23-27).
The quoted passages correspond to 16f (in the style of a synthesis) and
16g-h (in the style of an analysis), respectively. Perpendicular HB corresponds to perpendicular NL in proposition 16. There Ibn al-Haytham
defines L at the beginning (16b); in 16f he defines N as a point of intersection
of two conic sections. In 16g he takes for granted that NL is a perpendicular.
The resemblance between the two "synthetical" passages in the two analyses
10 Rashed's emendation of the text to "on the side of point L" is wrong. The manuscript has
correctly "on the side of point K" (compare p. 360:4, footnote 146 in his edition).
11 I have emended the" KZT" in the manuscript and in Rashed's edition (360:6).
12 Rashed's emendation of mas'ala (problem) to muthallath (triangle) is wrong. Compare his
p. 360, footnote 140.

88

Tentative Explanation of two Anomalous Analyses

shows that neither of the two passages is due to a commentator or interpolator. We must now try to explain the presence of these passages in the
work ofIbn al-Haytham.
It is relevant that Ibn al-Haytham did not know any reference work in
the style of Euclid's Data, containing theorems on conics to be used in
analyses. 13 So he worked with rules which he derived from the constructions
of the conics in Conics 1:52-57 and II:4 (3.2). Because he wanted to stay
close to these constructions, he made his analyses fairly concrete; thus he
specified the latus rectum etc. of the relevant conics, and did not content
himself simply with proving that the latus rectum, etc. are known. In the
Completion he often draws the conics in the analyses, although it would be
sufficient to prove that they are known, i.e. can be drawn (compare 3f, 12j,
16f, 20b, exceptions: 30g, 3g). Thus the analyses of Ibn al-Haytham resemble
the syntheses, as far as conics are concerned. It is noteworthy that part of the
analysis in proposition 6 relating to conics is entirely avoided through a
reference to the synthesis (6h). However, the two anomalous passages in
16f and in On the Construction of the Heptagon call for a further explanation.
Since the other analyses in the Completion as well as in On the Construction of the Heptagon are phrased in the orthodox fashion, it is probable that
Ibn al-Haytham wrote the two anomalous passages due to inattention.
Hence one wonders what the cause of the two similar mistakes could be.
In my opinion the most satisfactory explanation is provided by the following
hypothesis.
In writing the Completion and On the Construction of the Heptagon, Ibn
al-Haytham used a notebook in which he had recorded the solutions immediately after he had found them. This notebook contained only essential
information, no elaborations of a purely formal nature. Thus it did not contain both analysis and synthesis of the same problem. It is probable that in
the case of the above-mentioned construction of EBGD, the notebook
contained only the definition of the points K and Z, the explicit description
of the parabola and the hyperbola and the proof that these conics intersect.
In moments of inattention Ibn al-Haytham must have copied the text in the
notebook, instead of rephrasing the argument.
This hypothetical notebook could also explain the superfluous additions
in the text of the Completion (such as 16e). Many of these superfluous additions are interesting in themselves, so Ibn al-Haytham could have recorded
them in the notebook for possible use later. When writing the Completion,
Ibn al-Haytham may have copied some of the superfluous additions in
moments of inattention (for example, 6c); at the moment of writing he may
have been unaware of the fact that other (larger) additions (such as 13k-I)
were superfluous. On the whole, the part of the Completion beginning with
proposition 6 gives the impression of having been written in some haste
(cf. 6.5).
13

Such as the lost Solid Loci of Aristaeus (fl. 330 B.C.), see Heath HGM II,! 18-119.

89

Analysis of P4( 12)

7.4.3. The analysis in proposition 12 contains another irregularity of a

different kind. First I shall recall the relevant parts of the solution, for the
ellipse only, for reasons of brevity. The problem in question is (Fig. 42):
Given an ellipse ~, a point B on ~ and a ratio IX, find another point A
on ~ such that the tangents to ~ at A and B intersect in a point D and
AD/BD = IX.
The notations will be the same as in Chapter 2 and in the text. Thus H
is the center of~, HN II BD, AK II HB, 0 is such that NK NO = NA 2 , and
d, rand ware the latus transversum, the latus rectum and the angle of arrangement corresponding to the diameter of ~ through B, so d = 2HB, w =
LDBF = LNHB.
Ibn al-Haytham assumes the problem solved, and he proves the following
identities:
AK2
d
(1)
,
HKKN
r

= w,

(2)

IX 2 NH.

(3)

LNAO
NO =

So A is a common point of an ellipse f with latus transversum N H, latus

rectum dr - 1 N H and angle of arrangement wand a segment of a circle ,2
through Nand 0, admitting angle w (i.e. such that LNPO = w for all P on
the segment).

F
Fig. 42

90

The Vicious Circle in P4(l2)

After these preliminaries we can proceed to the relevant passage in the

text. Ibn al-Haytham says at the end of the analysis:

If line NH is known in size and position, (conic) section HA (that is, ff)
is known in position. Then line NO is (also) known in size, so point A is
on the boundary of a segment of a circle (2) which is known in position.
So it is a known point. So line AN is known in position. So angle ANH is
known, so angle NFH is known (12q).
He concludes in 12r:

So line AF is tangent to the (conic) section and contains a known angle

with diameter HF. So point A is known.
12q is in itself correct. If NH is known, NO = ('J.2NH is also known, so
segment 2 is known. But if N H is known, the ellipse is also known, because
d/r and ware known. So A is known as a point of intersection of ff and 2,
hence all angles in figure NHOAFB are known. However, there is one
problem: point H is known, but N is unknown, since it depends on the
required tangent AD. So the text as it stands contains a vicious circle: the
proof that A is known is based on the assumption that N H is known, which,
in turn, is based on the assumption that A is known. Thus the analysis is
wrong as it stands, but the idea behind the reasoning is correct. The properties
(1), (2), (3) and

AKIIFH

(4)

determine the shape of the figure t/J consisting of N, A, F, H, K, 0 and the

curves ff and 2, but (1)-(4) do not determine the size oft/J. So we can detach
the construction oft/J satisfying (1) ... (4) from its original context, and solve
this auxiliary problem under a convenient additional condition involving
size (namely, that NH is known). In this way we construct in fact a figure
t/J' which is the image of t/J under a similarity (J whose ratio of magnification
depends on the solution of the problem. Since the angles in t/J' are equal to
the angles in t/J, we can subsequently construct t/J in the original figure.
The synthesis (13a-e) shows that this is essentially what Ibn al-Haytham
had in mind. There he constructs a figure t/J' consisting of points M, R, I, L,
X, J and curves ff' and 2', corresponding to t/J in the analysis. He begins
the construction by choosing an arbitrary known segment LM (which
corresponds to the unknown segment NH in the analysis). By means of t/J'
he constructs part of t/J in the original figure (not the curves ff and 2).
He proves D.NAK =D.MRX, D.NFH =D.MIL, HK/KA = LX/XR and
KN/NO = XM/MJ (Fig. 43), which amounts to saying that t/J' is similar to
t/J; but he does not say that t/J' and t/J are similar. This is not surprising in
view of the absence of any general concept of similarity in the geometrical
literature available to him. Similarity had only been defined for triangles and
(convex) polygons (Elements VI, equality of angles and proportionality of

Reduction to a Problem Concerning Shape

91

:z'

Fig. 43

corresponding sides), and for conics and segments of conics (Conics VI,
definition in terms of abscissae and ordinates).
It is probable that Ibn al-Haytham had some intuitive notion of the
similarity of 1/1 and 1/1', but he cannot have considered 1/1' as the image of 1/1
under a geometrical transformation. His idea is clearly: reduction of the
original problem to an auxiliary problem concerning shape (the terminology
is mine), solution of the auxiliary problem under a new assumption (12q),
followed by solution of the original problem (12r). Thus the difference
between 1/1 and 1/1' is in the first place a difference in assumptions, and only
in the second place a difference in scale.
Ibn al-Haytham had some difficulty in putting this reasoning in the form
of an orthodox analysis. This can be done, but only in an awkward way.
One could, for example, introduce the auxiliary figure 1/1' = MRILXJ into
the analysis. It is also possible to divide the analysis in two parts, the first
part ending with: "Thus the problem arises to construct NAFKHO such
that (1), (2), (3) and (4)" (i.e. the construction of 1/1 without ,ff and 2). The
second part would be the analysis of the construction of 1/1' by means of
,ff' and 2'. The modern mathematician would like to drop the (nonessential) condition in the original problem that the size of the ellipse C{/ be
given; then the figure consisting of C{/ and A would be given modulo a similarity. But this is not easily expressed in ancient terminology.
Reduction to a problem concerning shape is also a basic idea in other
instances in the work of Ibn al-Haytham. The most interesting example is
the problem of Alhazen (7.7). Some other examples follow here.

92

The Chapter on the Lemma for the Side of the Heptagon

In proposition lOin the Completion, the original problem is reduced to

the construction of a figure l/J = ATDGH such that AT II HD, AH = HG,
AD:DG = E:Z; l/J' = KTGLM is constructed in proposition 11.
Note that the problem mentioned in 7.4.2 to construct a segment EBGD
such that BD . DG = BE2 and EG . GB = GD 2 is also a problem concerning
shape (if we say that two segments EBGD and E'B'G'D' such that EB:BG: GD
= E' B' : B' G' : G'D' have the same shape).
A curious passage in 6h (note 6.7) suggests that Ibn al-Haytham reduced
the problem P2(6-7) to a problem concerning shape in an early stage of his
work on the problem.
In the Chapter on the Lemmafor the Side of the Heptagon Ibn al-Haytham
refers to a "lemma" tacitly assumed in the construction of the regular
heptagon attributed to Archimedes: to draw in a (given) square ABGD a
line BZHE as in Fig. 44 such that L"BZG = L"DHE (compare 5.4). Then
he gives an analysis of the following problem: to construct a square ABGD
and a line BZHE such that L"BZG = L"DHE. He extends AD to L such
that DL = AD. In the end he assumes that an auxiliary segment S = DE21EL
is given. The argument does not contain glaring inconsistencies such as are
found in proposition 12-13 of the Completion, because Ibn al-Haytham does
not explicitly say that AD is given. See Hogendijk, Heptagon, 226 -231 for
more details.
Reduction to a problem concerning shape was also used by earlier authors.
In this connection we should mention Apollonius in Conics 11:50-53 and
Abu Sahl al-Kuhl in a letter to his friend Abu Is~aq al-~abl (see GAS V,320,
no. 24).
In Conics 11:51, for example, Apollonius considers the following problem:
Given: A hyperbola with center E and vertex A, and an angle (J(. Required:
A tangent DG to the hyperbola as in Fig. 45 such that LDGE = (J(. The
problem is reduced to the construction of a figure l/J = EGHD such that
LGHE is a right angle, LEGD = (J( and (EHHD)IHG 2 = air, with
a = 2EA the axis of the hyperbola and r the corresponding latus rectum.
Apollonius first constructs a figure l/J' = ZKLT similar to l/J, starting with a
given segment ZT.

G
Fig. 44

93

Apollonius, AI-Kiihi

Fig. 45

It is likely that Ibn al-Haytham was influenced by Conics II:50-53 in his

reductions to problems concerning shape, because these propositions also
influenced many other aspects of the Completion (6.3, 7.3). In his analysis
in proposition 12, however, Ibn al-Haytham did not follow Apollonius, who
introduced the auxiliary figure l/J' already in the analysis in Conics II :51.
For reasons of brevity I shall not given the details of the (complicated)
construction by AI-Kiihl in his letter to AI-$ab1. 14 It is not clear to me whether
Ibn al-Haytham was influenced by this construction of AI-Kiihi (or by
other works of AI-Kiihi relating to problems concerning shape).

7.5. The Role of Constructions

7.5.1. In 6.3 we have seen that the motivation of the propositions in the
Completion was exclusively mathematical. These propositions have no
relevance whatsoever to other sciences or matters of everyday life. The same
is true for many other Greek (and Arabic) treatises in "higher" geometry,
including almost the entire geometrical oeuvre of Apollonius. The
geometrical constructions in these works were therefore theoretical procedures, taking place in the idealized Euclidean plane (or space) in the
geometer's imagination. Neither the author nor the reader was supposed to
work out the constructions by means of actual instruments, according to the
instructions in the text.
This theoretical character of the constructions in the Completion can be
perceived in different ways.
Ibn al-Haytham must have added the figures to the text in order to
demonstrate the relative positions of the points and lines, but not for the
14 An edition of the Arabic text of the entire extant correspondence between AI-Kiihi and AI-~iibi,
with English translation and commentary by J. L. Berggren is to appear in the near future.

94

Simplicity and Practical Feasibility Unimportant

purpose of providing mathematically exact representations. The impossible

positions of some of the curves (for example H K in the figure for proposition
30, see p. 310), the errors in the letters and the omission of the figure for
proposition 31 are clearly scribal errors. However, there is no reason to
assume that a scribe made deliberate changes in the figures. So Ibn
al-Haytham is probably responsible for the fact that in propositions 22, 23,
25 a single figure is used to describe two different cases.
In Ibn al-Haytham's autograph of the Conics (3.1) all conic sections are
drawn as circular arcs, even though Ibn al-Haytham explicitly states that
he drew the figures himself (see text and facsimile in Schramm, Ibn
al-Haytham's Weg XIV-XV). It is therefore likely that he also drew conics
as circular arcs in the Completion, somewhat like in the extant manuscript.
Several passages in the Completion suggest that Ibn al-Haytham's reasoning
was to some extent independent of the figure on the paper (for example 5n,
70 p, 13e, 13y, 30e).
It has already been mentioned (7.3) that the solutions of Pl(I-2),
P4(12-13) and P5(14-15) are based on Conics 11:49-50, although this is
unnecessary and even unnatural. By means of slight changes one no longer
needs the references; such changes also result in a drastic reduction of the
work which is necessary if the construction is to be performed in practice,
especially in the case of proposition 13 (note 13.11). Ibn al-Haytham probably
considered that the references to Conics 11:49-50 would add to the credibility
of the Completion as a reconstruction of the lost Book VIII. Thus he subordinated simplicity and practical feasibility of the constructions to his
desire to make the Completion a logical continuation of Book II.
7.5.2. The purpose of the constructions in the Completion is theoretical,
but proposition 31 shows that in Ibn al-Haytham's opinion finding the
solution of a problem and proving the existence of the solution are still two
different things.
In 31a-n Ibn al-Haytham constructs through a given point H on the
transverse axis of a given hyperbola a line HBG intersecting the hyperbola
in Band G such that BG is equal in length to a given segment w. In 310-r
he intends to prove that the problem can be solved for all w, so that no
diorismos is necessary. Now the orthodox procedure would consist of a
verification that all steps in the construction are possible for every w. However, Ibn al-Haytham begins with a heuristic argument which can be paraphrased as follows (Fig. 46): If HBG moves from the position of tangent HZ
to the position in which it is parallel to an asymptote of the hyperbola, BG
increases monotonically from zero to infinity. Ibn al-Haytham concludes in
31q:

for any line (w) having afinite magnitude, there canfall inside the (conic)
section a line being equal to it (i.e. a line HBG such that BG = w).

Construction vs. Proof of Existence

95

Fig. 46

The conclusion is based on a tacitly assumed principle of continuity, which

is stated more explicitly in works of Greek geometers and philosophers (for
example, Aristotle, see Steele, 347 for references).
Ibn al-Haytham continues :
If one follows in the drawing of the line (HBG)from point H the method
we explained above, then the part of it (the line) which falls inside the
(conic) section is equal to the assumed line (w). (31r).

So it seems that in Ibn al-Haytham's opinion the construction is necessary

to "find" the line, the existence of which is already guaranteed by other
arguments (see below).
This suggestion is confirmed and clarified by a later treatise of Ibn
al-Haytham, On the Quadrature of the Circle (Arabic text and German
translation in Suter, Kreisquadratur 1 5 , see Chapter 8 for the relative
chronology). In this treatise Ibn al-Haytham proves the existence of a
square which is equal in area to a circle with a given radius. The proof is
based on the following assumption: if A and B are areas of the same kind
such that B is part of A, and A is part of an integer multiple of B, and if c
is a line segment, then there exists a line segment d such that A: B = c: d.
The assumption is used in a case where A is a lune and B is a circle. The
required square is then constructed by means of d.

15 The title of Suter's paper Die Kreisquadratur des Ibn al-Haytham is not entirely appropriate,
because Ibn al- Haytham does not claim that his treatise contains a real quadrature of the circle.
The first part of his argument is not superfluous (contrary to what Suter asserts on p. 4 :5- 6),
but it serves to define a suitable ratio ;l ' B between two areas A and B which are as much as
possible of the same kind. This is why lbn al-Haytham did not want to choose a square A and
a circle B.

96

The Quadrature of the Circle

Ibn al-Haytham does not claim that his procedure is really a construction
of the square, but he promises to deal with the construction in a separate
treatise. It is not known whether Ibn al-Haytham ever wrote this treatise.
But the actual construction of the square is not necessary to prove its
existence. Ibn al-Haytham says:
The essences of the knowable notions do not require that one perceive
them or that they be actually produced. Nay, if the proofof the possibility
of the notion has been provided, the notion is sound, whether one has
actually produced it or not.

(Suter, Kreisquadratur, 40:32-37, 46:24-47:1, the Arabic text is also in my

footnote 16). The quoted passage bears some resemblance to a passage in
Aristotle's Categories, 7, 7b:27-33, quoted in Heath, Mathematics in Aristotle,
17. The notion in question is the required square.
In the argument in On the Quadrature of the Circle Ibn al-Haytham
considers it very important that the required square and all other quantities
be invariant, that is to say, uniquely determined by the radius of the circle.
So one may suppose that in his opinion the existence of the solution in 31q
in the Completion is guaranteed by the tacitly assumed axiom of continuity
and by the monotonicity of the increase and decrease of BG.
7.5.3. In the Completion Ibn al-Haytham only uses straight lines, circles
and conic sections as means of construction, as one would expect in a reconstruction of Conics VIII. In 31c, the construction of K as a point of
intersection of the conic HK with the perpendicular through I to the axis
can easily be done by means of ruler and compass. Thus the entire proposition
31 can be changed into a ruler-and-compass construction. It is highly
unlikely that Ibn al-Haytham would have overlooked this possibility if he
had had a strong preference for straight lines and circles over conic sections
as means of construction. So it seems that he did not have such a strong
preference. 1 7 Here we have another indication that he did not attach much
weight to the practical feasibility and simplicity of the constructions.
In all other works of Ibn al-Haytham which I have seen, the only means
of construction are straight lines, circles and conic sections. The title of his
lost Letter on the Proof of the Proposition which Archimedes used as a preliminary to the trisection of the angle (S.4) shows that he objected to the use
of neusis as a means of construction, as suggested by proposition 8 of the
al-ma'anll-ma'qiila laysa talJtiiju lJaqa'iquha ila wujiidi l-insan laha wa-ikhr7ijiha illi l-ji'l, bal
idhii qama I-burhiin 'ala imkani I-ma<na fa-qad ~a~~a dhi'ilika l-ma<na akhrajahu I-insan ila I-fi'l
am lam yukhrijhu.
16

17 A strong preference for ruler- and compass-constructions over constructions by means of

conics is expressed by Pappus in Collection III and IV (ed. Hultsch 54, 270-272, see Heath
HOM 11,362,385); these Books of the Collection were not translated into Arabic.

Means of Construction

97

Lemmata attributed to Archimedes (Heath, Archimedes, 309-310). However,

we know of a reference to another (lost) treatise ofIbn al-Haytham, in which
he may have used means of construction other than straight lines, circles
and conic sections. It is the Treatise on the Construction of Four Lines
between Two Lines, mentioned as item 111:29 by Ibn AbI 'V~aybi'a (ed.
Muller 11,98:4, see 5.1). The title suggests that the treatise contained a
construction of four mean proportionals between two given segments a and
b, that is to say, four segments Xl' ... , X4 such that a:xl = Xl :X2 = X 2 :X3 =
X3 :X 4 = x4:b. The construction of this problem is equivalent to the solution
of the equation xi = a4 b. Thus it can be seen that the problem in its general
form cannot be constructed by means of straight lines, circles and conic
sections.
Our suggestions on the contents of the above-mentioned treatise are
confirmed by 'Vmar al-Khayyam (1048-1131, DSB VII,323-334).
AI-Khayyam says in his Algebra that the solution of the equation X2 = ax- 3
is not possible by the methods we explained (i.e. conic sections), since it
requires the production of four lines between two lines, such that the six
lines are in continued proportion. This was explained by Abu 'All
ibn al-Haytham, may God have mercy upon him, but it is very difficult
and cannot be included in this book of ours.
(Arabic text in Woepcke, Algebre, 44:17-19, English translation in Kasir,
109:19-25.)

7.6. The Diorismoi

7.6.1. This section is about the diorismoi in the Completion. Below
(7.6.2) I shall pay attention to the elementary mistakes which Ibn
al-Haytham made in the diorismoi in propositions 5, 22 and 23. Mistakes
and skilful discussions occur sometimes in the same proposition, and are in
curious contrast. It will therefore be appropriate first to examine Ibn
al-Haytham's sources relating to diorismoi.
The extant books of the Conics are of secondary importance in this
respect. In the few problems that are found in the Conics, Apollonius deals
with the conditions of possibility, if any, but his discussions are unlike the
diorismoi in the Completion (compare, however, 7.6.2). Apollonius mentions the term diorismos and its derivatives only in the prefaces, but not in
connection with the actual diorismoi in the text; and the Arabic version
renders the word diorismos inconsistently (see note 4 to Chapter 4). Also in
Euclid's Elements diorismoi occur only occasionally, and no technical term
is used.

98

Meaning and Transmission of Diorismo~

However, Ibn al-Haytham often uses a technical term (taIJdld) for the
diorismos, and he even discusses in detail the instances in which no diorismos
is necessary (for example, 4h-m, 7n-p, 310-r). It is interesting to note that
Ibn al-Haytham also used the term diorismos (talJdld) for the entire discussion of the possibility and the number of solutions. Thus he says in 17i:
" The diorismos of this problem is that the two (conic) sections AN, EN intersect
under all circumstances". This means that no diorismos in the orthodox
sense (i.e. condition of possibility) is necessary. The change in terminology
shows that Ibn al-Haytham considered the explicit treatment ofthe diorismos
as an essential component of the solution of every problem. This suggests
that Ibn al-Haytham was influenced by sources other than the Conics and
Elements. I shall now attempt to identify these sources.
The transmission from Greek to Arabic geometry of the concept diorismos
has not yet received the attention of modern historians. It seems that the
role of the minor Apollonian works was predominant, in particular that of
On Cutting-Off a Ratio (Myou cX1toroJ.L~, qat al-khu!ii! 'ala I-nisab) and On
Cutting-Off an Area (xmpiou cX1toroJ.L~).
On Cutting-Off a Ratio is extant in an Arabic translation (GAS V,142,2)
which was translated into Latin by Halley (1706). The work deals with the
following elementary problem (Fig. 47). Given: Two lines I and m, a point
P on I and a point Q on m, a point R not on lor on m, and a ratio rx.:p. Required: To construct a straight line through R which intersects I in Land
min M such that PL:QM = rx.:p.
The problem is very exhaustively discussed using analysis, synthesis and
diorismos 18 for all possible positions of I, m, P, Q and R. The entire discussion extends over more than 100 pages in the Arabic ms. Aya Sofya 4830
which I have seen (See also Heath, HGM II,175-179).

Fig. 47
18 I have not found the term tahdld (diorismos) in the manuscript (Aya Sofya 4830,lb-51b)
which I have seen, but the text speaks about lJadd al-nisba (limit ofthe (given) ratio), for example
on f. 14b:18.

The Minor Apollonian Works

99

According to the information given by Pappus of Alexandria, On CuttingOff an Area contained a similar discussion of the problem to construct RLM
such that PL QM is equal to a given rectangle (ed. Hultsch 642-644;
Heath HGM 11,179). This work was also translated into Arabic (GAS V, 143,4,
see footnote 4 to Chapter 6) but the Greek and Arabic versions seem to be lost.
Following Halley, Zeuthen (Kegelschnitte, 350) argued that Apollonius
wrote On Cutting-Off a Ratio and On Cutting-Off an Area as introductory
works, to teach his students the art of solving problems correctly. In the
tenth century A.D. the works were thoroughly studied by the Arabic geometers. On Cutting-Off a Ratio seems to have been the more well-known of the
two. The following quotations give evidence of the influence of the minor
Apollonian works in the Arabic tradition.
The first quotation is from a letter by Ibrahim ibn Sinan (fl. 930,
GAS V,292-295) containing a conspectus of his own works. Ibrahim describes the subject of his treatise On the Method of Analysis and Synthesis
and the other operations in geometrical problems as follows:
the classification of problems, their analysis and synthesis, the imposing
of conditions (i.e. diorismos), the number of solutions of the problem, and
other things, which Apollonius used in all his (solutions of) problems
that are extant, in On Cutting-Off a Ratio and in other works.

(my translation from the recent edition by Saliba, for the Arabic text, see
note 19). The treatise by Ibrahim on analysis and synthesis is extant, and
has been printed (in Arabic) in IbrahIm ibn Sin an, Rasa'il, no. 2. It has not
yet been studied by modern historians.
Abu Sahl al-KuhI (fl. 970) says in his (unpublished) treatise Centres of
Circles Tangent to Lines, by way of Analysis (GAS V,319,9):
If we used division into cases and diorismos and (considered) the number
of (possible) positions of points in the way of Apollonius in some of his
books, then our book would be long. 20

19 ta~nlfu l-masa'il wa-tabllIuha wa-tarklbuha wa-I-ishtirat wa-'adadu khuriiji l-mas'ala wa(ms. ila) ghayru dhalika mimma kana Abuliiniyiis yasta'miluha fi kulli mas'alatin tiijadu lahu fi
qa!'i l-khu!ii! 'ala l-nisab wa-ghayri dhalika min al-kutub. (ed. Saliba, 200:17-19 = Ibrahim ibn
Sinan, Rasa'i/ no. 3,68 :5-6). The quoted passages form part on an autobiographical" letter by
Ibrahim ibn Sinan on the description of the notions he derived (i.e. the works he composed) in
geometry and astronomy" (GAS V,294,4) in ms. Bankipore 2468, f. lb, l3la-132b, which was
printed in Ibrahim ibn Sinan, Rasa'i/ no. 6 "Al-handasa wa 'Um al-nujiim" pp. 2-5 :7, continued
in no 3 "Kitab Ii ~arakati I-shams" 63 :4-end. Compare Hogendijk, Rearrangin.q, 143.
20 Ms. Paris, Bibliotheque Natiomlle, Fonds Arabe 2457,21a (on the ms. see De Slane, p. 431):
wa-idh ista'malna l-taqslm wa-I-tabdld wa-'adada wuqii'ati I-nuqa{ bi-{ariqi Abuliiniyiis fi ba'4i
kutubihi la-! ala l-kitab.

\00

Influence of On Cutting-Oila Ratio

There is no doubt that On Cutting-Off a Ratio was one of the works which
AI-Kiihl had in mind. On Cutting-Off a Ratio is also mentioned several times
by AI-Sijzl (fl. 970, GAS V,329-334).21
Ibn al-Haytham does not mention the minor Apollonian works in any
of his treatises which I have seen. But it seems to me that direct influence of
the minor Apollonian works can be attested in the Completion, in the first
place by a Graecism in the text. In 6i, 8f and 20c Ibn al-Haytham says that
the required line or point" does (or : constructs) the problem" ('amila I-mas' ala,
which I have translated as: to solve the problem "). This expression is a literal
translation of the Greek 1tOlEiv to 1tp6~All1tCX in Conics II:49-53.
The Arabic translation of the Conics renders 1tOlciv to 1tp6~All1tCX freely,
by means of an expression involving the verb arada "to want".22 However,
camila l-mas'ala occurs regularly in the Arabic translation of On Cutting-Off
a Ratio, apparently as a translation of 1tOlsiv to 1tp6PArfJllX in the lost Greek
origina1. 23 Note that camila l-mas'ala is not used by Ibrahim ibn Sinan in
his treatise On the Method of Analysis and Synthesis.
Secondly, influence of the minor Apollonian works may also be seen in
the diorismos in proposition 5, which resembles some of the diorismoi in
On Cutting-Off a Ratio (see note 5.2). The resemblance may have given
Ibn al-Haytham the idea that his diorismos was correct.
I conclude that Ibn al-Haytham was influenced by On Cutting-Off a Ratio
(or by another minor Apollonian work, now lost, containing similar terminology and similar diorismoi). The elaborate analyses, syntheses and
diorismoi in the minor Apollonian works may have been an additional
motive for Ibn al-Haytham to use analysis, synthesis and diorismos in his
reconstruction of Conics VIII. For our purposes it is relevant that Apollonius
does not use circles (or other curves) in On Cutting-Off a Ratio. Thus limiting

cases are not treated in connection with tangency of curves.

7.6.2. First I shall recall the errors in the diorismoi in propositions 5, 22
and 23, in notations derived from Chapter 2.
The number of solutions of the problems in question is the number of
common points of certain parts of two conics: in proposition 5 a parabola r!l'
and an equilateral hyperbola $'(0() (Fig. 48), in propositions 22-23 a given
conic ~ and an ellipse 8(Z) (Fig. 49). $'(0() and 8(Z) depend on a given ratio 0(
or a given segment Z, but r!l' and ~ are independent of 0( and Z, respectively.
All hyperbolas $'(0() pass through a point M and have one asymptote in

211n the Book by A~mad ibn Mu~ammad ibn 'Abdaljali/ (al-Sijzl) on the exquisite problems
(al-masa'i/ al-mukhtara) which were currently being discussed between him and the geometers of
Shiraz and Khorasan" (GAS V,333,23) ms. Istanbul Re~it 1191, f. 36a, 41a:11.
22 Conics II:50: ,; rLl iXPIX 1tou:i to 1tp6~A.1H11X (ed. Heiberg 1,298:2) = fa-khatr GD huwa
I-khatru Iladhl aradna (ms. Aya Sofya 2762,88a:20) II:51 KlXl IXUti'J 1tOl,;crEl to 1tp6~A.ru.l1X (304:24)
= wa-dhalika ma aradna an nubayyina (ms. Aya Sofya 2762,90a :5). II :49'; AH 1t01Ei to 1tp6~A."111X
(278:27): omitted in the Arabic version (f. 84a in ms. Aya Sofya 2762).
23 See Glossary, 15.1, no. 69.

Similarity of Errors in PI(5), P7(22-23)

101

Fig. 48

common. The ellipses f!(Z) are confocal, with foci on the axis of ~. The
reader is referred to Chapter 2 for more details.
Ibn al-Haytham proves that in the special case IX = 1X1 (Z = Z 1) the two
conics pass through a special point P. In proposition 5, P is the point of
contact (C in Chapter 2 and the text) of the tangent to (!J through M. In
propositions 22-23 P is the endpoint of the minor axis of f!(Z 1) (in Chapter 2,
P = M'). He proves that there is a second point of intersection
pi (Pi = C2 , 0 1 , 11 , respectively), so there must be two solutions of the
problem if IX = 1X1 (Z = Zl).
If IX > 1X1 (or Z > Zl) the conics also meet in two points, so the problem
has two solutions. But Ibn al-Haytham believed that the conics do not have a
common point if IX < 1X1 (Z < Zl). As a matter of fact, there is an 1X0 < 1X1
(Zo < Zl) such that (!J and ff(lXo) (~and f!(Zo are tangent. The problems
have one solution if IX = 1X0 (Z = Zo), and two solutions if IX > 1X0 (Z > Zo).
Finding Zo could have been easy for Ibn al-Haytham (notes 22.14, 23.18).
Ibn al-Haytham's mistakes point to a lack of insight into the graphical
representation of the conics (compare 7.5.1). Note that the hyperbolas
ff(lX) are not drawn in the figure for proposition 5 in the text. ~ is drawn very
incorrectly in the figures for propositions 22-23 in the manuscript (see p. 308).
I shall postpone further conclusions, and first compare the propositions
5 and 22-23 in some more detail. These propositions differ in two respects:
(i)

Proof of the existence of the second point of intersection pi in the case

(Z = Z 1). In 5p the existence of pi is proved by means of the
tangent to (!J at P. In 22i-m, 23i-o the ordinate through P' is explicitly
constructed (it intersects the axis in 0 in prop. 22, I in prop. 23).
IX = 1X1

Fig. 49

p'

Ibn aI-Haytham's Ideas About Tangency

102

(ii)

Discussion of the case IX < 1X1 (Z < Zl)' In 5v-y Ibn al-Haytham
provides an incorrect proof that fljJ and .)f(Il() do not meet. In 23c Ibn
al-Haytham states explicitly that the problem has no solution (i.e.
that 8(Z) and CC do not meet), but he does not attempt to prove this
statement. 22a implies that the problem has no solution for Z < Z 1,
but Ibn al-Haytham does not explicitly say so, and again there is no
proof.

It is not clear to me whether these differences have any "deeper" meaning.

An explicit construction of pi in proposition 5 is possible but difficult
(compare note 5.25, in which pi = C 2 ). The existence of pi in propositions
22-23 is easily proven if one draws the tangents to CC and 8(Z 1) at P (Fig. 49).
The assumption that Ibn al-Haytham discovered pi in this way could be the
basis of interesting further speculations. However, we must be careful with
such assumptions, because ideas which seem obvious to use were not
necessarily obvious to Ibn al-Haytham.
For example, his ideas on tangency explained in the Commentary on the
Premises of Euclid's Elements are quite different from ours. In his discussion of
tangent circles Ibn al-Haytham imagines two circles approaching each other
till they are tangent, and then moving away from each other. He says:

If the place (maw(jiC) of contact were one point, that point would divide
upon the separation (iftiraq) of the two circles. But a point cannot be
divided, therefore the place of contact of two tangent circles is not one
point. It is, then, two points, a point in each of the two circles (Sude, 127).
He adds:

The two points have no distance between them (Sude, 12S). Two joined
points, then, are dealt with as one point (Sude, 133).
At the end of his discussion of tangency he explains:

The place of contact is one point in position (waqC), but two points by
annexation (iqafa); one of the two annexed points being the end (nihaya)
of the circle and annexed to it, and the other the end of the straight line and
annexed to it (Sude, 135).
We note that for Euclid and Ibn al-Haytham, the circle is the part of the plane
enclosed by and including the curve which we call circle, cf. definition 15 of
Book I of the Elements.
Ideas similar to those in the quoted passages can also be traced in the
Completion. The term" place of contact" is used in Oe, Sa. In 21e, an ellipse

Tangency and Limiting Cases in Greek Geometry

103

Fig. 50

8 which is tangent to a conic ~, is said to be "entirely outside" f{?, even

if 8 and ~ are tangent (note 21.10). In the first and second figure for
propositions 18 and 19 one single point is denoted by two letters A and E;
do these letters refer to "two points with no distance between them"?
To return to the mistakes in the diorismoi, we should, for sake of completeness, take account of the diorismos of proposition 19, which contains
a germ of the truth. In note 19.4 I argue that the text was rewritten by a
commentator on the basis of a draft diorismos by Ibn al-Haytham. In this
draft Ibn al-Haytham may have observed that a circle with centre H on the
axis of a conic as in Fig. 50 only meets the conic if its radius is not less than
the "shortest line" (i.e. a normal) through H to the conic (note 19.15). If
my hypothesis is correct, the draft diorismos was probably added some time
after the extant version of the Completion was finished (cf. Chapter 8 and
6.5).
When Ibn al- Haytham wrote the Completion, he was obviously unaware
of a limiting case, in which the conics are tangent and the problem has one
solution. This mistake is surprising, because such limiting cases were handled
correctly in Greek geometry in the third century B.C., e.g. in the construction
of a normal to a given conic ~ through a given point P inside ~ in Conics
V: 51-52. Apollonius constructs a second point pi on the desired normal as a
point of intersection of ~ and a certain hyperbola Yf. In the limiting case
(P on the evolute of ~), however, pi can be constructed by means of ruler
and compass. So Apollonius did not mention Yf in this case (nor in the case
that the construction is impossible, cf. V:44); thus Ibn al-Haytham did not
realize that if Yf were drawn, it would be tangent to ~.
But there exists a Greek text in which the relation between tangency of
conics and a diorismos is explained in detail. This is the commentary by
Eutocius (fl. A.D. 510) on On the Sphere and Cylinder II of Archimedes. The
commentary was translated into Arabic by Is}:liiq ibn J:Iunayn (830-910,
GAS V,273), and the Greek text as well as the Arabic translation are extant. 24
24 The Greek text was edited by Heiberg (Archimedes, vol. III). The Arabic text is available in
the edition (ta!;r!r) by Na~ir ai-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274) of Archimedes' On the Sphere and
Cylinder, printed in Tusi, Rasa'il II, no. 5. The part relating to On the Sphere and Cylinder 11:4
has been discussed several times, for example, in Heath HGM 11,45-49 and better in Heath,
Archimedes. 65-79.

104

Tangency and Limiting Cases, A.D. 900-1150

In 5.4 reference has been made to the fact that Archimedes bases his
construction in On the Sphere and Cylinder II: 4 on the solution of an auxiliary
problem. Archimedes mentions the problem in a restricted form, necessary
in the construction, but also in a more general form, equivalent to a cubic
equation x 2 (a - x) = c for arbitrary given a, c > 0. But the text does not
give the solution. Eutocius provides two solutions of the restricted problem
by Diocles and Dionysodorus, and a solution of the general problem, which
he attributes to Archimedes. The general problem is solved by means of the
intersections of a parabola and a hyperbola, and the diorismos (equivalent
to c ~ 2\a 3) is derived by means of an investigation of the case in which the
two conics are tangent. (The restricted problem does not require a diorismos.)
Ibn al-Haytham's mistakes show that he probably did not know Eutocius'
commentary. This is confirmed by his own treatise on (the restricted form of)
the auxiliary problem (5.4), in which he does not refer to solutions by other
geometers. In geometrical treatises Ibn al-Ha ytham usually refers to works
written by his predecessors on the same subject.
The errors of Ibn al-Haytham are also striking in comparison with the
work of some of his contemporaries. AI-Kiihl (fl. 970) derived a non-trivial
diorismos by means of tangent conics 25 in his treatise On Filling the Gap in
the Second Book of Archimedes, mentioned in 6.3. The above-mentioned
general form of the auxiliary problem in On the Sphere and Cylinder 11:4
had been restated in the form of an equation x 3 + c = ax 2 by AI-Mahan!
(fl. 860, GAS V,260-261). Abu I-Jiid (fl. 980, GAS V,353-355) constructed the
(positive) roots of the equation by means of a parabola and a hyperbola. In
order to determine the diorismos, he attempted to find out when the conics
are tangent, but he made a mistake and arrived at the condition c ~ a 3 /8.
'Vmar al-Khayyam (1048-1134) noted the mistake, but he was unable to
find the correct condition. He stated the diorismos in the following way:
If c < a 3 /8, or c = a 3 /8, the conics intersect in two points, so the equation
has two (positive) roots.
If c > a 3 /8, the conics intersect, or they are tangent, or they do not have a
common point; so the equation has 2, 1 or roots.26
Thus AI-Kiihl, Abu I-Jiid and 'Vmar al-Khayyam knew, unlike Ibn
al-Haytham, about the relation between diorismoi and tangency. It appears,
incidentally, that Abu I-Jiid and 'Vmar al-Khayyam were also unaware of
Eutocius' commentary, which contained the correct diorismos c ~ 4a 3 /27.

See the references in 6.3 and in footnote 9 to Chapter 6.

This information on Abu I-Jud, AI-Mahan! and 'Vmar al-Khayyam can be found in 'Umar
al-Khayyam's Algebra edited by Woepcke, Algebre (see Arabic text pp. 2, 26-28, 48-50);
translated into English by Kasir (see pp. 43, 80-83, 117-121).
25

26

UenmtlOn 01 the Problem 01 Alhazen

105

7.7. The Completion and the Problem of Alhazen

Ibn al-Haytham devoted Book V of his Optics to a mathematical investigation of reflection in convex and concave spherical, cylindrical and conical
mirrors. One of his purposes is the construction of all points of reflection
for given positions of the eye and the object. In the case of the spherical and
cylindrical mirror this construction amounts to the solution of the following
geometrical problem (compare 5.3):
Given: A circle with centre D, and two points K and 0, either inside
(Fig. 51) or outside the circle. Required: All points T on the circle such that
LKTD = LDTO.
The problem had already been solved by Ptolemy in his Optics for the
easy case KD = DO (Fig. 52)27. Ibn al-Haytham's solution for the general
case KD i= DO is long and hard to read, but it is a formidable achievement,
which was unequalled until a number of seventeenth-century mathematicians,
including Huygens,28 found new methods to solve the problem. These
mathematicians coined the term "problem of Alhazen" (the medieval Latin
form of AI-J:Iasan, Ibn al-Haytham's first name).
References like V: 82 will be to propositions in Risner's edition of the
medieval Latin translation of the Optics (1572, reprinted in 1972). A good
summary, based on the Arabic text ofthe Optics, is to be found in Na~if(1943);

Fig. 51

Ptolemy, Optics (ed. Lejeune), 157-160, 180- 185 (= Book IV,26- 32, 84-97).
A good description of Huygens' solutions is in the paper of Lohne (1970). Further references
can be found in Sabra, Lemmas, 300.
27

28

106

Lemmas for the Problem of Alhazen

T1
Fig. 52, ca e KD = DO (Ptolemy).

unfortunately the work of Na?lf has never been translated and is not easily
available. The edition of the Arabic text of Books IV-VII of the Optics and
the English translation by A. I. Sabra will appear in the near future (thus far
only the Arabic text of Books I-III has appeared).29 Sabra has already
published six lemmas to Ibn al-Haytham's solution in English translation
with commentary (Sabra, Lemmas, 1982).
The present section is not concerned with the entire solution, but only
with aspects of it which are relevant for the Completion. Ibn al-Haytham's
solution of the "problem of Alhazen" is based on several auxiliary constructions of considerable length. Reduction to a problem concerning shape
(as in 7.4.3) is a basic idea in two stages of the argument: V:33 (=Sabra,
lemma I) and V:39 (discussed by Sabra on pp. 301-302). This principle also
underlies V: 37 (= Sabra, lemma V), a construction which is not directly
related to the problem of Alhazen.
The Optics does not contain real analyses, possibly because Ibn al-Haytham
wanted to avoid confused passages such as we discussed in 7.4.3. Thus
V: 33,37 and 39 are syntheses like proposition 13 in the Completion. However,
V: 82 resembles an analysis; it will be shown below that the text is confused
just like proposition 12q-r in the Completion.
First I shall discuss V: 34 because of its interest for 7.4.3 and for the
diorismoi in 7.6.2. In V: 34 (Sabra, lemma II) Ibn al-Haytham solves the
following problem (Fig. 53):
Given: A diameter BG of a circle, a point A on the circle and a segment HZ.
Required: A straight line AED which intersects BG in E between Band G, and
29 Professor Sabra kindly showed me the Arabic manuscript Istanbul, Fatih 3215, which contains Book V of the Optics.

107

Construction of the Neusis (Optics V,34)

Fig. 53

which meets the circle in D such that ED = HZ.30 The Greeks would have
called the construction of ED a neusis, i.e. the insertion of a segment of given
length (HZ) between two given lines (BG and the circle) such that the
rectilinear extension of the segment passes through a given point (A).
Ibn al-Haytham's construction is as follows (Sabra, Lemmas, 309-310,
318-320; Optics ed. Risner, pp. 144-145): Draw a parallelogram HTZK
such that L THZ = LBGA and LKHZ = L GBA (thus HTZK is actually
a rectangle). Draw the hyperbola through T with asymptotes HK, KZ, and
draw its opposite branch.
Draw a circle with centre T and radius equal to BG. Let S be a common
point of this circle and the opposite branch (for the diorismos see below).
Draw TFQS and draw MZL II TS as in the figure. Then MZ = TQ and
ZL = TF = QS (Conics II: 16), so ML = TS = BG. Construct point D on
the circle with diameter BG such that LBGD = LMLH, and draw BD,
DEA as in-the figure. Then LZHM = LAGB = LEDB and LZHL =
LABG = LEDG by Elements III:21. S06BGDCXJ6MLH and6BED CXJ
6MZH. Since ML = BG it follows that HZ = DE as required.

30 The same problem is solved (for an arbitrary chord BG) in the Collection of Pappus, IV :42-44
(ed. Hultsch 298-302, Heath HGM 11,386-388). Pappus does not provide a diorismos (see for
the diorismos Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte, 274-275).
The construction and diorismos in V:34 recall the title of a lost work of Ibn al-Haytham
(111:81 in Ibn Abl 'U~aybi'a, ed. Miiller 11,98:24): the Treatise on the Greatest of the Lines
which fall in a Segment of a Circle. Note that the maximum straight segment contained in a
segment of a circle is trivially seen to be the base of the segment or the diameter of the circle,
so one would not expect Ibn al- Haytham to devote a whole treatise to this subject. It is likely
that he imposed a further condition, for example, that the rectilinear extensions of the line
segments pass through a given point A on the circle but outside the segment (Fig. 54). The
maximum line segments satisfying this condition can be found by a slight generalization of
Optics V:34. It is conceivable that the above-mentioned treatise of Ibn al-Haytham contained
this generalization (in which HTZK is really a parallelogram).

108

Diorismos of Optics V,34

,,

'~\

"

_ - Y.A
Fig. 54

To facilitate the rest of the discussion put a = IBG I, P= L ABG,

IHZI. To find the solution, Ibn al-Haytham may have
argued essentially as follows: Since L BDE = y and L GDE = P we can
concentrate on the construction of triangle BGD and line DE. We can restate
this problem as follows: to construct triangle D'B'G' and line D'E' such that
LB'D'E' = y, LE'D'G' = p, B'G':D'E' = a:c; this (auxiliary) problem only
concerns shape. Ibn al-Haytham then solved the auxiliary problem on
the additional assumption that D'E' be equal to HZ, a segment of length c
drawn at random in the plane. However, there is difference between this
solution and the solutions discussed in 7.4.3. In the solutions in 7.4.3
Ibn al- Haytham changed the assumption about size, but in V: 34 he only
changed the assumption about the position of the figure, for the sizes of
1/1 = BDGE and 1/1' = MHLZ are the same. In anachronistic terms: 1/1' = pr(l/I)
for a rotation p and a translation r both depending on the solution of the
problem.
A second aspect of V: 34 which is of concern to us is the diorismos.
Ibn al-Haytham says that there are 2, 1 or 0 solutions if BG is greater,
equal or less than the" shortest line" (i.e. the normal) than can be drawn
through T to the opposite branch. For the construction of this normal he
refers correctly to Conics V: 34 and 61 (Sabra, Lemmas, 318: 29). He clearly
says that if BG is equal to the shortest line, S must be the point of contact of
the circle and the opposite branch (Sabra, Lemmas, 318:30-37). The correct
diorismos of V: 34 and the incorrect diorismoi in the Completion (7.6.2)
suggest that the Optics is a later work than the Completion ; see Chapter 8.
I shall now discuss the resemblance between the end of V: 82 and 12q-r in
the Completion (see 7.4.3). My principal reason for doing this is the fact that
this resemblance puts Ibn al-Haytham's authorship of the Completion beyond
any doubt (cf. 5.5). My notations resemble those in the Latin text of V: 82,
which is to be found on pp. 176-178 of Risner's edition of the Optics. I shall
only discuss the relevant parts, making considerable simplifications in the
details ofIbn al-Haytham's reasoning. I begin with some preliminary remarks.
V: 82 is concerned with the problem of Alhazen for points K and a inside
the circle, not collinear with the centre D (Fig. 55), such that KD = aD.
Without loss of generality we may assume KD > aD. The two diameters
y = LAGB, c =

Solution of the Problem of Alhazen: Optics V,82

109

through K and through 0 and the bisector of L KDO divide the circle into
six arcs K, A., J.l, v, ~ and <p as in Fig. 55.
One is interested in finding points T on the circle such that
LKTD = LDTO. Ibn al-Haytham knew that there are no such points on
arcs J.l, ~ and <p, and that there is precisely one such point on each of the arcs
v and K. The number of required points on arc A. is 0,1 or 2, depending on the
positions of K and O.
Let a be the angle sub tending arc J.l. Ibn al-Haytham knew also that
LKTO < a for the solution T on arc K, and LKTO > a for the possible
solutions T on arc A..
The purpose of V: 82 is: to prove that there cannot be more than two
solutions T on arc A. (or: such that LKTO > a). Ibn al-Haytham assumes
that T is such that LKTO > a and LKTD = LDTO. To facilitate the
further discussion I put a = KD, b = OD, r = TD, the radius of the given
circle. The following points will be relevant (Fig. 56):
-F:

-E:
-Z:
-Q:
- H:

the second point of intersection of the circle 3 ! through D, 0, T and

line KD. Because b :t= a, F ~ K. We have LKTO > a = 1800 LKDO = LFTO so K is outside the circle.
the point of intersection of FK and the bisector of LFTK.
the point on TE extended such that KZ II TF.
the midpoint of TZ.
the point of intersection of T D extended and KQ extended (it will
be shown below that TD and KQ are not parallel).

Since LKTD = tLKTO and LKTE = tKTF, we have

LETD

= !FTO

so

LETD

= ta.

(1)

T
Fig. 55
31

This circle is my simplification. Ibn al-Haytham draws other circles, which I have omitted.

First Figure of Optics V,82

110

Fig. 56

Since LKZE = LETF = LETK, we have

KZ = KT so

KQ.1 QT.

(2)

So TD and KQ are not parallel, because LETD = til < 90.

Since TEbisects LKTFand TD bisects LKTO, we have by ElementsVI:3
FE
EK

FT
TK

and

TL
TK

DL
DK

Therefore
TE
EZ

FE
EK

FT TL
OD
FT
OD DL
b
=-.-=-.-=-=-;
TK
TL TK
DL DK
DK
a

we have used the point of intersection L of TO and KD and the similarity

of triangles LOD and LFT. If TO II KD, the proof of
TE
EZ

b
a

is still easier. Since b < a, E is between Q and T, and

QE
TE

a - b

lb'

(3)

Note that the shape (but not the size) of QETH is entirely determined by
(1), (2) and (3).

Second Figure of Optics V,82

111

Ibn al-Haytham draws the bold lines in Fig. 56 again in a second figure
(Fig. 57).32 In this second figure he continues as follows: Draw EX II QH to
meet THin X, and circumscribe a circle about E, X, T. Since TQ .1 QH, also
TE .1 EX, so TX is a diameter of the circle. Draw EH. Three more points
have to be defined:
- M:
-F 1:

- I:

the common point of KD extended and the circle.

the point on arc ETsuch that LEXF 1 = LEHD (the text calls "this
point F, but I prefer F l' to avoid confusion with F in Fig. 54).
the point of intersection of T X and F 1 M.

Note that the shape of the figure 1/1 consisting of Q, H, X, T, F 1, E and the
circle, is completely determined by a, band 0(.
Since X, E, Fl and Mare concyclic, LEMFI = LEXF 1 = LEHD, so
6EHD =6IMD, hence
EH
MI

HD
MD

-=-

But X, E, Tand Mare concyclic, so 6EXD

6TMD, so
HD
MD

KD
DT

= 6TMD, hence 6KHD =

a
r

Hence
EH
MI

- = -,
r

and we are nearly done.

Fig. 57
32 In the Arabic version the second figure also contains lines KZ, QZ and DO. My second
figure is as in the Latin text.

112

Confused end of Optics V,82

At the end of V:82 Ibn al-Haytham remarks that the ratio KDjDT is
known. He argues that EH is known; it follows (from EHjMl = KDjDT)
that 1M is known. He then says that point F 1 is known (the Arabic text says
that this is so because arc F 1 E is known, which, in turn, is a consequence of
the fact that angle F1XE is equal to the known angle THE).33
He concludes that not more than two lines F 11M can be drawn such that 1
is inside the circle. The conclusion is based on V: 34, discussed above.
However, it is simply wrong to say that the size of EH and the position
of F are independent of T; they do in fact depend on T.
The reasoning can be corrected as follows: fix a segment c = Q'T' at the
very beginning. Instead of Fig. 57 draw E'Q'H'T' similar to EQHT in the
original figure, and complete the construction of the figure 1/1' (consisting
of Q', H', X', T', F'l' E' and a circle) following the instructions for 1/1. 1/1' is
uniquely determined by a, b, c, IY. and independent of T, so F~ and E' H' are
33 The Latin version differs in a curious way from the Arabic. The Latin text runs: "But the
ratio of KD to DT is known because it always remains one and the same, for any point of reflection T on arc BG, because line TD is always the same, and similarly KD. Line Ell also remains
the same for any (point of) reflection whatever, and its size does not change. So line 1M will
always be the same, so point F is known and determined" (ed. Risner 178: 39-50: Sed proportio
kd ad dt nota quoniam semper una et eadem permanet, quodcunque punctum reflexionis sit t in
arcu bg: quia semper linea td est una: et kd similiter. Linea etiam eh una in quacunque reflexione
permanet, et non mutatur eius quantitas. Quare linea im semper erit una: quare punctum f notum
et determinatum. I have omitted Risner's additions to the text).
The expression "so point F" (quare punctum!) refers to the point Fl' The word "so" (quare)
is obviously a mistake of the translator; "but" (sed) would be correct. The translator apparently
misinterpreted a wa- (" and, but") in the Arabic manuscript he had as a fa- (" so ").
The Latin text recalls Ibn al-Haytham's definition of "known" as "invariant" in his treatise
On Known Things (see p. 117). It is surprising that the additions "because it always remains one
and the same" (for KD:DT), and the other additions which resemble Ibn al-Haytham's definition of "known" are not found in the Arabic text in ms. Fatih 3215 of Book V of the Optics.
Did the translator add these passages, or did he have a version of Book V of the Optics which
differed from the text in ms. Fatih 32157
The following passage in the Arabic text corresponds to the passage in the Latin text quoted
above: "The ratio of llD to DM is the ratio of KD to DT, which is known. But the ratio of
llD to DM is the ratio of Ell to 1M, so the ratio of Ell to 1M is known, and Ell is known, so
1M is known. Line M I is between diameter XT and the circumference of the circle, and point
F 1 is below line X T on the circumference of the circle, and arc EF 1 is known, because angle
MEFl is equal to the known angle EllK. So point FI is known, and line FIlM issues from it
(F 1) such that line 1M is equal to a known line. So the figure becomes the third proposition of
the lemmas we set out previously." (ms. Istanbul, Fatih 3215, 298a:II-298b:5; Arabic text:
Fa-nisbatu llD ila DM nisbatu KD ila DT al-ma'luma wa-nisbatu llD ila DM nisbatu Ell ita
IM,fa-nisbatu Ell ila 1M ma'lUmatun, wa-Ell ma'lUmun,fa-IM (ms. wa-I) ma'lUmun. Wa-kha!!u
MI huwaflma bayna qu!ri XT wa-bayna mubl!i l-da'ira wa-nuq!atu FI tabta kha!!i XT wa-'ala
mubl(i l-da'ira wa-qawsa EFI ma'lumatun Ii-anna zawiyatu MEFl musawiyatun li-zawiyati
EllK al-ma'lUma. Fa-nuqratu F 1 ma'lUmatun wa-qad kharaja minha khanu F 11M batta ~ara
khaHu 1M mithla khanin ma'lUmin, fa-ta~lru hiidhihi l-~ura hiya l-shakla l-thalith min
al-muqaddamati llatl qaddamnaha.) I have transcribed qaf as K, ~ad (orqiid7) as X and fa' as
F 1 for sake of consistency of the notations. The reader should bear in mind that the Latin version
is not a translation but a paraphrase of the Arabic version.

Resemblance Between Optics V,82 and Completion P4(12)

113

known. This is apparently what Ibn al-Haytham had in mind, but he did
not give a correct explanation of the relation between the original figure and
11/.34 So the idea remained at an intuitive, unformalized level. Thus in the
presentation, the original figure t/J and auxiliary figure t/J' are confused in the
same way as in 12q-r in the Completion (7.4.3). The resemblance in method
and in the type of confusion in Optics V:82 and Completion 12q-r shows
clearly that the two works were written by the same author, so it completes
the argument in 5.5.
The confusion in 12q-r may be related to the preliminary character of
the Completion. So one might well ask whether V: 82 (and possibly also other
technical geometrical parts of the Optics) did not receive the final touch
either. If this were the case, it could for example explain the absence of a
construction of T on arc Ie in Fig. 55, and certain other peculiarities. These
matters certainly deserve further investigation.

7.8. Conclusion
The preceding sections have shown that style and method of the
Completion are modelled on the Greek example. Deviations from the Greek
tradition occur, but they can often be related to improper transmission
(7.2.8, 7.6.2), to the fact that the orthodox presentation did not exactly
correspond to the way Ibn al-Haytham worked (7.4.2), and, of course, to
the preliminary character of most of the Completion (6.5).
A number of Ibn al-Haytham's predecessors and contemporaries were
also working in the field which is of concern to us, i.e. the part of Arabic
geometry directly related to Apollonius' Conics and the minor Apollonian
works. The most competent of these geometers were perhaps IbrahIm ibn
Sin an (ft. 930), AbU Sacd ai-CAl a' ibn Sahl (ft. 950 GAS V,341-342) and
Abu Sahl al-Kuhl (ft. 970, also called shaykh ca~rihi fi ~in{lati l-handasa,
"master of his age in the art of geometry ".35 These three geometers have in
common with Ibn al-Haytham their close adherence to Greek style and
The Latin text has: "Let the figure be changed because of the intricacy of the lines" (ed.
Risner 178:21-22: et mutetur figura propter intricationem linearum). The Arabic text is more
specific: "We single out triangle HTQ with line TEZ and with (point) 0 (and) triangle TKZ,
in order that the figure be clearer" (ms. Istanbul, Fatih 3215, 297b:9-10: wa-nufridu muthallatha
HTQ al-qa'imata l-zawiya maca khani TEZ wa-ma'a 0 (wa-ma'a) muthallathi TKZ li-takuna
l-~ura abyana). I have transcribed kaf as Q and qaf as K for sake of consistency.
35 by Abu I-Iud (fl. 970) in his Letter ... to Abu Mu~ammad 'Abdallah ibn 'Ali al-lfasib (on the
regular heptagon) (GAS V,354,1) ms. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Fonds Arabe 4821, f. 42b:9
(the ms. reads nasij 'a~rihi), and by AI-Shann) (fl. 980?) in his Disclosure of the Fallacy of Abu
I-Jud (GAS V,352,1) ms. Cairo, Dar al-Kutub Mu~tara Fagil Riyaga 41m, f. 130b:7.
34

114

Special Features of Ibn al-Haytham's Mathematical Work

method. But one would like to know whether anything in the Completion
can be considered as a special feature of Ibn al-Haytham's work. With the
present state of our knowledge we cannot always draw definite conclusions,
because most of the works of the above-mentioned geometers are only
accessible with difficulty, or lost altogether. But it seems that confused
passages in analyses, such as 16f(see 7.4.2) and 12q-r (see 7.4.3, 7.7) are
characteristic of Ibn al-Haytham. Another special feature of his work is
the role of the auxiliary segment equal to half of the homologue of Conics
VII:2-3 in the solution of Pl(3-4), P2(6-7), P5(16-17) and P11(30-31) (see
the references in 7.3).
In 7.4.3 we have seen that Ibn al-Haytham solved several problems by
reduction to an auxiliary problem concerning shape and by the subsequent
choice of a new assumption about size. The idea is also found in the Conics
and in the work of AI-Kiihi, but as far as I can ascertain Ibn al-Haytham used
the idea more frequently. The discussion of Optics V:34 in 7.7 has shown
that he also used a modified form of the idea, involving a change in the
assumption about position. This points to the general interest of Ibn alHaytham in the relations between all sorts of assumptions that can be made
in one figure. His investigations of the postulates (i.e. the basic assumptions)
of Euclidean geometry in the Commentary on the Premises of Euclid's
Elements fit in with this interest. It is also noteworthy that the problems
PI, 2, .3, 5, 11 in the Completion are variations on problems in the Conics;
Ibn al-Haytham begins his analyses by making assumptions about the
solutions which are variations on the assumptions in the corresponding
problems in the Conics. Thus the idea of solving a problem through a suitable
change of the assumptions arises from a special interest of Ibn al-Haytham.
In this sense we can consider this idea as a characteristic of Ibn al-Haytham's
work. However, it should be noted that Ibn al-Haytham did not explain the
idea itself. The relevant passages in the Completion 12q-r (7.4.3) and in the
Optics V: 82 (7.7) are confused, and Ibn al-Haytham provides neither an
explanation nor an example of the method in his treatise On Analysis and
Synthesis.
We conclude with some suggested topics for further research.
The relation between Ibn al-Haytham and his contemporary geometers,
in particular Abii Sahl al-Kiihi, is puzzling. It is not known when AI-Kiihi
was born and when he died, but we do know that he attended astronomical
observations in Shiraz in 969 and 970 and in Baghdad in 988, and that he
lived for some time in Ba~ra,36 the town where Ibn al-Haytham was born in
965. AI-Kiihl and Ibn al-Haytham shared an interest in advanced geometry
and statics (centres of gravity), and Ibn al-Haytham knew at least some of
For the astronomical observations see Ibn al-Qifti (ed. Lippert, pp. 351-353) and AI-Biriin!,
Tahdld Nihayat al-Amakin, ed. Bulgakov p. 99. 1. L. Berggren (Vancouver) drew my attention
to a passage in a letter by AI-Kiih! to Abii Isbaq al-~ab! (GAS V,320,23; ms. Istanbul, Aya Sofya
4832, f. 130a:5), according to which AI-Kiihi spent some time in Ba~ra.
36

Topics for Further Research

115

AI-Kiihl's works. 37 Thus it would seem a reasonable assumption that they

worked together, or that Ibn al-Haytham was a pupil of AI-KiihI. However,
the mistakes in the diorismoi in the Completion (7.6.2) make this last
possibility rather unlikely. It is also conceivable that Ibn al-Haytham's early
interests were mainly in religious doctrines and philosophy (compare 5.2).
At present no definite conclusion can be drawn. The lack of biographical
information is very inconvenient, and the uncertainty can perhaps only be
resolved by comparing the complete geometrical work of AI-KiihI with that
of Ibn al-Haytham.
Another subject for further research concerns philosophical influences in
Ibn al-Haytham's mathematical works. Many useful remarks have already
been made by modern historians such as Sude and Schramm (Ibn
al-Haytham's Stellung, 3) in connection with Ibn al-Haytham's commentaries
on the Elements. But philosophical conceptions can also be traced more or
less clearly in works as On Known Things, On Analysis and Synthesis, and
even in the Completion (cf. 7.5.2). It would be useful to have a survey of the
influences in all the mathematical works of Ibn al-Haytham. Such a survey
could also shed new light on the chronology of his works.

37 Ibn al-Haytham refers to AI-Kuhi's Letter on the Derivation of the Side of the Equilateral
Heptagon in the Circle, published by Yvonne (Dold)- Samplonius (for the reference see Rashed,
Heptagone, 341 :10, 377:10); Ibn al-Haytham also refers to Al-Kiihi's treatise on the measurement of the paraboloid in his own letter on the same subject (cf. GAS V:318,5; Rashed, Parabola/de, 258 :8).

Chapter 8

The Date of the Completion

Dating the Completion on the basis of the available evidence is not easy.
The Completion is undated and it is not mentioned in the three lists of works
ofIbn al-Haytham (5.1). The Completion does not contain references to any
work other than the Conics. As far as I know, Ibn al-Haytham does not
refer to the Completion in any of his other works. But there are a few indications suggesting that the Completion is not a late work of Ibn al-Haytham.
In 7.3 we have seen that when Ibn al-Haytham wrote the Completion, he
probably did not have the full text of Conics VII at his disposal. However,
the manuscript Aya Sofya 2762 of the Conics which Ibn al-Haytham wrote
in 1024 contains the entire Book VII (see footnote 3 to Chapter 3 and notes
27.10, 27.11). The available biographical information suggests that Ibn
al-Haytham led a quiet scholarly life in the last 20 years of his life, after the
death of Caliph al-l:Jakim in 1021 (5.2). This is the period in which he lived
near the AI-Azhar mosque in Cairo, earned his living by copying manuscripts,
and wrote the majority of the works which are still extant today. It is reasonable to assume that he had access to the full text of Conics VII not only in
1024, but throughout this period. So it seems that Ibn al-Haytham wrote
the Completion before 1021, that is to say before his fifty-sixth birthday
(in solar years).
This suggestion is confirmed by indications relating to the relative chronology of his works.
The mistakes in the diorismoi in the Completion (7.6.2) and his correct
discussion of the limiting case in Optics V:34 (7.7) suggest that the Completion is an earlier work than the Optics.

Definitions of" Known" and" Concavity"

117

Ibn al-Haytham developed a theory of" known" things, in which" known"

(mac!Um) is set equal to "invariant" (la mutaghayyir), i.e. uniquely determined. 1
He gave a detailed explanation of this theory in On Known Things (see
Sedillot, Materiaux 1,381-384), but traces of the theory may also be found
in other works. In On the Quadrature of the Circle Ibn al-Haytham says that
the square which is equal in area to a circle with given radius is known,
because it is "invariant". He argues that it is of no importance whether
one can find the square or not (compare 7.5.2).
In a passage in Optics V,82 quoted in 7.7, the ratio of KD to DT is said
to be "known because it always remains the same". However, in Completion
6h Ibn al-Haytham says that segment AFis "known because it can befound".
This expression resembles the definitions of" known" in the Arabic version
of Euclid's Data. 2 Because the Completion contains no reference at all to
Ibn al-Haytham's theory of known things, it seems that the Completion
was written at a time when Ibn al-Haytham had not yet worked out this
theory completely. Thus the Completion seems to an earlier work than On
Known Things and On the Quadrature of the Circle.
In Completion 41, 7c, 70 and 17i Ibn al-Haytham says that the concavities
(sing. taqa cc ur)3 of two conics in the figure are opposite. However, in the
Commentary on the Premises of Euclid's Elements Ibn al-Haytham says that
the circle is a convex (mu~addab) figure, and that it "has no concavity in it"
(Sude 140: 17-18, Arabic text: p. 74). The plane from which the circle is
deleted is a concave (muqaCCar) figure. In the Commentary on the Premises
Ibn al-Haytham does not mention conic sections, but since the conic section
is the part of the plane inside the (indefinitely extended) cone, a conic section
would have to be convex.
I think that this difference is of some consequence, because Ibn al-Haytham
had thought very carefully about the concepts concave and convex, when
he wrote his Commentary on the Premises. This can be inferred from his
discussion of the circular line (the curve we call circle). Ibn al-Haytham says
that the circular line consists of two different lines: a convex line which is
the limit of the circular surface, and a concave line which is the limit of the
surrounding plane. One cannot conceive a circular line as a separate object,
but only as a limit of one of the two surfaces; in taking this limit one takes
always part of the circular surface, "but it is of utmost smallness and one is not
aware of taking it" (Sude, 145). It seems to me that Ibn al-Haytham would
no longer call a conic section or its boundary concave after having written
the Commentary on the Premises. It is perhaps noteworthy that Ibn
On Known Things (Fi l-ma'liimat) GAS V,367,12, ms. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale. Fonds
Arabe 2458, f. 106: 27-28 (for the ms. see De Slane, 434): fa-l-ma'liim 'alii I-ta~qiq huwa kullu
ma'nan Iii tasiMufihi I-taghayyur "the known in the true sense is every notion in which change
has no firm existence".
2 Compare footnote 8 to Chapter 7.
3 Compare Glossary, 15.1, no. 87.

liS

Tentative Conclusions on Relative Chronology

al-Haytham speaks about concavity and convexity of conics only in the Completion and in On Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors where he says that a
parabola which is revolved around its axis" produces a round solid (mujassaman mustadlran), and it produces in any solid containing it (i.e. containing
the solid of revolution) a concave surface (satban muqaCCaran)" (Ibn
al-Haytham, Rasiioil, no. 3, p. 7 :13-14). This is in perfect agreement with the
Commentary on the Premises. Thus it seems that the Completion is an earlier
work than the Commentary on the Premises. The Commentary on the Premises
is mentioned in On Analysis and Synthesis,4 which in its turn was written
before On Known Things. 5 This confirms our earlier conclusion that the
Completion was written before On Known Things.
These conclusions on the relative chronology of the Completion do not
lead to a more accurate terminus ante quem than 1021. Ibn al-Haytham
probably wrote the Commentary on the Premises, On Analysis and Synthesis,
the Optics, On Known Things and On the Quadrature of the Circle after
419 H.j A.D. 1029, because they are important works, which are not mentioned in lists I and II in his autobiography (5.1).
We have no evidence regarding a terminus post quem. The unfinished
form of the work (6.5) and the fact that Ibn al-Haytham probably did not
have a full text of Conics VII at his disposal (7.3) suggest that Ibn al-Haytham
wrote the Completion in a turbulent period of his life, and that he had to
interrupt the work rather suddenly. Ibn al-Haytham's simulated (?) madness
and the story of his troubles with Caliph AI-I:Iakim (who reigned from 996
to 1021) now come to mind. However, our knowledge of Ibn al-Haytham's
life is too uncertain for any definite conjecture to be made.
I shall conclude this chapter with some further speculations on the
relative chronology of the Completion.
Convexity and concavity of conics had not yet become problematical
concepts for Ibn al-Haytham when he wrote the Completion. Apparently he
just followed Apollonius, who speaks about convexity and concavity of
conics in Conics IV:35-37, 39, 41, 52, 54-57 (in the Arabic 30-32, 35, 37,48,
50-53). Apollonius uses the terms 'ttX KUp'tll (the convex (parts), Arabic:
inl,ridiib, I,radba) and .tX KOtAtX (the concave (parts), Arabic: qaws, taqwls, batn
taqwls), but Ibn al-Haytham uses a different term: taqaCCur "concavity". A
similar term appears in the optical works of Ibn al-Haytham in connection
with mirrors.3 This suggests that Ibn al-Haytham had optical interests in
the period in which he worked on his reconstruction of Conics VIII. Now
Ibn al-Haytham's lost reconstruction of Book I of Ptolemy's Optics naturally
comes to mind. This reconstruction was finished before 1027 since it is

The commentary on the Premises is cited in On Analysis and Synthesis, ms. Dublin, Chester
Beatty 3652, f. 7Ib:15. For the ms. see Arberry 57-59.
5 In On Analysis and Synthesis Ibn alHaytham says that he will write On Known Things in the
near future (ms. Chester Beatty 3652 f. 71b:1-3).
4

Further Speculations on Relative Chronology

119

mentioned in list I in Ibn al-Haytham's autobiography (see footnote 23 to

Chapter 5). It is also noteworthy that the problem of Alhazen is a generalization of a problem in the Optics of Ptolemy, and that the solution by Ibn
al-Haytham is closely related to propositions 12-13 of the Completion. Thus
one may conjecture that Ibn al-Haytham wrote the Completion in a period
in which he also reconstructed Book I of Ptolemy's Optics and worked on
the problem of Alhazen, many years before he wrote his own Optics.

Chapter 9

Interpolations in the Text

9.1. Criteria
The manuscript mentions only one author of the Completion, namely
Ibn al-Haytham, and the presentation of the text as a homogeneous whole
seems to confirm the suggestion that Ibn al-Haytham is the author of the
entire text we have. However, there are strong reasons for believing that a
number of passages were not written by Ibn al-Haytham, but added (or
revised) by one or more later and less competent commentators. The most
important of these reasons are the following.
(i) Terminology. Several passages contain elementary mistakes in terminology, or striking terminological deviations which cannot be due to
scribal errors. Thus 7k ("product"), 13q-s ("diorismos") must have
been interpolated, and 199-i ("antecedent") cannot in its present form
be attributed to Ibn al-Haytham. See notes 7.13, 13.28, 19.11 and also
19.6.
(ii) Mathematics. The fact that a passage is mathematically erroneous
or superfluous does not prove that the passage is an interpolation.
However, a mathematical error which clearly results from a misunderstanding of the problem or the construction in question must be due
to an interpolator. Thus it is seen that 13a and 25i contain interpolations
(notes 13.1, 25.7), and that minor alterations were made in 13b-k
(note 13.3). The status of 19d-i is more complicated; it seems that the
interpolator elaborated on a passage which he had found in the text
ofIbn al-Haytham, and made some wrong" corrections" in the process
(notes 19.4, 19.5). 11a and 29b contain small interpolations made by
somebody who did not understand Conics I :27. The writer of part of
17j did not know that a hyperbola approaches its asymptotes continuously.
(iii) Style. Ibn al-Haytham tends to write in a simple and monotonous
style, so the unnecessarily complicated structure of 4k and 13t makes

interpolatIOns Made by Une or More Authors'!

121

these passages highly suspect. In both cases there is further textual

evidence which shows that these passages must at least in their present
form, be interpolations (notes 4.12, 13.31). Other stylistic considerations
show that 25h and 25k contain small additions by a commentator
(notes 25.6, 25.9).
(iv) The text without the interpolations should make sense. This implies
that because 13q-t are interpolations, 13u-w and part of 13z must
also be interpolations.
A few passages are of uncertain origin, for example, "This is the diorismos
for all situations in this problem" in 19j, and the diorismos in 27i (note 27.10).
I have not put such passages in brackets. Most of 6c, part of 13d, 13i, k, I and
16e are superfluous, but probably genuine (notes 6.2, 13.22, 13.27, 16.6).
The passages which in all probability were interpolated are the following:
4k, part of 6c, 7k, part of lla, 12g, part of 13a, 13q-s, 13t-w, part of 13z, part
of 17j, 19d-i, 25h, part of 25i, part of 25k, part of 29b; 13t-w and 19d-i may
have resulted from the rewriting of a genuine passage.

9.2 The Author(s) of the Interpolations

The interpolations which I have identified are trivial (4k, 13z, 25h, 25k),
irrelevant (part of 6c), nonsensical (Ita, 17j, 29b) or based on poor understanding of Ibn al-Haytham's text (7k, 12g, 13a, 13q-w, 19d-i, 25i). The
interpolator or interpolators were certainly not very competent, and they
would not have been able to publish a revised version of the Completion,
comparable to the revision of the Conics by CAbdal-Malik aI-Shirazi (fl. 1160,
GAS V, 141)or the Summary ofthe Conics by Abu I-Fatl) al-If?fahani (ca. 1119,
GAS V,140, compare 12.1).
I am unable to decide whether the interpolations were made by one or
by more persons. The author of the interpolated part of 6c uses the word
4arb for the product of two segments, but in the interpolated passage 7k
the product of two segments is consistently expressed without 4arb. This
suggests different authors of the interpolations. But we can also maintain
that there was only one interpolator, who was not always consistent in the
terminology he used. We must bear in mind that 4arb is standard in Ibn alHaytham's text (the word occurs twice in the part of 6c that I consider to
be genuine), and that some of the interpolated passages (l3q-s, 19d-i)
contain serious terminological mistakes. The fact that some of the interpolations are similar in style (4k, 13q-w), or serve the same purpose (13q-w,
13z, 19d-i, 25h, 25i, 25k: addition of a diorismos), or show the same kind
of misunderstanding (1Ia, 29b) shows that the number of people who made
additions to the text must have been very small.

122

Genealogy of the Extant Manuscript

It seems that most of the interpolations were originally marginal additions

to a manuscript (X) of the Completion, possibly Ibn al-Haytham's autograph. X may have contained drafts of diorismoi for P4(12-13) and P6(18-19),
written by Ibn al-Haytham; these were replaced by 13s-w and 19d-i by
the interpolator(s). One of the interpolators also made some corrections in
X; thus he crossed out the word ni~f(half) in 13a-k (note 13.3). A scribe, not
necessarily one of the authors of the interpolations, then made a copy (Y) of
X, and in the process of copying he included the marginal remarks in the
text. The extant manuscript is dependent on Y. Thus it can be explained why
the interpolated proof 7k is incomplete: we can assume that the complete
proof was written in X as a long marginal addition, which may have extended
over more than one page. The scribe of Y simply overlooked the last part
of the proof (see note 7.13).
It is relevant that the extant manuscript is part of a codex (A in 12.1)
which also contains notes on the Conics (and the Completion) by Maimonides
(t1204, see Chapter 10), written in the same hand as the Completion.
Maimonides has a note which concerns the genuine passage 71 and the
interpolation 7k, but he does not make any distinction between the two
(note 7.13). So Maimonides probably had Y or a copy of Y, and the extant
manuscript of the Completion is a copy of Y but cannot be Y itself (because
the manuscript was written when Maimonides had already finished his notes.)
So we can fairly assume that the interpolations were made and Y was written
before the end of the twelfth century (probably even before 1166, when
Maimonides arrived in the Middle East).! The preceding considerations
show, incidentally, that the extant manuscript of the Completion cannot be a
direct copy of an autograph of Ibn al-Haytham.
X is lost, but there is at least one geometrical manuscript in existence
which underwent the same treatment as X. It is the Aya Sofya manuscript
(4830, f. 89b-102b) of the Book ofAssumptions (Kitab al-MafrU<;lat) of Aqatun,
which has recently been published in facsimile and translated by Yv. Dold
(1977). The manuscript was copied in 1229-1231 in Damascus by an anonymous scribe. Parts of the text were crossed out by a certain Mulfammad ibn
Sartaq ibn Jawbar from Maragha, who wrote his own comments and revisions in the margin (Dold, pp. 8, 10, see also f. 98b, 100a of the facsimile).
However, Muryammad ibn Sartaq was much more competent than the
author(s) of the interpolations in the Completion.

1 The date would have to be modified if it would appear that the notes are misattributed to
Maimonides.

Chapter 10

The Influence of the Completion

There is no survey of the material on conic sections written by Ibn

al-Haytham's successors, and many of the relevant manuscripts are not
easily accessible. Thus I have not been able to examine more than a fraction
of the texts in which traces of the Completion could possibly be found;
therefore, I cannot draw any definite conclusion about the circulation and
influence of the Completion in later Arabic geometry. But it seems that the
technical character of the work prevented it from being widely studied,
and that its influence was therefore very limited. The Completion was entirely
unknown in medieval Europe.
The following traces of the Completion in work of other Arabic authors
are known to me.
The interpolations in the extant version of the Completion (Chapter 9)
show that at least somebody found the work worth studying.
The manuscript in Manisa which contains on f. Ib-25a the text of the
Completion, continues on f. 26b-33b with Notes to some propositions of the
Conics by Abu Umran Musa ibn Ubaydallah al-Isra'U1 al-Qurtubl, written
in the same hand (see 12.l). The author of these notes is the famous Jewish
philosopher Maimonides, l who was born in Cordoba (Spain) ca. 1135,
moved to Egypt in 1166 and died there in 1204. 2 The text contains notes to
propositions in Conics I-VII, followed by notes to what the manuscript
calls the "the seventh book" (al-maqala al-sabiCa), which is apparently a
misspelling of "the eighth book" (al-maqala al-thamina). These notes appear
to refer to propositions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the Completion. Maimonides'
notes on the Conics and the Completion are currently being edited and
translated by Dr. T. Langermann (Jerusalem). I have summarized their
contents in the notes to the appropriate places in my translation of the
Completion.
C

1
2

If the notes are not misattributed to him.

See DSB IX.27-32 for details on his life and works.

124

Completion Considered as Book VIII Around A.D. 1200

Maimonides' notes contain explanations of intermediate steps which

Ibn al-Haytham left to the reader. The extant notes do not contain critical
remarks, but it is conceivable that the collection we have is incomplete.
The relevance of Maimonides' note on 7k for the history of the text of
the Completion has been discussed in9.2.
It is of interest that Maimonides does not make any distinction between
the notes on the first seven books of the Conics and the notes on "Book eight".
This fact recalls the account in the History ofthe Scholars ofIbn al-Qifti (1227),
quoted in 4.4, who says that he met somebody who believed that Book VIII
of the Conics had been rediscovered. The most plausible explanation seems
to be that (part of?) the Completion had been added as "Book VIII" to an
edition of the Conics, probably before 1160. Maimonides' note on 7k shows
that his apocryphal Book VIII must already have contained the text of the
Completion plus the interpolations. It was therefore based on text Y in
9.2. But the editor probably omitted the preface to the Completion and the
references to Ibn al-Haytham from Y.
I have examined several Arabic manuscripts of the Conics, to see whether
they contain this "Book VIII", but my search has not yet met with any
success.

Chapter 11

Conclusion

It is likely that Ibn al-Haytham never finished his reconstruction of

the lost Book VIII of the Conics. No doubt he would have been surprised
to hear that his preliminary version of the Completion of the Conics was
still extant 1000 (lunar) years later. We must indeed be grateful to the scribes
and editors who made this valuable work survive.
The Completion is the only extant medieval reconstruction of a lost Greek
geometrical work; it antedates all comparable European reconstructions
by nearly six centuries. As we have seen, it is probable that the contents of
the Completion bear little relation to the lost Book VIII of the Conics. But
the Completion is in any case the outcome of a serious attempt by Ibn
al-Haytham to write a reconstruction which is consistent with the information on Book VIII then available.
Although Ibn al-Haytham exhibits considerable geometrical ability in
several propositions in the Completion, the work as a whole does not equal
the achievements of the Greek geometers at the time of Apollonius. But
we should bear in mind that the transmission from Greek into Arabic had
been incomplete. In the setting of its own time, the Completion was a work
of the highest calibre. The investigations of conic sections in propositions
3-5 constitute one of the most interesting medieval discussions of this kind
which is known to exist, even though Ibn al-Haytham makes a mistake in
the determination of a limiting case. It is unlikely that the Completion was
widely studied by other geometers, but the fact that some twelfth- or
thirteenth-century geometers seem to have considered the Completion (or
part of it) to be the real Book VIII may be taken as an indication that the
reconstruction had some success in its own time.
The Completion has a special position among the other works of Ibn
aI-Haytham, because it was written earlier than most of his other extant
works, and because it survives in a preliminary form. The Completion is
largely (but not exclusively) based on four Greek sources: Euclid's Elements
and Data, the Conics of Apollonius and at least one minor Apollonian work

126

Interest of the Completion

(probably On Cutting-Off a Ratio). By means of a detailed examination of

the Completion we can to some extent perceive how the Greek sources were
transmitted to Ibn al-Haytham, how he worked with them and how he
understood them. It appears, for example, that Ibn al-Haytham probably
used a summary of Conics VII but not the book itself when he wrote the
Completion (7.3). Ibn al-Haytham's deviations from the Greek tradition
are of interest, especially those in the analysis of proposition 12. The basic
idea is the reduction of the problem in question to an auxiliary problem
which only concerns shape. In the solution of the auxiliary problem Ibn
al-Haytham made a new assumption about the size of the figure, which is
inconsistent with the assumptions in the original problem (see 7.4.3).
Similar ideas appear to be the basis of other constructions by Ibn al-Haytham,
for example, of his famous construction of the "problem of Alhazen ", in
which his first name AI-Ijasan has been immortalized (7.7). This is another
reason why the Completion deserves the attention of the historian of science.

Chapter 12

Manuscript and Editorial Procedures

12.1. The Manuscript

The only known manuscript of Ibn al-Haytham's Completion of the Conics
is found in the codex Genel 1706 in the II Halk Kiitiiphanesi in Manisa
(Turkey). A microfilm of the entire codex is in the Teheran University
Library. The following description is based on a copy of this microfilm,
which was kindly made available to me by the staff of the Teheran University
Library through the intermediary of Dr. J. Hamadanizadeh (Teheran).
The codex is a collection of over 20 mathematical and astronomical
texts written in Arabic. The texts have been listed by Danish PaZiih in the
Fihrist-i Mikrufilmhii, 1,521-523. The codex consists of 268 numbered
leaves which are at present bound in the order 34-157, 1-33, 158-268.
The texts are written in two different hands, and for my purposes I shall
divide the codex into two parts A (1-33) and B (34-157, 158-268). Since
A and B both have front leaves (1, 34) containing owner's marks and since
B shows traces of an older numbering! 1-236, it is obvious that A and Bare
in fact separate codices. When A and B were bound together for the first
time, part of the margin of B was cut off, so that most of the older numbers
disappeared. The folios were then given the present numbering 1-268. In
more recent times A and B must pave been rebound in the present order
34-157 (B), 1-33 (A), 158-268 (B), apparently by somebody who sought
to order the texts thematically. A, which contains texts relating to the
Conics of Apollonius, is now bound between the only two texts in B directly
related to the Conics: the Summary of the Conics (Talkhi~ al-Makhrutiit)
1 Fragments of the older numbers appear on many pages, but on If. 152, 228, 265 in the new
numbering the old numbers 119, 196, 233 are entirely legible. One leaf of the manuscript is
missing between If. 157 and 158 (new numbers); this explains why the difference between old and
new numbers is 33 on f. 152 but 32 on f. 228. However, even the older numbering must be more
recent than B itself, because at least one other leaf is missing between If. 182 and 183 (new
numbers), that is ff. 150 and 151 in the old numbering.

128

Parts A and B of the Manuscript

by Abu I-Fad}. Mul].ammad ibn Qasim ibn Fa<JI al-I~fahani (cf. GAS V,140)2
on f. 109-157, and a collection of anonymous marginal remarks (hawashi)
to the Conics on f. 158-182.
I shall deal briefly with B and discuss A, which contains the Completion
0/ the Conics, in more detail.
B was written in Tabriz (Persia) and is dated "the first part of Rajab
699" (end of March, 1300) on f. 210a. The name of the scribe is not given.
In addition to the two above-mentioned texts on conics B contains on
ff. 34-108 the Arabic text of the Spherics of Menelaos with comments by
Mul]. ibn Abi Jarada 3 (GAS V,163:I,7) and on if. 183-286 a number of
shorter mathematical and astronomical treatises by Kamal aI-DIn ibn
Yunus (twelfth century, see Suter, Mathematiker und Astronomen, 140-142),
AbU Na~r ibn CIraq (tenth century, GAS V,339: 1,3,4), Athir aI-DIn al-Abhad
(twelfth century, Suter Mathematiker und Astronomen 145-146), Na~Ir
aI-DIn al-lusl (1201-1274, DSB XIII,508-517), AbU Sahl al-KuhI (fl. 970,
GAS V,319: 17), Abu I-Futul]. Al].mad ibn Mul].ammad ibn aI-Sura (twelfth
century, Suter, Mathematiker und Astronomen, 120) and an anonymous
author.
A is undated, and neither the name of the scribe nor the place of copying
is given. A has 25 lines to a page. Because my microfilm does not give any
indication of scale, I am unable to determine the size of the pages. The
front leaf contains traces of three seals and owner's marks which are hardly
legible on my film. I have not been able to identify any of the persons
mentioned. 4 One of the marks gives an illegible date.
A contains the following texts:
ff. Ib-25a Ibn al-Haytham's Completion o/the Conics, edited and translated
below.
An anonymous trisection of the angle. This is the trisection of
ff.25a-b
the angle by Abu Sahl al-KuhI in a version which is slightly
different from that edited by Saydl (1963), see GAS V,318,6.
2 The beginning and end of the treatise on If. 109-157 are missing, and the name of the author
is not mentioned. The treatise was identified by Danish PaZiih (Fihrist-i Mrkriifllmha, 1,529). The
identification is certainly correct since the title Talkhl~ al-makhrii(at appears on f. l04a, and
since the treatise is dedicated to '1m ad aI-Din Abu Kalijar al-Marzuban, to whom AI-I~fahan;
dedicated his Talkhl~ al-Makhrii(at. See Suter, Mathematiker und Astronomen, p. 98 for more
details on the treatise and AI-Isfahani.
3 The manuscript gives the f~ll name as Jamal aI-Din Mul).ammad ibn Kamal aI-Din ibn
al-'Adim 'Umar ibn Hibatallah ibn Mub.ammad ibn Abi Jarada tilmidh (i.e. pupil ot) Jamal
aI-Din Mul;1ammad ibn Wa~il. Compare Danish Paiuh, Fihrist-i Mlkriifllmhli, 1,521, and Suter,
Mathematiker und Astronomen, p. 158 (no. 385) and p. 157 (no. 380).
4 The front leaf of A contains the names Ulugh ... (last part illegible); Zayn al-'Abidin
Mul]ammad Tahir; l:Iajji Mul]ammad ibn 'Uthman al-Harbaquri (? vocals uncertain). The
front leaf of B mentions an AI-I;liijj 'AliElfendi. The date occurs in a remark in Persian on the
front leaf of A as: Jumada II of the year ... of the Hijra. This hardly legible remark refers to
"this book" (ayni kitab) and to" another book" (kitab-i digar), could the reference be to A and B?

Scnbal Errors

129

ff.26b-33b Notes to some propositions in the Conics (lfawiishi 'alii ba'tJi

ashkiili kitiibi l-makhrutiit) by the chief (al-ra'ls) Abu 'Umriin
Musii ibn 'Ubaydalliih al-Isrii'l11 al-Ququbl. This is Maimonides
(ca. 1135-1204), see Chapter 10.
f. Ib-25b (including the trisection of the angle) have been published in
facsimile in Terzioglu, Das Achte Buch (see Chapter 1).
The manuscript of the Completion is written in a clear naskhi, in black
ink (see the facsimile of f. Ib on p. 300). Diacritical marks and hamzas are
often omitted, and there is hardly any vocalization. It seems that the
abjad-numbers of the propositions in the margin and the first two of three
words of each new proposition are written in red. The figures are drawn
with some care, but not always correctly (compare pp. 301-310). Conics
are usually drawn as arcs of circles.
The letters designating points in the geometrical figures are often written
in an ambiguous way, in the figures themselves as well as in the text. In
many cases it is only possible to determine the correct reading after careful
examination of the (mathematical) context. These ambiguities suggest
that the scribe did not understand much of what he was writing, and that his
knowledge of geometry was only rudimentary. The manuscript contains a
number of strange corruptions such as the following. In 5a the scribe wrote
min ba'di "afterwards" instead of murabba'uhu "its square"; in 6c he wrote
aytjan wa- "also and" instead of an~iif"halves" (see also notes 5.26,7.17,
20.1). In these and other cases the mathematical context dictates the correct
reading. It is also noteworthy that the scribe often mistook verbal forms of
wa~ala "to join" and fa~ala "to cut off" as nouns or verbal forms derived
from the root faqala "to exceed ".
The manuscript contains a few interlinear corrections, made by the
scribe himself, and a few corrections in the margin in a different hand,
usually accompanied by the word :jabba; these remarks were made by
somebody who checked the present manuscript against another manuscript
ofthe Completion, and who added some passages which the scribe had omitted
by an oversight. However, there is nothing in the present manuscript to
indicate that it was ever intensively studied. Some information on the progenitor(s) of the extant manuscript is to be found in Chapter 9.

12.2. Linguistic Remarks and Editorial Procedures

The principle followed for the present edition has been the reconstruction
of the text of the Completion as it was originally written by Ibn al-Haytham.
I have eliminated scribal errors and added hamzas and diacritical marks,
but I have not burdened the apparatus with very trivial corrections.
In the following cases (1,2,3) I have adjusted the text to the rules of
classical Arabic without noting this in the apparatus:

130

Editorial Procedures

1. The prefixes ya- and ta- of imperfect verbal forms are often punctuated
wrongly (as in takiinu l-muthallath, f. llb:1-2, i.e. in 13g) or in a way which is
not preferred by the grammarians (as in yakiinu nisbatuhu, f. 2a: 10-11, i.e.
in la). The perfect forms in Ibn al-Haytham's autograph of the Conics (ms.
Aya Sofya 2762, see Chapter 3, note 3) as well as in the manuscript of the
Completion show that he observed the concord in gender, but hardly wrote
diacritical marks; so the scribe must have added these marks erroneously.
2. The scribe often gives yif instead of nabra (as in zayid f. 4a: 11-12, i.e.
in 4m and Sa); see also Blau, p. 94.
3. The manuscript renders the undefined nominative or genitive plural
of maCnan "notion" as macanl rather than macanin (for example, f. Ib: 8,10;
f. 2a: 1, i.e. Oc, Oh). Writing of the ending -in with a ya) is standard in Ibn
al-Haytham's autograph of the Conics (see note 27.10). In my edited text,
however, I have changed the -I into -in for the sake of consistency, because
the manuscript also has musawin (f. 20b: 3, i.e. 2Sa), in accordance with
classical rules.
The following features (4, S, 6, 7) are in all probability due to the scribe.
I have corrected them in my edited text, but the corrections have been noted
in the apparatus.
4. The rules on concord in gender are not always respected, for example:
al-tarlqu lladhi qaddamnaha (corrupted to qad bayyannaha), f. Sa:21 (Le. Sq).
(However, note that tarlq can be masculine as well as feminine, see Wright
1,182). For other examples see So, St, 7g, 10f, 21f.
5. The dual is superseded by the plural in muthallathu ... shabihun
bi-muthallathi . .. fa-atflacuha (f. lla: 12, i.e. 13d) and infa-inna l-qutbayni
takiinu (f. 8a: 2, i.e. 7p, the dual is treated as a plural, so the verb is in the
feminine singular, see Blau, p. 214).
6. The scribe writes an aUf otiosum (alif al-wiqayah) after yakhlii "it is
devoid from" (f. 1b: 8, i.e. Oc, see Blau, p. 127), after a waw designating a point
in a geometrical figure in f. 17b: 23 (i.e. 22d), and even after other letters
designating points (dal in f. 2b: 8, i.e., 3a, and lam-alif in f. Sa: 4, i.e. Sn).
7. In f. 2a: 1,6 (Oh, Oi) the plural pronoun hunna (rather than the singular
hiya) refers to the broken plural al-macanl. This error can be explained by
mechanical miscopying, because hiya and hunna are almost indistinguishable
in Ibn al-Haytham's own handwriting in his autograph of the Conics (ms.
Aya Sofya 2762, for example, f. 82b: 14, 89b:6).
The following constructions may be due to Ibn al-Haytham:
8. kana and laysa are both declined in idha kanat nisbatu ... laysat
bi-asghar min . .. " if the ratio of ... is not less than ... " in f. 20a:4 (i.e. 23 p)
and also in I1f, 22b, 22n, 23a. Compare Wright II, 302.
9. The pronoun of separation huwa is used in liannahu laysa huwa l-sahm
"because it (the line) is not the axis" in f. 13a:20 (13y), compare Blau, p. 390.

Letters Designating Points in Geometrical Figures

131

It has already been noted that letters designating points in the figures
are often written in an ambiguous way. Because the mathematical context
always dictates the correct reading, I have only noted in the apparatus the
instances where my reading is really in contradiction with the manuscript.
Arabic mathematicians indicate the fact that a letter refers to a point in
a figure by putting a slash above the letter. Trivial emendations involving
such slashes have not been mentioned in the apparatus. In cases where a
letter designating a point is preceded by the inseparable conjunction faof the inseparable proposition li-, I have typed fa- or li- in the connected
form, followed by a blank space (as in L"".i "so BH"). Letters denoting
points in figures have been transcribed according to the following system 5 :

alif

waw

ha'
E

zay'
Z

lam

mlm

nun

sin
S

eayn
0

shin
J

ta'

tha'

kha'

ba'

jim

dal

ya'
I

kaf
K

qaf

ra'

~a'

ta'
T

fa'

~ad

dhal

ejad

:;a'

ghayn

The letters have been arranged from left to right in the abjad-order
(according to numerical values 1, 2, ... ,9; 10, 20, ... ,90; 100, 200, ... ,
900, 1000). This is, roughly speaking, the order in which the letters are used
by Ibn al-Haytham and other geometers.
In 5n and 7b Ibn al-Haytham designates a point by means of a lam-alif
(transcribed as A); lam-alif and similarly lam-ba', lam-jlm etc. are also
used in this way in the Arabic translation of the Conics (for example, in V: 52).
In my translation. I have used the symbol D as a transcription of the abbreviation ha 6 (from intaha, "finished "). The punctuation in the Arabic
text and the translation is my own addition.
I have redrawn the figures, but I have only rendered the segments or arcs
which appear in the manuscript (dotted lines or curves are my own additions).
Thus my figures may seem odd because curves are not extended beyond
points of intersection, etc. Corrections to the figures have not been indicated

5 This system of transcription has been developed by Professor A. I. Sabra (Cambridge, Mass.).
It is in my opinion the most practical system for" advanced" geometrical texts in which all

letters of the Arabic alphabet are used to designate points in the geometrical figures. The transcriptions cannot easily be confused (either in handwriting or in typescript), no Greek transcriptions have been used, the sound of the transcriptions resembles in most cases the sound
of the letters which they transcribe, and the system agrees to a large extent with the conventions
used by the Latin translators of the Middle Ages.
6 Ibn al-Haytham also used this abbreviation in his autograph of the Conics (ms. Aya Sofya
2762, for example, on If. 2a: 17, 3a: 16).

132

Marginal Remarks, Interpolations

in the apparatus, but the figures in the manuscript have been reproduced
photographically at the end of the text and translation in Chapter 13,
pp.301-31O.
In my edited text I have incorporated the marginal remarks of the
manuscript. The beginning and end of each remark have been indicated in
the apparatus.
These remarks have nothing to do with the deliberate interpolations which
were already made in an older manuscript of the Completion. In the extant
manuscript these interpolations are an integral part of the main text,
so they can only be discerned on internal grounds. Thus, detecting them is
often a matter of considerable uncertainty.
In the edited text and the translation I have put in square brackets passages
which I consider to be interpolations. In Chapter 9 I have discussed the
criteria which I have used in deciding whether a passage is an interpolation
or not.
In translating the Arabic text I have deliberately chosen not to use modern
mathematical symbols, in order to bring the reader who is not acquainted
with Arabic as close as possible to Ibn al-Haytham's reasoning. To increase
the legibility ofthe text I have divided the propositions into sections a, b, c, ....
The other signs in the text, translation and apparatus will be explained at
the beginning of Chapter 13.

Chapter 13

Text and Translation

Explanation of Signs
a. Text and Translation

<>

addition made by the editor to restore the original text.

interpolated passage.
()
explanatory addition made by the editor (no part of the text)
(f. 3a) beginning of page 3a (recto) in the manuscript.

[J

Numbers in the translation refer to the footnotes in Chapter 14. Numbers

in the text refer to the apparatus at the bottom of the page.

b. Apparatus
A

ic
rep
M
Mrep
(M+)A-

ms. Manisa, Genel 1706, f. 1b-25a, main text. Readings are

from A unless otherwise specified.
the correct reading is on the right side, the (incorrect) reading
of the manuscript is on the left side.
interlinear correction in A.
word or passage repeated in A. In connection with such words
or passages the symbol (1) refers to the first appearance of a
word in the ms, (2) to the second.
addition in the margin.
repeated in the margin.
missing in the main text but written in the margin.

All other abbreviations are self-explanatory.

134

Translation

Oa-d
a

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

Treatise by AI-I:Iasan ibn al-I:Iasan 1 ibn al-Haytham on the Completion
of the Conics.

Apollonius mentioned in the preface to the Conics that he divided his

work into eight books,2 and he explained the notions 3 which he had discovered and which were contained in each one. He mentioned that the
eighth book dealt with problems occurring4 in conics.
But only seven books of this work were translated into Arabic, and the
eighth book was not found. 5

When we studied this work, investigated the notions in it, and went
through the seven books many times, we found that it lacked notions, which
this work should not leave untreated. Thus we were convinced that the
notions which were passed by in the seven books are the notions which
were in the eighth book. But he (Apollonius) postponed them, because it was
not necessary for him to use them in the notions contained in the (first)
seven books.
These notions (in Book VIII) to which we have referred are notions
which are made necessary by notions contained in the seven books. 6

Among these he explained the ratio in which the tangent divides the axis
of the (conic) section,7 and he explained how we draw a tangent to the
(conic) section which makes with the axis an angle equal to a known <angle). 8
These two notions make it necessary for us to explain how we draw a tangent
to the (conic) section such that the ratio of it to the part of the axis which is
cut off by it is a known ratio,9 and to draw a tangent to the (conic) section
such that the part of it which falls between the (conic) section and the axis
is equal to a known line. 10
Moreover, these notions are among those to the knowledge of which the
(human) mind aspires.

Text

135

Oa-d

r-:

.1

~)I ~)I .JJI

..::..Ib,~ I ":-' 1:;5 rI.; ~

..::.. ~ Ii. .; I.;

aJli..Il ..:;1

":-' \ill I 1.lA

.)1

,.,L...'"
'-r

Ji;:

rl' '

~WI

aJli..Il

L;i
:r-

II

'"t';!" ~

J.J..p

,J.) U"',..;~ I

J5

~I .,rJ1 .;t.-JI V' jj.l>~

.P L....

..::..Ib,~ I ~ ~

.)1

~I ~

U'"

"II 5 t.-JI
<r
<,?

~I

U'" ~

c::';>:-

..

r-r-' I t:' c.

Ih> c::';>:- ~ ~

..:;1",

..A

..
..:; I

t...; ...:..

g~

. ; t.-J I

.li ..:;L... 6

~ 6 /

..::..~1i..I1

5 /

..:; I.. ,a'i,

V'

..:; t;.......J

..

..:"..i

I ..:; I .lA,

..:;A:,

d.lA 8 ..:;: .til.) t:' ,

.lo

'

a.,l.-

~ I. .)~ ~ ..:;~,

~ [4.:' 1 <.$.lJ I

~ 4 /

.,rJ I ~ I VI!-: ~ I .til.)

~I

'

~J""o4 .)

.)1

~ , ~ I U'" ~ ~ c::.;>:- ~

1 a.,l.- ~ r-r-'I

r-r-' I VI!-: , ~ I V=-:

.,rJ I .; t.-J I V'

r-i::

t...J I .h:;J I ~

< 4,:, I;J > 4,:, L.... 4,:, ~

MlJI

,..

'

I..:1 ~ W I

~ ~

rl ~~ lA~1 L.;J, ' ~WI

d.lA
_ .11 ..::..~1i..I1 4 I " . ~
'c:-'1'-

~I ..::..~1i..I1 ~
VI!-:'

..:;

~ I. VI!-:'

~ rl' . : . ~ Ii. c::- ~1 2 ~.r-II

.,rJ1 .;t.-JI ~ '-tJt.....;..1

_

~ 1.;,.->J I ~ v-:o-1J aJ Ii.

4.:' 1:;5 ,...:; ~ I ..::..Ib,~ I ":-' 1:;5

,J.)"

V'

9 /

~ Ih>

r,.,L-..b. .Po

l U"',w I ~

3 / ~.,riJ1 2 /
..:;..A

U'"

rli 8 /

u.-:-JI

.J..;.i...

136

Translation

Oe-h
e

Also he explained how we draw a tangent to the (conic) section which

makes with the diameter drawn from the place of contact 11 an acute angle
equal to an assumed angle. 12 This notion also makes it necessary for us to
draw a tangent to the (conic) section which ends at the axis, such that the
ratio of it to the diameter drawn from the place of contact is a known ratio. 13

Another example is that he spoke in the preface to the seventh book 14

of the diameters of the (conic) sections, their classification and their distinction, and alluded to the fact that they have special properties which occur
in them in connection with their latera recta. Moreover, he says in the preface
to this book that the notions which follow in this book are very necessary
in the problems which occur among those that will be mentioned in the
eighth book. (So the eighth book)15 contained problems connected with the
diameters and their special properties.

Also he explained how we draw from an assumed point a line which is

tangent to the (conic) section and meets it in one point. 16 This notion makes
it necessary for us to explain how we draw from an assumed point a line which
meets the (conic) section in two points, such that the part of it which falls
inside the (conic) section is equal to an assumed line,17 and that we draw a
line which intersects the (conic) section such that the ratio of the part of it
outside (the conic) to the part of it inside (the conic) is equal to an assumed
ratio. 18 (f. 2a)

It is inconceivable that the work did not deal with these notions we mentioned and referred to, because they are beautiful notions, the beauty of
which is not less than the beauty of what the seven books contain. On the
contrary, among them are (some) which exceed in beauty and understanding 19 the propositions that were transmitted. Hence it is most likely that
these notions are (the notions) which the eighth book contained.
However, he (Apollonius) did not mention them before the eighth book,
since he could dispense with using them in the books which were transmitted.

---l

f-'

;l

......

f;

......

[:

......

-10

f:

......

(n

(,

,I"

(,

~'

....
(n

f:---l ~ ~~.
; f,); w!

c_r

r'

p~.

t '"

,r-

..

r.

e;

i '"

~C

j;"

f!

_to

- "

~ '1\.

r: '~ <f: }. t

..!

"'" ' f
'.

j;"

f
'1\.

::r

:f
r. .,...~"1_ f~'
'--' ....
. '-

,~. c.:...
,~~
~"'l...
- '"

<;:

(.'i

<;:

r (:

'"

r;l.,

't-

.r.

r1

');

1
'[ -.:
~

,f:

'L, I(, J:r

r
.~

,,-~. r;l., ~
(.'i

(JQ

<;:
'-'

(,.

r:

e..
't,

,t

w). ~ :' ').

<\. fl-

'-

'"

t r. \- ...,
I\... c...

\'"

(.'i

..2:r
't..
,'t
.
1'"
c... c.:.... : ,. [
l
~ ~ \- _ <;:

c.:....

1 i.

"t--

r' l~
c... c.,

't.

J: ,~,

~fl-

f:

.~_l.~
't.. flr ,. _

r;l.,
't-.

(:

r ,,,-.N

;- 1'"
OJ',

~r; 'l!. ~'~f.;[ '.

[, - r
~-

);

f-

re;(,

:::

r~
ti 'f-

-10

~ ~ ~. ~ ',~

po

". -: e'

r.

<f: r:'

-(

~ ~

w!

f'

. '

t'

't

-.~

(.'i

of )

'J;,

r:" ~

..

e;

t>

,"-.

_
e;

!'

f!:-

It

Il

'J

'e:
It
f',.r

~ ~' -

'"

....,

l '"~

r,

r:

(.'i

_I'

~ c

(.'i

r):

r1.

\0

r"'

f=

1-

~,e..

).' .r
It ~,"
\.~ ,f;

(.'i

ti'

~(,.

t... ~~~.frO It
- . fC
~ ~ (,. ~
t.

:F' '"

_ ..... !'_ r,(,.

e;

Y,

(.'i

r:E ..;[- 'L'-. \.!:..'

~

~yl-

- ~,~
'.y: \.~. r
~ \. ~.~' r r~
_.. t
<;: fl- ..

~-:-

,r. e;-.. <;.'

_I-

f.

t. -..

~~.1 J~ '~f. 1- 't.J: fl-1

c.

r.E ,l-.., t_

t r;l.,

<r.- <r.- .\: {"

~ '1\.

~~t~~ t~t
c.:'

1- _

f.w!"~,~ ~. ':!'

??

I
::r

w
---l

-l
(1)

;:<,

138

Translation

Oi-j
Since in our opinion this state of things20 is impossible, and since in our
mind our good opinion of the author of the work (Apollonius) was strong,
the good opinion became predominant in us, and we decided that these
notions and similar ones 21 were the notions contained in the eighth book.
When our judgement about that had been established, we started to derive
these notions, to explain 22 them and to collect them in a book containing
them, to replace the eighth book and to be the completion of the Conics. We
make our derivation of these notions by analysis, synthesis and diorismos
in order that it become the clearest of the (eight) books.
j

This is the time we begin the treatise. We ask the help of God.

Text

139

Oi-j

~ I." .;t-JI .. .lA

.J

~r

c!lJ.l:-

~';::"'I

r,a:.J ~ ,j.::..:.:; aJli.

~,

J.51.:..~

So

.:..l:

.J

1;..S:,..i ,

W,

.)all v->

i.:o I!J I aJ Ii.! I

~" ~~

...:.. u..~ I ":-' \:;.5) r t.:J I

3

...r'

l:.# ,,:-,\:;iJ1
~ .;J I

~L....:

2...r'

.;t-JI ".lA ~~I

.:..,s:;"

i.:o I!J I aJ Ii.! I

r Ii.

..lt~I" ~;.J\" ~l: .;t-JI .. .y ~~I

t~ ..:..~1i.!1

140

Translation

Ia-e (PI)
a (I). If there is a known conic section, and if the axis of the (conic) section
is extended outside the (conic) section, how do we draw a tangent to the
section such that the ratio of it to the part of the axis which is cut off by it
and which is adjacent to the (conic) section is equal to an assumed ratio?
b

(Let) the section first (be) a parabola. Let it be (conic) section ABG,
and let its axis be AD. Let us extend D(A) towards Z. Let the ratio of HT
to KL be assumed. We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section, which
ends at the axis, such that the ratio of it to the part of the axis which is cut
off by it is equal to the ratio of HT to KL. 1

(So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it (the tangent) be BE.) We

draw the ordinate BM. Then MA is equal to AE, as is proven in proposition
35 of book I (of the Conics). Since the ratio of BE to EM is equal to the ratio
of HT to twice KL and (since) the ratio of HT to KL is known, the ratio of
HT to twice KL is known, so the ratio of BE to EM is known. Angle M is a
right angle, so angle E is known. 2

c:

- - - - - -T J:,

L J

z
.i

D
.)

Thus line BE is tangent to the (conic) section, and it contains with the
axis a known angle. That is possible, as is proven in proposition 56 of book 2. 3
So the problem has been reduced to something possible, namely that we
draw a tangent to the (conic) section which makes with the axis an angle
equal to a known angle.

At the same time it has become clear that HT is greater than twice KL.
The reason is that BE is greater than twice EA. So it is necessary that HT is
greater that twice KL. This is the diorismos of the problem. 0

Text

141

la-e

(PI)
a

CIo-t- ~, ~":' I ~ ~, .j1S.J1 ~I ~,I ~I <~,

~ Jo!l .)1
~

u,s;:,

.kL

.)t

~I

~ vS:J,

2-

r":'

~.r-,

4J1i. VO 3:J

u~, .
.)1 .k

~,

<.

~~, ;T
~~ u"l ~...,:.,

.~ ~I

vo

4.,L.. J o!l ....;......;.

~ r-AI

.)1

-.k e

4.,L.. d,-.,!r.-

".i .)1 4.l!..-J I

-::.J:..; I

~I ~ ~

.Jii

d,-.,L.. d,-.,~ ~I <::'

":'

.!...l.>.", ~I L>"~

u~ ~.rJ1
- ~
.)1 -AI,,:,
4.,L.. J o!l

4 ~

,so, ~I V"'~

Ih>. ~~ u

..l

r-AI

.b..i

-AI,,:,

Jl.:. .j ~

4J Ii. VO 7,:.

>

Ir

J!o

-AI I

4.,L.. :- d,-.,!i-i 4.! Ii 5~ d,-., ~,4.,L..

clU"

.)1

I.

~, ~I ~ ~ .!JJJ";'"u

-AI,,:,

~ if ~ loS
J o!l ....;......;. ,)1 .k e

.)1

vs:..

.k

I.J

~ ,~I V"'~ Ih>.

J o!l ,)1
~

i) .)1

>

loS

vs:..

,so,

4.,L.. d,-.,!.;J

ui .!JJJ, Jo!l ....;......;. vo 8~i .k e ui .!JJJ~ ~ .li,

. . . .
1o!l
a_ ~ . _I:.d.k e U~<.,;
.. < .1 ~
. . . I-AI'~""'r.-~ .'~ J:..,I
J .~vor-

8-A1,,:,

-AI

/.

5 /

~,4

4.l!..-J I

3 / ,":' 2 / ...... .)1 .J : j

/ rep -AI,,:,

~t

~ oJ.:>.::

.)1
7 /

1.lA,

I.J

W 6

142

Translation

2a-d

(PI)

a 2. Let us now give the synthesis of this problem. Let the (conic) section be
ABG, let its axis be DAZ, and let the assumed ratio be the ratio of HT to KL.
b

c
d

We make LO equal to LK. Then KO is less than HT. We draw on line

HT a semicircle, (f. 2b) let it be HNT. We draw in it a chord equal to KO,
let it be TN. 1 We draw a tangent to the (conic) section, which makes with the
axis an angle equal to angle HTN, as is explained in proposition 56 of the
second book. Let the tangent be BE.
I say that the ratio of BE to EA is equal to the ratio of HT to KL.
Proof: We draw the ordinate BM. Then angle M is a right angle. We join
HN. Then angle N is a right angle. But angle E is equal to angle T. So triangle
BEM is similar to triangle HTN 2
So the ratio of BE to EM is equal to the ratio of HT to TN, that is to say,
to KO. So the ratio of BE to EA, which is half of EM, is equal to the ratio
of HT to KL, which is half of KO. That is what we wanted to do. 3 0

2a-d
;1.)

11>

U" ~

'C.';>:- J '

~ 2.,; ~ I.S' .;;.1, L

ilLWI vo ,:.

a.,......;

.;; .1,

~ t J

v+.J,

c.!l

J.,....: J

.-

4..I1i

'

~ r.Jb~ ~
~I

~1.1, L

.;;.1,

.1, L

.Jb

J-:

~~ u,x.; ~;;JI ~ r~

3.1,

r.Jb

..,.I1.Jb~

r.Jb u-; yo ~..il'

..

u'

1.:.)) I. ctJ J J

1.Jb

..,.I1.Jb~

~W,

u.1, L

~, t.!l

t
E

.l:..>.

~ I.:~ ~1A..r:

.!l

~ ~,

v+.J,

t.!l u-; yo ':f..ill

L J

.1, L

;..-'~ ~ .Jb ~~ J ' 4..I1i :- ;..-'~

~!;J ~L... ~~ ty-ll ~

.Jb ~ U"'-'I

U L

d..<,~' ~_;.J1,

or'.) u-;

~,

~1 .1, L

.1, L vo ~I t.!l .;;~ .!l J

1 .k.;; L ~ J (f. 2b )

~ 'C.';>:- J
.!,

-J.!l

. -

~ r-~J

~~I~I~J4.l!....Jlo.lA,:.:~I~.rJi

<l&.t-J

(PI)

J.!l

u,x.;

~
~1.
~

144

Translation

a 0). Let the (conic) section ABG be a hyperbola or an ellipse. Let its axis
be W AD. Let the ratio of Z to H be assumed and let Z be greater than H.
We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section which ends at the axis
such that the ratio of it to the part of the axis which is cut off by it and which
is adjacent to the vertex of the (conic) section, is equal to the ratio of Z to H.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it be BK. We draw AG parallel

to the tangent. Let the centre of the (conic) section be E. We join EB, let it
intersect AG in point S.
Then ES is a diameter of the (conic) section, since it issues from the centre, l
and AS is an ordinate, since it is parallel to the tangent, as is proven by the
converse of proposition 32 of the first book (of the ConicsV So line ES
bisects AG in point S.

We draw the ordinates Gw, ST, BF. Then the ratio of FE to EA is equal
to the ratio of AE to EK, and equal to the ratio of FA to AK, as is proven in
proposition 37 of the first book for the ratio of AE to EK. <But the ratio of
AE to EK) is equal to the ratio of SA to BK. So the ratio of SA to BK is equal
to the ratio of FA to AK. So the ratio of SA to AF is equal to the ratio of
BK to KA.

But the ratio of BK to KA is equal to the ratio of Z to H. So the ratio of

SA to AF is equal to the ratio of Z to H. 3

We make the ratio of EM to MA equal to the ratio of the transverse diameter (AD) to the latus rectum. Then line AM is half of the homologue. 4
So the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of AS is equal t0 5
the known ratio of ME to EA.
But the ratio of the square of AS to the square of AF is equal to the known
ratio of the square of Z to the square of H. So the ratio of the product of
MT and T A to the square of AF is known. 6

145

Telt't

3a-c (PI)

~,

~ ~

4-

U:.> r.!.~ u l .l."';"

~I

..

.)1

~ I.

QI

,i 1 ~!;JI ~I ~~ I ~ ~,

, u<>iWI

~I

QI

u,s::,

.)1

....-'1

~l

~, ~I V"\o,:

~ ,)1 :; ~ ~I V"~ ..,It

t;.;!,. ~ I r.!.~'

.!i~ ~, ~I ~ ~

~ ~ I ~, ~ .Jb

-;; ;.1.i;

~?I ~

=:t

u~'

:JrJl

j.A.:, ::; ~ I
r.!.JI>.

QI

I."" I ...,-..
"" 'I QI~
..rJ~
~~
V" ;.1.i;
-

7-

,)1

1.Jb

u,s::;

.Jb"" ~

;.I ~

J ~

< .!i.Jb ')1.Jb I

, :;! .)1

10 I ....

.!i~

.)1

.>

u-~.

~,
.Jbl

V".Jb

~V"

.)1

.)1So .!i~

')l

.!i.Jb

.l::..:>.i

.Jb I

.),"~ I 4.l1i.J I

, -.!i~ ,)1

-1-9 - ..
V" ~

~11""1

,)1

QI

IV"

IJ"

W~_______~__~~~~~~~~_______D

ot
/

W 5 / , L 4 / .)11.1 :
/

111 /

I~ 10 /

.)1) 3

~,

9 /

.:,.S.J , V" t....U

----

I....

.)1

.!i.Jb

l.!i

G ~

J>P

5 1.5'V"t....U;!,..:.~
~

6 QI ~

.!l.J.)

I..

~?I ~ .... ~ .kV" ,~ .k,h> r.!.~'

81.5',:;--i

~,>

:Jr

.::~ ~ I).i

I..

<=:-> a

I.) I, 2 /
W 8

J!!;JI 1

., 7 /

..; 6

Translation

146

3f-h

(Pi)

The product of TE and EA is equal to the square of EF.7

We draw from point E a line at right angles (to AD), let it be EN. We make
EN equal to EA. We draw from point N a line parallel (f. 3a) to line ET, let
it be NO. Through point N we let pass the parabola with axis NO and latus
rectum EN, let it be (conic) section NC. 8 We extend ST to O.
Then CO is equal to EF. But TO is equal to AE, because it is equal to
EN. So, by subtraction, CT is equal to AF.9

The ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of AF is known,

so the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of TC is known.
So point C is on the boundary of a hyperbola with axis AM and known
latus rectum. 10 Let that (conic) section be section AC.

Then (conic) section AC is known in position, and (conic) section NC

is known in position, so point C is known. CT is a perpendicular (to AD), so
point T is known, and line TS is known in position. 11 AS is equal to SG, so
point Gis knownY So line AG is known in position, so point S is known.
But point E is known, so diameter EBS is known in position. So point B is
known.
Line BK is parallel to line AG, which is known in position. So line BK
is known in position, and the ratio of it to KA is equal to the assumed ratio
of Z to H. That is what was required. 0

B ..... _ - -__ G

D,)

Nu

Text

147

3d-h (PI)
ul

.)1

IU'"

i:-J

.)1

.)1

I~

.j .1. r '-:'rP

1.1.
4.,L..J1

I.A

.)1.A

A:-J I

~ v,s::; ,

r ['-'
-

4.,L..J 1 L e::'J' 3.) 1 j

r.> , ~

e::'.r

.)!

.)1

I .k;. v,s;,.;

,)1

r 1 ~ U'" I e::'J'

.>

~ u 1 e::'J'
e::'.r

~,

..J..:....:..; ,

~ I...a.,..;

:I

4.~

.)1 -j

.)1 r.A

Ir

~lill ~I ')1~~1 ~I

~~

U'" I e::'.r ~,

.j ~ '-:'rP 4i:-J

3iJ:"

f
"-~ "

t
~lill

J;. V.A

I.A

~, .1. .A

-~, tv

~ t'-'" v,s;,.;

, U.A

r '-:'rP

""-t-

t .) l

'-'"

~ '-:'

v.A

o..b.i:.i

=-

\h:i..

d.hi.; V'

ll.i.: ~ ~,

v~ ,

J;. ,;',,; .A I J;. t.1.

,)1

1.1.

.1. r '-:'rP ~,

if

,)1

4.,..Lo.. ,-",.b e::'.r

1.1.

_1_-

r~

r ~ U"'.1.

'-'" v

_1....

4.~

_1_-

,-",I

o..b.i:.i

r~

7-

4.~

.h>"

~ I .k;..t.

-.;..11

c:-r

C-'

.b

~ I r ~ ::::;::; "bii 4.~ :;

I,.

4.,l-

a;.,~1

~ .)~ ~

8I

.k;.,

.)1 ;- ~

.bu'"

4.~ -:;:

.b.>..i ~ 1 r,L..J 1 ~ 1 .kiJ

L

'

d.hi.;,

~ '-:'

J;. U'" I

4.bi.:t ~U'"

~I r,l-

.A ,-:,,..u:..J 1 y",

(2)~,

(1)i:-J 4

/ rep

/ J~

8 /

1.1..)1 3/ i:-J 2

.ki

\::.hi..:.i

7 /

.j

~~I .!lU ~, r~ ~lill ~ ,

c:-r

t"",J I r,l-

'-:' 4.bi.:t

~'-'"

o..b.i:.i - .;..11

~1

~ ~,. :;-;; ~ ~, v.A

.1.U'"

..H
-

-,-",I

I.:i I,.

J..:;J ( f. 3 a)

4.,l- ..01 e::'J'

xl~..b...;...
"J
-

4.-L-

4.b:t..;;

~,"Ii d,:,~ ~

V.A

""-t- <,f..lJ1 .j1SJ1 ~I

..0 I ~ .1.,-",

.1.

..J..:....:..;"

~,1

~,5

148

4a-d

Translation

(PI)

a (4). The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe.

We repeat! the two (conic) sections (the hyperbola and ellipse ABG). We
draw from point E a line at right angles (to AD), let it be EN. We make EN
equal to EA. We draw NO parallel to axis EA.
We draw through point N the parabola with axis NO and latus rectum
NE. 2 Let it be (conic) section NC.
b

We make the ratio of EM to MA equal to the ratio of axis AD to its latus

rectum. Then line M A is half of the homologue. 3
We make the ratio of AE to EQ equal to the ratio of the square of Z to the
square of H. We make th~: ratio of AM to MI equal to the ratio of ME to EQ.
We draw through point A the hyperbola with axis AM and latus rectum MI.4
Let it be (conic) section AC. Let it intersect (conic) section NC in point C.
As to (the question) whether it intersects it or not, (f. 3b) we shall explain
this afterwards in our diorismos of the problem. 5

We draw from point C perpendicular CT and we extend it on both sides.

Let it intersect NO in point o.
We make TW equal to AT. We draw perpendicular WG to the boundary
of the (conic) section (ABG). We join AG, let it intersect CO in point S. Then
AS is equal to SG.
<'
We join ES; it is a diameter of (conic) section AG. Let it intersect (conic)
section AG in point B. W,e draw BK tangent to the (conic) section. 6

I say that the ratio of BK to KA is equal to the ratio of Z to H.

Text

149

4a-c (PI)
~

.;.S.J, wli

, U.Jl>

r-r' .

r-.-l I::i!"

I.JI>

.;.S.J, .JI> u

a.:,~ ~ I.b> .JI>

r! Ii.l I ~,

4.b.;.; vo r:.~' ~I

~~,

(U

I.S u~ i.!!..-J I d.lA ~;;, < ~ > a

j!.

I.JI>

~,

u.JI>

U G6.t- ..s III .j ISJ I ~ I U

4.b.;.;

u"u ~

~ r!1i.l1 ~.)!

J.JI>

,)1

J.JI>

~
-

')l.Jl>

2-

.uJ

.)l r I

..s r

..s,. c-!Ii.ll~,

"

I ~ ~

.JI> I a.:-:~,

r ~

3-

,)

rI

.
a.:-:

.)~ r.Jl>

t;,).._.l:>,;

~.

~,

VO

a.:-:~,
1_

~?::'J'.)1

-.

?::,J'

r-r'

I d.J..i.: ~

F-'

u" I ~ .;.S.J,

- (f. 3b )

l;1. ~

I r ...b.>.

~I J:..:;.JI ~

G6.t- ..slll .l!1;J1 ~I

I. Ii u" 4.b.;.; ~ u"

..LJ

II'

.)1 ~

~
~v, '-:-

j!.

4.b.;.;

~ r:.~' }:I j!.

J"'

I U~

~ ~ I ~

U"

,.b

4.b.;.; ~ (u"
-5

F-'

~ I

~,.

F-'
~

~ I J..<..; ,
-

uW v-.JI>
C.1u.!J......

~ I):.i
~1I

4.b.;.;

cWJ I
J..<..;,

..
r:.r-'

Zj

to

N u

Translation

150

4e-g

(PI)

Proof: We draw the ordinate BF. Then the product of TE and EA is equal
to the square of EF. But the product of NO and NE is equal to the square of
OC, NO is equal to ET, and NE is equal to EA. So the square of OC is equal
to the square of EF. So line OC is equal to line EF.
But OT is equal to EA. So line TC is equal to line AF.7

The ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of AS is equal to

the ratio of ME to EA. But the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the
square of AF is equal to the ratio of AM to MI, which is the ratio of ME to
EQ. And the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of AF is compounded of the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of AS and
of the ratio of the square of AS to the square of AF.
So the ratio of the square of AS to the square of AF is equal to the ratio
of AE to EQ.

But the ratio of AE to EQ is equal to the ratio of the square of Z to the

square of H. So the ratio of the square of AS to the square of AF is equal to
the ratio of the square of Z to the square of H. So the ratio of AS to AF is equal
to the ratio of Z to H.
But the ratio of AS to AF is equal to the ratio of BK to KA.
So the ratio of BK to KA is equal to the ratio of Z to H. 8 That is what we
wanted to prove. 0

G~

W~

________~.____~__~~~~~~______~
E.,A

D
,)

N~

151

Text

4d-g (PI)

A:-=S

u-Il j

1:

u-Il .!.I,,:-, ~ u~ J,ili

I.!.I

1--

.) ..A.J:, ":-',rP u~ ~,;:JI ~

I..A

t u , u"t ~JI ~ ..A u

:it

u-I! ..A I

vo, .., I

A:-=S ....

5~

~JI

.. ..,

, -1:

I.!.I u-Il .!.I,,:-,

~

.J:,r

.)

.l

.)1

~J"

I.J:,

.J:,

":-',rP~ u~'

~J'

~,

A:-=S

.)1

~JI

51:

A:-=S

u-I!

~JI

.... 1 u-I! ..,1

1;,)) I. .!l.I .l,

..)1

A:-=S ..,
~;

I ~JI
6

,)1

4.... I ~J'

I.J:, .j.J:,

.... 1

C"

u-Il

I u"t

~,
5

,,)1

l.!l

..AI

A:-=S

~,

r ":-'~

I rep ~ . .. ~

,)1

";..A

~JI

vo dLI;'

":-',rP ~

I ~JI u-Il .., I ~JI ~,

: ~ r u-Il r I 3
I

:::;.k>.

.... 1 u-I I --1 6

..A

I.J:,

u-Il

~JI

u-Il r I A:-=S ul ~JI u-Il I.J:, .) .J:,r ":-',rP~'

.)l I.J:, .) .J:,r ":-',rP~' ";..A u-Il ..A r ~ ..".

.., I ~JI ~

..,1

~lA.;-:

~ ..A u , .J:,..A ~

I..A

~r

~JI

";..A

..,

l:l

U..A ~JI ~

~ 2 u".J:, .b;..i J.; ~ .J:, fJ

3-

.,;oJ I

ul

.Ia>

u-I I ..Ar &......:S"

I..A

t u ":-',rP'

l:r.:; ~JI ~ u"t ~~ I

u"t.b;..i

1:::"'-":

u,,:-,

rep

~,

,)1

~J'

-j

.!l..,..

.)1

A:-=S
~

'-At

' - ..) 1
I..A

rJ

u-Il..A

152

Translation

4h-m (Pt)
h

As to the diorismos of this problem, it is as I shall describe.

For the ellipse the problem can be solved under all circumstances (f. 4a)
without a condition. 9 It can be solved only once on one side lo of the ellipse.
The reason is that for the hyperbola with axis AM and latus rectum MI,
the ratio of its axis to its latus rectum is equal to the ratio of ME to EQ, which
is the ratio of the product of ME and EA to the product of AE and EQ.
(The product of AE and EQ) is less than the square of AE, so it is less
than the square of EN.
So the hyperbola with axis AM intersects line EN between the points
E and N. ll

So it intersects the boundary of the parabola between the points A and N

because the parabola passes through point A.

[because the perpendicular which is drawn from point A to the axis

NO is equal to line EN which is the latus rectum (of the parabola), and cuts
off from the axis a line e:qual to line EA which is also equal to the latus

rectum.]12

The hyperbola with transverse axis AM has vertex A, and its concavity
is opposite to the concavity of the parabola. So it intersects the parabola
under all circumstances in two points. One of the two points is point A,
so it (the hyperbola) intersects it (the parabola) in another point. This
(conic) section intersects line EN, so it intersects the boundary of the parabola in a point between the two points Nand A.13
It (the hyperbola) does not intersect it (the parabola) in any other point
except for these two points. 14
m

So the problem has a solution in any case. It has no more than one solution because the hyperbola and the parabola intersect in only one other
point beyond point A.15

Text

153

4h-m
~

~I

(f.4a

.
J~~I ~

Ci.l>1, Ci". .pl;J1 ~I

'-:'rP

U'"

l..5 v~ ...: ~ 4.I!....J I o.l.cb

~ ~ .;JI

J.A

< J.A .j .A I '-:'rP' >.

2-

..s.ill .l: !.;J I ~ I; ,

v.A

4.l!....J1 vI .pLJI ~I .j

Ci .l>1,J1 ~I .j

..sr ~1iJ1.....w, ~

.)1..111

~, b,r!

.l:!.;J1

40;- ..s.ill

v.A ~J'

U'"

"..a..o I

1..111

U'"

40;-

.j .A

.A I ~J'

U'"

"..a..oi

4~~~3V.A.h>.~~4o;-[.jl

~Iv~

~~~.jISJI~I~~W

vi

T ~
I,:,L... v~ t

,)1

~ ~Ii.ll W...D
..

.#

.
1.1

vi .!lU,

~I

...; .A I '-:'rP')1

J.A

1.1;

.l,: ~

(PI)

r-r- ~

I,:,L... lb. ~I

I ll.A;

U'"

~,

~,

~h

U'"

..s.ill

5.1'"= .jISJI

~I 6v~ 1

~1iJ1 ~I yo ..s.ill

.;;..111 ..k;J

[ ~I ~Ii.ll ~ ,L... yo ..s.ill

1..111 ..k;J

'

..
.l: !.;J I ~ I .;; ~ Ci.l> I, Ci". ~ 1 F ~,
~

..b..s/l Ci.l>1, ll.A;

.;;1

II J

6
10/

f'.r.iJ
/

5 /

~ ~1 T
~

ll.A;

9 / o,rio,8 /rep

vb

-I

J 6. J5

4.I!....J I;

.jISJI,

vL...bli:;,:

/ J.A

2 /

~ t' .jISJI ~hiJl,

154

Translation

5a-d (PI)
a (5).1 As for the hyperbola, the problem has a solution for it only on a condition and in a special case.
The condition for this (conic) section is that the ratio of the square of Z
to the square of H is not less than the ratio between (1) the line composed
of twice the transverse diameter, that is AD, and the homologue, that is
twice AM, and three times the line, the square of which is equal to the product
of the transverse diameter and the homologue and (2) line ME. 2
b

Let us repeat the hyperbola 3 and the parabola. We complete4 the parabola.
We extend line DA in a straight line on the side of A.
We make the product of DA and twice AM equal to the square of AB. 5
We draw from point A a perpendicular to the axis of the parabola and we
extend it to (meet) the boundary of the section (the parabola), let it be AS.
This line cuts off from the axis a line equal to line AE, which is the latus
rectum. 6
We join SB and produce it till it ends at the boundary of the parabola.
Let it intersect the parabola in point C. 7 We draw from point C an ordinate, 8
let it be CT X. Let it intersect the axis of the parabola in point O.

Then the product of the latus rectum and the line which AS cuts off from
the axis is equal to the square of TO. But the product of the latus rectum and
NO is equal to the square of CO. So the product of the latus rectum and BT
is equal to the square of CT.9

Again, the ratio of CT to T B is equal to the ratio of SA to AB. So the

product of AB and CT is equal to the product of SA and BT. But the product
of SA and BTis twice the product of the latus rectum and BT, since SA is
twice the latus rectum. So the product of AB and CT is twice the square of
CT, so AB is twice CT, so CT is half of AB. lo

.......

'"w

.......

.f

.......

en

'C\..

.......

-.J I-'

~-I ~

''i..

~ I

Ii.. <i

-.....

.......

01

.......

'C\..

-.J{I

I{Ir ' {\:

C. \.

Q rt.
~ ~
~. {

.t

Jr
t.
, ""to Q ~ ''i..
~ rt. ""to

Ir 1''i..

Ir , ; {

0.

(")

"i.. ~Ir I \.
.f""t Q (.
''i.. ",-" ~ ~ ~

(I os-:

("1> 1 E- 1 " '

i;7''i.. {
Ir ""to \"

Ir

7. I ~

~ I ~I

- <i

en

r\-. 1-

(F

,I F {rt.
~ ~
c-r I\ t.

''i..
1-

r ~ I~

{ I'

c.

~.

'{
{I
~~
Ir

I ~. ",' ~
'c. f'
~ I ~-I ~ ,'IA

Ir

_01

- ~: ~-I5=
f: ~ { 1

{ I{

.~

''i..

(I t '~I
I

t:

\0

C,
1"

Ir
~.

&;-{I<i"l

''i. 'i..

r lit .'

fL

't::
t'

c,

1.

<i

f, f,

:b

0"

t 5= ~ ;:I~

r ~ Ir~1 ~ 1;

~. fL ~

~I'I~~~~ f -

'"

f.'I,

"' ..... 'i..&.

~ 't ~

rr-

<,..

\' I-'fl

'[

rt

'[.

I::

'~

~'I 't.

'- '"

t:

Ir

(,

-to ....

(,

~-t i ' _
l

t~

. .. r,.

'I.- ,[ [.

'=d
..!l)

1\

&

'-'

0.

Vl

r."

..

1'i.,N~ t~ ~
f ~ - ~ I- ~, -tf p
: '-

- C' <i

t-. ."-I E'

'r.'

~~'~ ~ 1:

,~

1>

-:I~ ~I"'IJ
r. ~ 't ~ ).
Ii.. t. '
- - - ,,...

tIrl~ ~

-( 'l: <i

,- g- \:
t
fl ~
':.I!;

t'i. 11;~ ~If,~ ~. 1;

""1 ''i.. ~
I
;: IrL
(. ~~ ",r.' "t 1.r
~
- \. l~
~~. -t'ii-'"
'"
W""to.f - I t ''i..

'"

I;

"':~
f,
.t

",.

1 ,I ,. f.'~ ~ I J

r
1- r:'". '1. (t"";'=
f.'I

v.
v.

Translation

156

5e-g (PI)
e

Since the product of SA and BT is equal to the product (f. 4b) of AB and
CT, the product of SA and BT is half of the square of AB. The square of AB
is equal to the product of DA and twice AM, so the product of DA and AM
is half of the square of AB. And DA is equal to SA, so the product of SA and
BT is equal to the product of SA and AM. So BT is equal to AM. So AM
and BT, taken together, are equal to the homologue. 11

We make TF (equal to) twice AD. We make FG (equal to) twice AB.
Then line GM is twice AD plus twice AM -that is the homologue-plus
three times line AB, the square of which is equal to the product of DA and
the homologue. So line GM is the line we defined above. 12

I say that if the ratio of the square of Z to the square of H is equal to the
ratio of GM to ME, or gn~ater than the ratio of GM to ME, then the problem
can be solved and has two solutions. If the ratio of the square of Z to the
square of H is less than the ratio of GM to ME, then the problem cannot be
solved in any way.13
Let us prove what we have mentioned.

zj

Text

157

5e-g (PI)
[

,1

(f.4b)

.j ,,:-1

.1,u"

":-rP J;. ,,:-1 t:'J'"

I .) ,

rI

.j

":-rP J;.

IU"

~1.kiJ1
r~ .h>

u,s... , ":-

.j I.)

I u..-.,.;,

~u

.1,,,:-

J;.

2~I

.1.>.i,

~I

.j

.1,,,:-

~,

.h> JI!.I" ~)t, ~I ~I .h:;.J1 ~ c.,?1I1

r~

rI

-r

4,-:J I

Iu-

J;.

rI

J;.

u.1,

I u..-.,.;"

~,

.) I

4.A..J" c.,?.lJ I ":- I

!.;."li c.,?1I1 .kiJ1 ~

g
4,

I.

~I

u~ .A r ,)1 r~ 4.;--: vo ~i ;1
~i -; t:'J" .)1 j t:'J" ~ ..:...:15 u1,

il!.-JI

r .)t r~ 4.;--:
~L;)",)

rep

.j I.)

r~

, .:....i-r
.A

t~

.) I ~

.j I.) ":-rP J;.

.kiJ I

1,-"" ":-~
1

":-rP u~

IU"

rI

~.l,:~

.Ar.)l

.j

":-~

":-rP u'i,

1,-""

.j

.1,,,:-

' ,,:-1 t:'J" u.,...; .1,,,:-

,,:-1 t:'J" u.,...;

.1,,,:-';

":-rP J;.

vo

.kiJ l . j
/

~~I vo

I.)

.) 4

<

~>:>

":-rP J!. J!.

t u L 3

F 'i

~J" c

il!.-JI

III ,--I

uli

2 /

C~

I M rep ~ .1.>.i I JI!.I 4!.l:,

158

Translation

5h-k (PI)
h

First, (let) the ratio of the square of Z to the square of H, which is the
ratio of AE to EQ, (be) equal to the ratio of GM to ME. 14
We bisect GF in point J. Then FJ is equal to AB, and AB is twice CT,
so line FJ is twice CT. And TF is twice XT, so line JT is twice line CX.
So the product of JT and TC is equal to two times the product of XC and
CT. But XT is twice the latus rectum, and the product of the latus rectum
and AT is equal to the product of XC and CT. So the product of XT and
T A is equal to the product of JT and TCY
But GJ is equal to AB, and AB is twice CT, so the product of GJ and TC
is equal to the product of XT and AM.16
So the product of GT and TC is equal to the product of XT and TM.
So the ratio of GT to TM is equal to the ratio of XT to TC.
So the ratio of GM to MT is equal to the ratio of XC to CT.17

The ratio of GM to AE is compounded of the ratio of GM to MT and the

ratio of MT to AE. But the ratio of GM to MT is equal to the ratio of XC
to CT.
So the ratio of GM to AE is compounded of the ratio of XC to CT and
the ratio of TM to AE, (which is) equal to the ratio of the product of MT
and T A to the product of T A and AE.
But AE is the latus rectum, and the product of T A and the latus rectum
is equal to the product of XC and CT.
So the ratio of TM to AE is equal to the ratio of the product of MT and
T A to the product of XC and CT.

So the ratio of GM to AE is compounded of the ratio of XC to CT and

the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the product of XC and CT.
But the ratio of XC to CT is equal to the ratio ofthe product of XC and
CT to the square of CT.
So the ratio of GM to AE is compounded of the ratio of the product of
MT and T A to the product of XC and CT and the ratio of the product of
XC and CT to the square of CT.
This ratio is the ratio of the product of MT and T A to the square of TC.
So the ratio of GM to AE is equal to the ratio of the product of MT and
T A to the square of TC.

00

~I ~:I

.............

l.O

f.' ~

......

t-

......

.......

'"

......

\1

......

....,

......

<;;

-r

't.

Pi

Ir

Ir
-

1r't.

-r

I '- <;;.

., 1\

t.

Ir

't

r-r

-. l"l~ 't.'-

,.

Ir

f.

-r. ~~ -.1-1

I~

11 1Ir I

r.

~ -.
I

-r

't.

~.,

r-I

I ~

1- ~
~. I [: .. '1:.

1f

1\1

t"f
."

Ir 1 -r Ir Ir
''ti..
1\
<;1
Irl " " ti..
' .[,
- . "
l ' Ir
,. ~- :
.~
1\ 1
Ir 1
Ir
~
-. Irl <;;
'r;.. Ir
rt - <;..
&=
1\
+ Irl 'ti..
r.
-r <;., ..
-r
n
c.

Ir

5: rt1\ I ~ I - ,-.

-r

't.

Ii';'"

t-

{ [

>-

r t

'-0.

r -.
t r - .-

..-

<;;

{.

::;"

' - -..

" -r <;. 1
1\ 1'1\ ,'t. .~
Ir 1 .
~ rt . Ir
r
1\ Ir
~.
.
v
\
1 r. Ir 1 '1 N I
1 I~ -r. ". 1\Ir 1rt
.( . - I
- r
t \. 1 1
':
, . rt
1\ .~ Q'
..- 1\,
~
,w': 't. Ir\ . '
. .ti..
'Ir Ir t 1
1\ ,.
f 1! 'i
.[
'- 1\ 'ti.. f.
Ir 1 -I ,. ,,- .."r I
rt I,
r t . . ~ Ii...
: t ' '= ~ 1\ I<;;
~ .~ .."r 1~.I '- <;;,
~
~, <;~ 1 .~ I =- I
1-1
~
r,. p;
- 'i.r
~
I-Id
'
~
I
1-1 f. - I(l
1\ 11\ I~, . - -r"~
-. 1~ 't.
1
1\ -. I. .~ I Ir V 1\ : -( 1-' 'i
Ir Ir
ti.. Ir[ 't. Ir
Ir "l.
..~ Ir I '- Ir r ~
Ir
- 'r;'t r;'t 5: Ir 11\ '- -I
,"'" ~ <;;
1:
'ti.. _I 'ti.. Ir 1 . - .
'i 'i
-.
,,- 'r [ . t . '- <;. ,5= " -( 1
1\ rt V -. 1 -.!.,
~ ~ tlr ,. &= 1-- tl ,,: .:. 1\ .,; : ~- N Ir 1___ 1- <;~ 1'ti.. rt.1
.~,
V {~
"l.
. <;1
1\
-I -1'' -. 't. N1\ I ,ti...~. " I 'ti.. Ir \ ~ ''i, ~ I ~ I-..~ 1 t~
.
'ti..
{
,.. t
'1:.
+
<;. I . 1.: . '1
'
..ti..Ir 'ti..Ir rt1\ I <;;. 't.-r -.Ir 1 : rt1\ [ 'ti..1\ ~~I':
(. (.'1 .
v ..'- ~... . -.Ir I : rtIr 1~.~
F _. V ..Ir ~
Ir V

"I.

.~ 1 ' 1\
I
,.
5: .:. rt1\ 1f. t':. '-1\ ,

Ir

.. I~r ~ 15:~ ~ I~1-1

-r

't. 't.

Ir

-.-r 1-. Ir.

Ir

.......
'-'

'""'d
""'

Ii';'"

VI
::;"

Vl
\0

-l
rD
~

160

Translation

51-n (PI)
The ratio of GM to AE is equal to the ratio of ME to EQ. SO the ratio of
the product of MT and T A to the square of TC is equal to the ratio of ME
toEQ.
But the ratio of AM to MI is equal to the ratio of ME to EQ. SO the ratio
of the product of MT and T A to the square of TC is equal to the ratio of
AM to MI.
m

So the hyperbola with transverse axis AM and latus (f. 5a) rectum MI
passes through point C. 18 But point C is on the boundary of the parabola.
So if the ratio of the square of Z to the square of H is equal to the ratio
of GM to ME, then the hyperbola with axis AM intersects the parabola, and
the (solution ofthe) problem can be completed as is explained in the synthesis
of this problem. 19

I say also that the problem has two solutions:

We draw from point C to diameter AT an ordinate, let it be line CA. Then
AT is twice CT.
The reason is that CA is parallel to the tangent to the parabola at point
A. The tangent cuts off from the axis outside the parabola a line equal to
the line which the perpendicular drawn from point A to the axis cuts off
from the axis.
But the perpendicular drawn from point A to the axis is equal to what it
cuts off from the axis, since this perpendicular is equal to the latus rectum.
So the tangent drawn from point A forms together with (the perpendicular
and) the axis a triangle, the base of which is twice the perpendicular drawn
from point A.
This triangle is similar to triangle CAT. So line AT is twice line TC. So
it (AT) is equal to line AB.
So line AA is equal to line BT. But BT is equal to AM, so line AA is equal
to line AM. So line MC is tangent to the section (the parabola).20

I ext

161

51-n

u-ll r~ ~ J
..sr u-ll r 1 ~J ' J..A u-l!..A r ~...,...J." ~~ u-ll I.J." .j
2...,...J." ~~ u-ll
1.J.".j .J." r '-:'~ ~ J..A u-ll..A r ~
.J."

1-

r '-:'~ ~ J..A u-ll ..A r ~ ..".. ..A

(PI)

3-

..sr u-ll r 1

3-

<f.r r!IiJl
.:..;\5'

......w.J r

(f.5a )

.j1SJ1

Ul' ..A r u-ll

..l!!iJ1 ~I

1 ~~I -..- ~.ill ..l!!iJI~1i

~I ~ ~

~ ~

-:; 41.i..: J ' : ;

5-

r~ ~

u-ll ;

L ~~

~~ ~

~,;; .j ~ loS i.l!.....Jl ~J .j1SJ1 ~I ~ ~ -..- ..s.ill

.J." I

"bi u-ll...,..

G.b.i.;.:,...

'C.r-

.!lJ .l J .J."...,..

7.J."

~ u~

.ki.Jl J '

I G.b.i.;

.j15.l1

~
'C.l 6J1

..s.ill ..b.:iJ1
~IJ '

looiA

~I

~
,

J!.o

.!...l:>.,:

~I

..
u~

~I U"~

~I

Il:..>.

vo ~I ~

~I VI

,....; ...."..J." .h> u......;. .J."

J .J.",-:, .k;.J JL...

~ U"I.. ...,..

/ Arc : ic r->
/

; 10 / U" I..l I J

5 /

9 /

BJ....i.: U"1..l1

...,k I

r!1iJ1

r1

4 /......

3 /

>

looiA J

I .k;.J JL...

'-:'

~ I .l:.:;..i

J....> ~

J..;.... B / .J." 1TJ

JL...

~I

~ ~ ~I

I .l:.:;..i

.l:.:;..i

al:.i.; VI

~ ~I <~J

.J.,,~...,..

.l:.:;..i

vo 'C.l6J1 ~I

~I

9U"1..l1i

1I,';..lI:Ii

-10

.J.",-:,

I G.b.i.;

&l....i" W ,L...

I ii.l:.:i.; vo 'Ch ..s lJl

6~...,..

..s.ill .l:..:o..U ;J,.

vo ~I vo

'C.I L;.

1 ii.l:.:i.; vo 'C.l6J1 ~I ~

r 1 .Po

.
... ...
F i.I!.....J I u t 4 I J,.1i
~...,.. .h> uS.J J ~,,:.i 1 ~ Ib.:>.

v.i-J"

IJ;

2 / ...... 1

7 /

I J...,.. 6

162

Translation

50-q (PI)

We draw from the points M and G perpendiculars to line SX, let them be
MWand Gt.
Then, since the ratio of GM to MT is equal to the ratio of XC to CT,
the ratio of MG to GT is equal to the ratio of CX to XT. So the product of
GM and TX, that is MW, is equal to the product of CX and GT, that is Xt.
So the hyperbola drawn through point M with asymptotes lines Wt and
tG passes through point C. 2 !

So line MC is inside this (conic) section. But MC is tangent to the parabola, so no straight line can fall between it and the parabola. 22
So any line 23 which is drawn from point C between the tangent to the
hyperbola and line MC is inside the hyperbola, and each of these lines is
inside the parabola.
So the hyperbola which passes through the points M and C intersects
the parabola in a point between the points A and c. 24

So if there is drawn from the point of intersection a perpendicular to

line St, it (the perpendicular) will intersect line MG, and the ratio of GM to
the part which is cut off from it on the side of M will be equal to the ratio
of the perpendicular to the part which is cut off from it between the (conic)
section and line MG. 25
If the proof proceeds in the way we went on previously, it will be seen that
the hyperbola with transverse axis AM and latus rectum MI passes through
the other point 26 between the points A and c. 27 Thus it has become clear
that the hyperbola with axis AM and latus rectum M I intersects the parabola
in two points, different from point (A).
Thus it has become clear that the problem has two solutions.

163

Text

50-q

[,], r W, tu-

.::..~

.;;,s; .bU"
.
~I t.b oj

,)1 ~ r
.Po , r
...,k

4hi.;

U"

r~ '-:'~

r-~ .s.lll .t!.;J1 ~Ii

~.::..

2ft

oj IS.! 1 ~

u- I.. U"

~ 1 J.:>.I..l

oj IS.! 1 ~I

.j

~1

--

..k;.

.;;~ .b,kiJ I

.
~I

~ va ~r-'

,)1

r~

,)1 tU"
-

~ .b~

tU" '-:'rP

oj

.b~

.;;~,

.;; I.llJ 1 .;; lh.:iJ 1

-;

.b.:i..t

IS...! 1 C
- \..,.11.
.";,,.,. - ~,
-. ~

u- ' - " .k;.J 1 VI:-:

JS,

~ .;;)1;

1.lA J.:>.I..l oj .;;~ U"

~ va ..k;.

r ~

U"

~.,t

.t !.;J 1 4

..k;. V=-:'

.::..

r ,

.s

.b

.b r

1~.;; ~ ~

.):.>

.::..,

4.ll 1 .k;.J Ii

~n

U"

~ v.:~ ~

,)1 U" t
..k;.

(PI)

I..-i -:;;

I!

4hi.; va

oj

~ 1 J.:>.I..l

5 ft .s.lll .t!.;J1 ~Ii

.;;~

oj IS.! 1

U" 1 ~ VI:-: ~ 4hi.; ~

.;;,5:;, ~ r

..k;.

~,

J...i.:,: t. .)1 ~ 1

'::"u-

~
7

<J.lli -.;.~ 1 ...,k .;; LA,r.l1

~,

r1

~ ~ ~ Ia:;J 1 4hi.;

..k;.

.!J.l...

~~I ......... eJ.ll1

va

~ ".> t

I.> ~

.j ~ J...i.:,: t. .) 1 r~ ~

I.)p .

..k;., ~ 1 VI:-:

..

.t!.;J1 ~I .:,.1 .!l.U va ~

I..-i

L:..Ii

..
11
10
9, U" I ~ VI:-: ..;J I .s ".> ~ I
4hi.:J l: ft
L~ r r! laJl
12 - "
..
..
.s r r!liJl~, r I ......... .s.lll .t!.;J1 ~I .;;1 .!.l.I j va ~

..

.;;! .!.l.I'> va ~ ,

/ r/ r-

10/ __ 9

< 1 >4hi.;

.. ~ ~

5 / rep ~ ~.lll
/ LA ~

..\i: (~)

...,k oj IS.! 1 ~I

r-

2 /

4 / d.lA

3 /

/=

L:..Ii 8/ (cf. 5! )...;.17/

7 / ~

(!).bA...I~ 11

164

5r-t
r

TranslatIOn

(Pi)

That being proven for this ratio, we now prove it for the ratio which is
greater than the ratio of GM to ME.
We make gM greater than GM. We draw from point 9 perpendicular gV.
It is clear that if there is drawn from (f. 5b) point M a tangent to the
hyperbola which passes through the points M and C and if it (the tangent)
is extended on both sides, it will end at line t Wand at line tG - if these lines
are extended in a straight line-and the tangent will be bisected in point M.
This tangent is between the lines MC and MG.
If this tangent is extended in a straight line on the side of G, it will meet
line V9 <- if it (V g) is extended) in a straight line - on the side of g. The part
of it (the tangent) between point M and line Vg is greater than the part between point M and line tW 28
Then, if M C is extended in a straight line on the side of <C, it (M C) will
meet line tG if this line is extended on the side of G, and the part of the extension ofline MC (namely the part) which is between point C and line tG
will be equal to the part of this extension between point M and line t W). 29
And also the part of the extension of line MC between point C and line
Vg-ifthis line 30 is extended on the side of g-will be greater than the part
of this extension between point M and line VW.
So the hyperbola drawn through M with asymptotes lines VWand V 9
intersects the tangent, and it intersects it on the side of g.
It (this hyperbola) also intersects the part of the extension of line MC on
the side of g. It (the hyperbola) intersects it (the line) beyond point C.
The tangent (to the hyperbola MC at M) intersects the parabola since
it is between the lines MC and MG.
So the hyperbola drawn through M with asymptotes lines V9 and VW
intersects the parabola in two points, one of them in front of point C and the
other one beyond point C. 31

165

Text

Sr-t (PI)
.."so

~I ,j

.,rJ1

~ ~, r ~

I"
~,,>I

V-

U1
r

.:;1.lA 'Z,,>I

~.;..

.l.:.>.

~.;..

r ..):.>

1.lA V-

r-iJ1

V-

1.l1

.wI

1,:,1-

~.;..

~i ~,

r-iJ1 .:;~, ' ~

r-W

.It

,)1

.l.:.>.

I...;

.l1,

V-

.:;~, '

a.\i:;...1 ~ .wI I.ll

~

,j

a.\i:;...1 ~

.. -

4-

a.\i:;...1 ~

,j

t.l

41.i; ~ ~.lll

~,

.l .l.:.>. .;-., <.J" d..b.i.; ~ .s.lll <.J"

~i

41.i; .;-. .s.lll .l::..:iJ I 1.lA V- r-iJ1 V-

<.J"

.l.:.>.

d..b.i.; .;-.

.w I

<.J"r

~.lll

.k;J1

~ J.<w.ll .k;J1

t~

5.j

r-iJ1 1.lA

, .l .l.:.>..;-.,

~ .;., 1.lU1 (.; lh:>J I (.;~'

d.bi; ~

~,j ~,U"''-II.l::..:iJI~

I...;

~ ,j

r ~

d..b.i.;

~ 7r-.r- [

:::;; d..b.i.;

~,

~.

-t

V- 5

/:; 4

V-

. <.J"

..):.> ~.:;~

,.l

~i ~, '

r-iJ1
d..b.i.;

.. ~, V- ~,

..l!~1 ~Ii' ~r

<.J"

r ~ ~

~ 8 . hi. ~ .1.lU1 .lh:>J1 .. (

..r- '" '"
u
UJ-'::'

~ ~

~ ~'lII, <.J"

6 /

'lI ] .s.lll

.s,ill <..l! ~ I ::: ~ Ii

[,I]

J.<w.ll .k;J1

~~ ,j1SJ1 ~I ~ U"''-II .k;J1,

.1. .;.1\ .l... 9

C-- c--::
~

<.J"

t.l

r-.r-

.wI I.lp

a. \i:;...1 ~ .k;J I 1.lA

.l.:.>. ~, <.J"

<, ,.;.. .l.:.>.

,j

~I ~I

.:;~ U" '-II .k;J I 1.lA,

,j

d..b.i.;
3

a.\i:;...1 ~ .:;lh:>J1

,j

..Ii

41.i; V-

41.i; ~ .s.lll r-iJ1 V- ~I

.l.:.>. ..).1" ~l <.J" >

V-

2-

~,

d..b.i.; ~ .s.lll ~ r-iJ1

J.<w.ll .k;J I

dl.l

r .) 1 r~ ~

.A

.)b ,.;..

<.J"

,.;.. .l.:.>.~,

1.l1

,j

r- ~.lll ..l!~1 ~I U"'~.l.:.>. r

<.wI I.ll>t.l .l.:.>. ..).1" ~p

~,

.lA

41.i; ~ U"'-II .k;J1 ~"

'-II .k;J I 1.lA,

U'"

l.ll ~p <.J"
~

~i r t ~
~..
~,,>I 1.l1 ~I ~

V-

( f. 5b)

~ 1.:1' ~I

1.....:.

d..b.i.;

.;.,..

J.:i

I...lbl.l>l ~ ~ ~, ,j1SJ1

3 /

i CtA.l

/ .."so

9 /

.l

.:; t........ 8

/
/

r-.1

166

Translation

5u-z (Pl)

If one draws from the two points of intersection two perpendiculars to

line VW, and if one follows in the proof the method explained above, it
will become clear that the problem can be solved and has also two solutions 32 -as has been proven for the line MG (as well). It has now become
clear that if the ratio of the square of Z to the square of H ( is greater than
the ratio of GM to ME, the problem can be solved and has two solutions.

I say also that if the ratio of the square of Z to the square of H) is less
than the ratio of GM to ME, the problem has no solution. That is clear, as
we shall describe.
We make the ratio (of Z2 to H2) the ratio of hM to ME. We draw perpendicular h Y.
If (perpendicular h Y) is extended in a straight line on the side of h,
it will intersect the tangent described above, that is the tangent to the hyperbola which passes through the points M and C. It (h Y extended) cuts off
from it (the tangent) a part between it (hY extended) and point M which is
less than the part between point M and line YW. 33

So if one draws through point M the hyperbola with asymptotes Yh

and YW, this (conic) section will intersect the tangent mentioned above in a
point between point M and line YW.

x
y

So this (conic) section does not intersect the parabola. 34

Since it does not intersect the parabola (f. 6a) the hyperbola with axis
AM and latus rectum MI also fails to intersect the parabola. 35 So the prob-

lem has no solution.

z

It has become clear from all we have proven that the diorismos of the
problem for the hyperbola is that the ratio of the square of Z to the square
of H is not less than the ratio of GM to ME.
If the ratio is such, the problem has two solutions.
That is what we wanted to prove. 36 0

\..

.......

.......

~.

00

.......

~It
--.J

... J

1:

.......

+0

f'.

.......

en

.......

.......

'L

,);

~'I ~

,,~

'r.
ri'

(.

J...
,:

~ -r. ~',

f:

<'\

l.. !L

I':::

:f

,l-

- '" I ('.
('.
-"
..... ~ "

r.

li .~,.

~, ~.

);

.. 'r'. 'c;..-

('.
..
_"

1.

'i:

r.

l-

-~

~ ~11

t"_

~
_ .. r:
"L

r.'"

~I

('.

f.

--

f-t)

'c;..

'<

{,,~
..

r. f. " I

~I ~

I-:.

,'-

-.!

IPI

(II

m'i:

--.Jt

l.'
"""b

en

~I

\- f.
~ :c-

,r

-.!

><I

;:
1..
:tC'

f:

\.:

:.E

i:':
lr- .....
..

C'i

c 1

"I~\-

cr

f-"
k.

h:-I

(.

f: l .

);

.r'

f'.

,~,

't..

(.'I

j:'

'-

~
.r

I'

C'i

(,._

EI
I-

,~ ... ~~

t' [.

F7

~.

.. -

(.'I

<:

..

't,

or1 . _..

t "I

:t.. :-.'
N
- ..
V ~
.
." I . .. ..l..'
_ .

',=

!L f7 'c;..

~'

'
~
~

~:

~l

!;.

".

1v . " tI!: ......(,.="

("f

(', ~
~ I ~', }
' ~ 11.r,' \::
.r

I'\...:::

('.~

lr-

f'.-flo (._to (,-

-: I~':L

.....

'"

'"

I
'1" :'r'~;
\
.
.

e...s
~~
\...- l-

I;'(

"'_ Ir
..... , c,-" rP"

1: Ii

e
,(,

~ ~ \:

('f

~ 'r: -: I ..~
r.c ,r-;;- '1:. .. I- ..!L ,f.. ('..' 'cr.:,;. -

..

:t

..

Eli
l.'!L

~ 11: ~

~'t~,~

(.j

- ..... ..c.

~ ~

.~ ~

'l.. '-

); ~ rt:t

i- \.f: t~ ~I.~~ I;'(~ I

~- "~ II \~
[

~.' ~;,.,:,- .

:t

}. .~. 1 [ ~I:f

~I~ 1

.. rt.

i1

~~e E
- 1
-

'c;.

~ IL.

00

r:

'c;..

1:

'i:

r. :

,'-

~
f:

1\

~
'-'

VI
~

--.J

0-

;;l

Translation

168

6a-d

(P2)

a 6. (Conic) section ABG is a hyperbola or ellipse, its transverse axis is AD,

and its centre is E. The ratio of H to W is an assumed ratio.
We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section which ends at the axis,
such that the ratio of it to the part of the axis which is cut off by it, and which
is adjacent to the remoter end, is equal to the ratio of H to W.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let the tangent be BS. Then the
ratio of BS to SD is equal to the ratio of H to W.
We join EB and extend it in a straight line on the side of B. We draw from
point A an ordinate to diameter EB, let it be ATG. Then AT is half of AG. 1
We draw from the points B, T and G perpendiculars to the axis. Let them
be BK, TF and GO.

Then the ratio of the product of DO and OA to the square of OG is equal

to the ratio of the transverse diameter AD to its latus rectum. [The same is
the ratio of the product of DK and KA to the square of KB, as is proven in
proposition 21 of the first book.] So the ratio of the product of EF and FA to
the square of FT is that same ratio, because these lines are halves of those
lines. 2

We make the ratio of EM to MA equal to the ratio of the transverse

diameter AD to its latus rectum. Then line AM is half of the homologue.
So the ratio of the product of MF and (F) A to the square of AT is equal to
the known ratio of ME to EA, as is proven in the second proposition of the
seventh book. 3

6a-c (P2)
s
1 ~~I ~''pL; ,I ~~ ~

.:'sr' .,)

~'-:-' 1 ~

..J

~I U"'1a,: lb.>. 'C.~ vi 1~, d..<,.,a.. -; .)~ ~ ~,

~ t.. rr-ll vo 2 ~ I. .)L ~ v~' rr-ll ')L ~,
;- ,)1 ~ ~ ~'JI u~1
4

...,k

a.\i:;...1

.;;,s:.;

U'" '-:-'

d'':';,

.... ~

~;:JI ...,k '-:-'~

--- 5
~J:,,-:-,

..J:,.;.;

vo

U'"

. , ')L

J-:,

;bi ')L lb.>.

~~,

1 d.J.:.i.;

~~I

.,) 1

,-:-,.!J t:"J" ..)

,)1

;bi ~ ~E t:"J"

I.!J

,j

if"

It

~ A:-=JI .!l.\:;

rr-ll

U"''-:-'

V"'

r! IiJI

,j

vS:.J,

...,k;.wi

v,s:.;

,j E .,) '-:-'~ ~

.!J.,) '-:-'~ ~ v~ .!lJ.l5 ,]

J:,~I .lA .;; 'J

')L

'C.~, '-:-'

.;,S;J,

.!J,-:-,

u~ '-:-'~ ~ v,s:.; , [.);~ 1 aJli.ll

,j

v"

.,)U'"

1 u...,.; J:, 1 .;;~ ~J:, I

t~uJ:,
6--

3 '.'
<J".;AJ

I...J 1 v~' J,...b.:J 1 ~ ...,k .!lJ.)

......J...;, .) L

is Ji.!. ,j ~

I.S

J:,u t:"J" .)~

lu

if"

.b,h:iJ1 .!l.\:;7 uJ.,.,.;1

~G

H L

w,

.,)

/ US

6 /

4.bi; 5

TJ:,

MS A

r
/

U'"

.;;,s:..,

.!J

V"' ~ 3

0
t

/ ~2

~Jl

~1

170

Translation

6e-h (P2)
e

The ratio of KA to AE is equal to the ratio of AS to SE. But the ratio of

AS to SE is equal to the ratio of TB to BE, which is the ratio of FK to KE.
So the ratio of F K to KE is equal to the ratio of KA to AE. So the ratio of
FE to EK (f. 6b) is equal to the ratio of KE to EA. So the product of FE and
EA is equal to the square of EK.4

Since the ratio of KA to AE is equal to the ratio of AS to SE, the ratio of

KA to AS is equal to the ratio of AE to ES, which is the ratio of T A to BS.
So the ratio of T A to BS is equal to the ratio of KA to AS. So the ratio of
T A to AK is equal to the ratio of BS to SA.

Since the ratio of BS to SD is equal to the known ratio of H to <W), the

ratio of DS to SA is equal to the ratio of BS to a line, the ratio of which to
SA is known. So the ratio of DS to SA is equal to the ratio of T A to a line,
the ratio of which to KA is known. But the ratio of DS to SA is equal to the
ratio of DK to KA, as is proven in proposition 36 of the first book. So the
ratio of DK to KA is equal to the ratio of T A to a line, the ratio of which to
AK is a known ratio. So the ratio of DK to AT is known, and similarly the
ratio of the square of DK to the square of AT is known.
But the ratio of the product of M F and F A to the square of A T is known.
So the ratio of the product of M F and FA to the square of DK is known. 5
It has already been proven that the product of FE and EA is equal to the
square of EK. 6
Since the ratio of the product of MF and FA to the square of KD is known,
and the product of FE and EA is equal to the square of EK, the ratio of EA
to AF is known, so AF is known, because it can be found. We shall explain
in the synthesis of this problem how it can be found. 7

Text

171

6d-h (P2)
~1iJ1

.......w.

~l ~~I

I r ~~

&.:-:S

,) I ).i

roA

~ ~,

-<-! ~I oa.-!JI ..l:..iJ1 u....;

1.1.> -<!
.... o.f. .
.... r '-:-".-.. -ct..:-. u,-w
. _-.
_
r_
u~

1 -I-.

~ 1 oA

.; WI JS:.:J I .j ~ 1oS",J.-J 1 loA

r &.:-:S

J:, I ?:,J" ~ 1
iJliJl VI

~WI

-.!loA

.!IJ ~ , oA.!l
(f.6b)

...,..,-:-

&.:-:S

.!II

-l.!l

~l 20AJ ~ oA I ~t

~ 1 I.!I ~ u,s.:; oA...,..

~,

~ ..sf" ,pI oA,-:-

~l .!IJ

~l

IJ:,

~l

~1 J' I

IJ:,

&.:-:S

, ...,.. I

,)1

&.:-:S

I.!I

u,s.:; ..,J.-JI <,

~
~,

iJliJl
6

5 ..,.t....

IV"

''',Lo.

VI,J

I o!I

.j

~ :;! ~l ~
""Lo.

J'

~l

4 -

~l ~ .1.> ~l

~l...,..,-:-

--

loS

.1.>

~l

J:, I ?:,J" ~~

IJ

IJ:,

I o!I ~1 .!I,) ~

J:b &.:-:S ~ ~l
""Lo.
.j

",J..... .!I')

I...,..

~l...,..,)

I...,..

~~...,..,)

o!I,)

""Lo.

i.,J..... J:, I

'-:-rP~'

?:,J"

~ ~,~I

J:, I ~l o!I') ~ ,

7J

&.:-:S I
--&':-:s...,..,-:IJ:,

&.:-:S ')...,.. ~l...,..,-:- ~ u'j,

~1 ~ .1.> ~l :;; ~ I...,.. ~l v- ,)
>~!

?:'~ ~~ .!I,) ?:'~ ~ .!l.I ~,

u~ ,

~l oA 1

I...,..
~

-oA.!I ~l

oA I ~ L I.!I ~

~ ...". .;J1...,..oA

&.:-:S

~l ,-:-J:,

~l 81J .j J r '-:-rP
h

&.

L.j

=:

I...,..

I '-:- I 11 / (2) J.!I (1);.!I: ').!l 10 I rep .!loA u'j,

'-:-~:

oA J

IJ

.j

'-:-".-. 3 I
J

8 I

2I

.j ..,...
6 I

IJ.j J

r"Lo.
-

5 I
s

172

Translation

6i-7c (P2)
If AF is known, FT is known in position, so ATG is known in size and
position, because A T is equal to TG. So point T is known. So EBT is known
in position. So point B is known. Line BS is tangent; this is the line that solves
the problem, and it is known in position. 8
a 7. The synthesis of this problem is as we have described. 1
We repeat the two (conic) sections. We make the ratio of AE to EQ equal
to the ratio of the square of H to the square of W. We draw from the points
E, M and A perpendiculars to the axis, let them be EN, MC and AX. We
make EN equal to EA and MC equal to DA.
We draw from the points Nand C parallels to line EA, let them be NR
and CXI. Then CX is equal to MA.
b

We make the ratio of CX to XA. equal to the ratio of ME to EQ. We draw

through point X the hyperbola with transverse axis CX (f. 7a) and latus
rectum XA..
We draw through point N the parabola with vertex point N, axis (N)R
and latus rectum EA.2 These two (conic) sections intersect under all circumstances.

In the case of the ellipse (this intersection takes place) because the parabola passes through A - for EA is equal to the latus rectum. 3 If the parabola
is completed 4 it passes through point X. So part of the hyperbola is inside
the parabola. Their concavities are opposite, so they intersect under all
circumstances.
They intersect on one side in one point only. 5

173

Text

6i-7a (P2)

r,.t......

.>.1. I ulSi

~I

a.,.t...... .1. ibi.:

u~

4 U" '":-' .b., a.,.t......

3:;=- ibi.:

~~, ~I
6

Ir-"

ii.wi

.,;;

4ht.;

UO

5/MV"':'AU"

\!.~,

.;;15 L.,L.. u I ul5 I..ib

~
2
.1. I u 'l
~ I, .i.wl

.;;~ ~ I r,.t......

.;;~

.1. '":-' -"

r,L.. ,.so, a..I!....Jl ~ u.ll l ,.so, U"I..

\!.~,

..l.:.i; UO

J!.

-?" .1.

~I

-"I

1.1. U

1..1

l:.i,.., I.S

t:'J' .) l

uA

a..I!....Jl d.llb ~;;,

~ t:'J" ~

...; -"

.) l

-'--- -t I ~ r.,;;-" ~'r-r-ll..,k

J!. ~r'

U",":-,4

1-"

.Po

u-"

~,

l.i 3 I ~Io 2 I .h: 1

He
..I

.J;

W,

,l-----t----:::-'I N u

-?"

Gr----+

R .J

~~--~~--~L-----~~~X

~c

...; ~(Q)

Translation

174

7d (P2)
d

In the case of the hyperbola (this intersection takes place) because the
asymptote of the hyperbola with axis ex intersects line NR which is the
axis of the parabola. It (the asymptote) intersects it (NR) beyond point N,
because it is drawn from the midpoint of line ex and forms with line ex
an acute angle adjacent to point X. So, since it intersects line NR short of
point N, it falls inside the parabola, so it intersects the boundary of the parabola. Since the boundary of the parabola intersects the asymptote of the
hyperbola, it intersects the hyperbola, for the hyperbola approaches its
asymptotes continuously, and the parabola moves away continuously from
any straight line which it intersects. So the parabola and hyperbola intersect
under all circumstances. 6
Let them intersect in point J. Let the parabola be N J, and let the hyperbola be XJ.

I:

yJ;,

w'

t X C u-

175

Text

7b-d (P2)
.)&

4bi;
,

')j

r-.r-,

---1 1iJ1

t
1

.;;

.,')j

I.A

1.-

.-<"!

~ U~
.;;w.,~

.1.M

jj.l>

tuP

4..L

4bi;

J6. JS .)&
u-

')L.A

~~( f. 7a)

.......... ,

J';;

J.A

')j

~~I .......... .s.lJ1 .)!!;JI ~I

.s.lJ1

.j~IFI

.l:.>.

.;;

4bi;

.)&

r-.r-,

r!1iJ1 cLA.l,;.,

. ~I .1...11 . '", -~I .1...11 . 1.1

~ '"
C-- uJW uN
C-- '"
-:- ~

~I.I...II
3 -!.il , '1iJ1.1..:.11
L
. ~ .H-' '"
c-r""
.,
r'
c--

~ .;;~1i:.. I..A~, .j~1 F I J>I.l .j

.)&

~ 4bi;

jj.l> I,J 1

tuP

~ ~,

5-

A1:.i.; .;;,.,)

~ I .j

')j

I...r--b ti:;

J .;;

.l:.>..h-,

VO

J';;

.l:.>. ~!.iii

I.i,
tuP ..........

~ I .j

.l:.>. ~

.:."')) .;;

1::: h

J 6. JS .)&

.;;~,

.s.lJ I .h.iJ1 .;;')1; .)!!;JI

4bi; ~

w!

W
')j

4bi;

I..

jj.,)

VO

6. 4,:, ~

. ,< 'I .1...11 .1.....- .1... .

'ISJ 1 .J....11 I~ l.l . .
"'...... c-- c-=.H-' '"
c-- v- '" ~ .H-'
.)!!;JI ~I .)& ~ ')j .s.lJI .h.iJ1 F- .j~1 ~I ~ .;;15
1

>

.s.lJI .h.iJ1

.......w.._.s .lJ I

vo

1.1:-

~.A:

.)!!;JI ~1

-1.l.I..l..oo..w

.;;')j

Fw
- ~

.)!!;JI cWJI

.-'-.--~I1.h.iJI
. ~ 1 .J.J I
r--IJ'.
.- '"
C--'
6
.)& w.,li-.'. J6. JS .)& .;;w.,~ .)!!;JI F I , .j~1
~I;

..;, t

.)!!;JI ~I, ..;,.;;

.j15.J1 F I ~, ..;,

u~1i. I..A~, : u)l-:1i:.. I..A~, 4 /

r' 3 /

.)!!;JI ~I

I'~'

<

.;;

~ ~, .j~1 ~I ~ ~ .s.lJ1
-

~ ~,

.;;w.,~ .;;t...J..i.J1 .;;I.iri I.A

d.ki.:...

.s.lJI .)!!;J I F I .)&

tuP

t ')L tuP

~ 2 /

4bi;

/ ~I, 6 / ; .

176

Translation

7e-i
e

(P2)

We draw from point .J (perpendicular J) FRI.7 We make FO equal to

FA. We draw perpendicular OG to (meet) the assumed (conic) section. We
join AG. We extend JF to meet AG, let it meet it in point T. Then AT is
equal to TG.
We join ET: it is a diameter of the (conic) section. Let it intersect the
boundary of the (conic) section in point B. We draw BS parallel to T A; it
is tangent to the (conic) section as is proven in proposition 17 of the first
book. s
I say that the ratio of BS to SD is equal to the ratio of H to W.

Proof: We draw perpendicular BK. Then the product of FE and EA is

equal to the square of EK, as is proven in the analysis.
FE is equal to NR and the product of NR and EA is equal to the square of
RJ, since EA is the latus rectum ofthe parabola. So line EK is equal to line RJ.
But RI is equal to ED, since Fl is equal to AD and RI is half of Fl. So line
IJ is equal to line KD.9

The ratio of the product of CI and IX to the square of IJ is equal to the

ratio of CX to Xl, which is equal to the ratio of ME to EQ. SO the ratio of
the product of CI and IX to the square of IJ is compounded of the ratio
of ME to EA and the ratio of AE to EQ. But the ratio of ME to EA is equal
to the ratio of the product of M F and FA to the square of A T, as is proven in
the analysis. The ratio of AE to EQ is equal to the ratio of the square of H
to the square of W. So the ratio ofthe product of MF and FA to the square of
I J is compounded of the ratio of the product of M F and FA to the square of
AT and the ratio of the square of H to the square of W.l0
But the ratio of the product of MF and FA to the square of IJ is compounded of the ratio of the product of MF and FA to the square of AT
and of the ratio of the square of A T to the square of IJ. So the ratio of the
square of A T to the square (f. 7b) of IJ is equal to the ratio of the square of
H to the square of W.
But IJ is equal to KD. So the ratio of the square of AT to the square of
KD is equal to the ratio of the square of H to the square of W. So the ratio
of A T to KD is equal to the ratio of H to W. 11

Text

177

7e-i

J!.

IJ

3 J ...;

J.,..;, .

eJ ~, \S..I J

~ >...; ii1.i.; ..;,0 l!.~'

l!.~, ~ 2 J.,..;, ..;.,,;.J' ~I .)~ ~t ~ l!.~'
--~ J:, J!. J:, I 0W J:, ii1.i.; ~ ~, ~ I .A ..;:.>
<"';

-- 4

l!.~' ':-'

u-':-'

.);~ I

4.l1i.l1

..;,0

J!.

.!l.Jb t:'J'

~ .j ~ IS ~ L.I...

.j .Jb J

1.Jb

':-'rP

0W

J!. 1.Jb .j ..I 0 ':-'rP , ..I 0 J!. .Jb J ,

J!. .!l.Jb .h:;..; .j lSJ I ~ r! iii I ~ l,so
..s..l'

..sJ u.,.,.;

t:

.;JI

';.Jb

J!.

0~

..sJ

')1.Jb I

1.5 .b I ~.r

, t:'J'

,)1

':-'rP ~

')l

lu

.j

VI

-,

~J'

.)~ 10

'''';..1

..;,0

1.Jb

')1.Jb

.j J r ':-'..rP

..;,0,

J:, I t:'J"

..;,0,

..; J

J:, I

J...1..:;J1

10

u I 9

.l.!l

...,.I ~

':-'rP~'

t:'J'.) 1 I J

.l.!l?:,J'.) L J:, I t:'J" ~

L

IJ

~,

...; ..s, , t:'J' .) ~ L t:'J' ~ "';..s (f. 7b ) t:'J' .)

.)~

4i.I;'

,)1

."s-

.Jbl

4i.I;' "';..s t:'J' .)~ IJ

, t:'J' .) t L ?:,J" ~

t:'J"

,)1

L t:'J' ~

t:'J" ~ , "';..s t:'J' .) 1 .b I t:'J' ~

U-..1

1 ..b

J!.
.)t ::bIl~
.l.!l

I '-'.... 8 I J.i6 7 I ':-'~ 6 I ........ 5 I t!' ~, 4

I

IS

7.

...,.I ~ .Jb

':-'~ ~

~ VI 4i.I;' "';..s t:'J'

,,;1Jb~,

.j ~ ':-'rP ~,
.)~.Jb

';.Jb

L t:'J' ~

I,..j I,..

J!. ..s..l'

';.Jb

..
.

1.Jb

.l.Jb

1.Jb

~..;,o,

l;t
.j

J...1..:;J I

')l t..s

~ "';..s t:'J'

.j J r ':-'rP

IJ

8 -

...,.I ~ t..s .j ..s~ ':-'rP ~,

~,

.j

.l I

.)~ tu"

"';..s t:'J"

.j

9-

u:-J

0W

~ l!.~

.!l,:-,

-6

I):.i 0W..b.Jb

ii1.i.; ~~I ~~, ~

j,:

(P2)

~, 11

Translation

178

7j-m

(P2)

So the ratio of DK to KA is equal to the ratio of T A to a line, the ratio

of which to AK is equal to the ratio of T A to KD, which is the ratio of H
to W. But the ratio of T A to AK is equal to the ratio of BS to SA.
We make the ratio of line Y to SA equal to the ratio of H to w. 12

[Then the ratio of SA to Y is equal to the ratio of W to H. The ratio of

SA to Y is equal to the ratio of SA by A T to A T <by Y). So the ratio of
SA by AT to AT by Y is equal to the ratio of W to H. But SA by AT is
equal to BS by AK. So the ratio ofBS by AK to AT by Y is equal to the
ratio of W to H.]13

Then, similarly, the ratio of BS to Y is equal to the ratio of T A to the line,

the ratio of which to AK is equal to the ratio of H to W, which (ratio) is equal
to the ratio of DK to KA.
m

So the ratio of BS to SD is equal to the ratio of Y to SA. But the ratio of

Y to SA is equal to the ratio of H to W. So the ratio of BS to SD is equal
to the ratio of H to W. That is what we wanted to prove.

Text

179

7j-m (P2)
1.!l.l~.;J~

10k

~,

--

It'
o.r_
V"

ok ,.....
IS

J:.
[L

.)~ ,
loS

')L

~ ..t".,;:J1

--

.)1.J,;, .k>. ~~,

IV"

J:,

--

2-

&......;

IV"

ok'

.j

~ .J,;,

'L

o.r.'.4.......:S.J,;,
I,

&.......:.i
<.J,;,

.)t

8,V" o.rII.J,;,
..

V"'":-'

II
o.r$o

, ,)1

I&......;. -(.!
'V"

U:J"-

--

4-

--

&......;

.,

-,-

V"

o.rII.. ~4.......:S
.

g--

--

.)~ V",":-,

4 / rep, . , .

/ (2) L ( 1) ok : L 6 / (2) .;J,s:.; , ( 1 b~

.r .)1 V" .l:

.lV"

.;J,s::.ill .lS

5;-.)t 6~ ~ ; ! ,)1

~ ..t".,;:J'

.!l.l

.) l V" '":-' ~

7:;:::

o.rII10 V" ...... &.......:.i

.

i..:---J , .)t

.. ....; .i

10/

-L

--3

~.-.....

/..;

,)1

.!ll

vs:J' L ')L, ~ .J,;,.j ok' .)1

.j ok' ,)1 .!l I .j V"'":-' i..:---J .!l I .j V"'":-'
IV"

/ M rep .J,;,

<!'. > ok' o.r11 ok' <!'. IV" 4.......:S

.lJ' .k..:;.J' .) ~ 'ok ~ .J,;,

l.!l

.)1

IV"

10k

.l.!l')i

3 /

l;.l'oJ f I.

o!lJ',

I.

.!l I 1

2/

.;J,s:: ; rep,

.)1 V"'":-' 9 /

8 /

.;J,s::

jV"

Translation

180

7n-q

(P2)

A diorismos is not necessary in this problem, because it has already been

proven that the two (conic) sections N J, X J intersect under all circumstances.
So the problem is solved under all circumstances, without any condition.
It can be solved once on one side, because (conic) section NJ intersects
(conic) section XJ on one side in one point only.14

In the case of the ellipse, the reason is that the concavities of the two
(conics) are opposite. 15
In the case of the hyperbola the reason is that every straight line which
intersects the hyperbola in two points, if extended on both sides, intersects
the asymptotes (f. 8a) of the hyperbola and subtends the angle which the
asymptotes contain and which is adjacent to the hyperbola, as is proven in
proposition 8 of book 2.

So if16 parabola NJ intersects hyperbola XJ <in two points), the two

points are inside the angle contained by the asymptotes, that is to say the
angle beyond the point in which the parabola and the asymptote of the hyperbola intersect.
If the two points are joined by a straight line, this line will intersect both
(conic) sections together. So if this line is extended in a straight line, it will
intersect the asymptote of the hyperbola above the point in which the intersection of this line and the parabola takes place. So the line which passes
through the two points does not intersect the other asymptote of the hyperbola. That is to say that it does not subtend the angle which contains the
hyperbola. So the parabola and the hyperbola with axis ex do not intersect
in two points on one side.
But it has been proven that they intersect under all circumstances. So
they intersect <on one side> in one point only.
That is what we wanted to prove. 1 7

It has become clear from what we have proven in the synthesis how line
AF has been found. That is the (line) of which we asserted in the analysis 18 :

we shall explain in the synthesis how it can be found.

Text

181

7n-q
1-

..rhi

F'

b"';

..rv

jj".
2

jj,),>1,J1 ~I

..

vi ~

.li"';~

JS'

J6.

--

J ..rt

..,Jp..l!.....J 1 ,lAo .j i:~..-.J,

~.l:>,;;

4l!....J1t J6.
--

JS'

~ vl.",b~

&

I
J~

a.\i:..1 ~ i:.r>-I

..r t

~~..-.J..rv ~ 2v~ jj,),>I,JI ~I.j

jj,),>~ 41.a; ~ ~

v).li .2 !;J I

(P2)

3 .

1
~

I. I, v ~ Ii:;. t....-~ v).li u<>i l:J 1 ~ I .j 1.1

Ut.,.;1J

v,;.bi; ~ ..l!!;J1 ~I ~ ~

.h;..

JS'

,;;",~I ~ (f.8a) v~ ~ V:!.illI~I~.,.;1' ~I .j

~.j ~

'~I

t.S'

.): I.. .;JI

Lrr v~

.;JI 4,-.,!;J1

":-' 4J~
5 ~I

v~ < v,;.bi; ~ >

--

~I ~ ~

.;JI d.l.::..i.:J1

8.~
- L ~. ' I .~

.ki....

..r t ~ JISJI ..r..:,; ~ ~ Uli

Lrr ~ .;JI 4,-.,!;J1 .I.).j 6 v l.;,s::;
~.:.;o

I 1.) It
V""..

J"

.:.;0

..l!!;ll 10 ~I

~l:- ~ u.ilI.b;.J1t

..
~I

. - L:II

~I ~

41.a; ~

,~.)I

u.ill

< jj ,),> ~

.b;.J 1 .!lJ.) u. 15'

~ .,.;.10

a. Ii:;... ~ 1

.jISJI ~1,.b;.JI 1lAo ~Ii:; ~ .;JI

.:.;0

.r>~1 .b;.J1 ~..-.J

.2!;JI ~l:- ~ .;JI 124,-.,!iJ1 11":;,, ~

.li, jj')'>l, ~

.~.

u.ill .b;.JI

..l!!;J1 ~I ~ v~ ~ V:!.illl ~I

.j1SJ1 ~I ~~ ~
So

~~ ~

~i ~I

7.;JI 4,..J!;J1

.21':rII c- \....11 c.s-LI.,.,i._ ~ ".ill

...

9 .b;.J 1 IlAo
I.
. ~1r
Ult
c.si:
. ... ~
. .

d.l.::..i.:JI

.j v,;.bi;
~ .j

~,13.:1

.h;..

rut>

.2!;J1 ~I,

>U l.",b ~ I.yi J 6. JS'

~ v l.",b ~

~ ~ ~,;;JI cs' ,~

I..

(cf.6h) 'P"

.:.;0 :

10 I ~I
(\,

9 I

~I

.li,

.j

IJ.l

8 I ~I .;JI: .;JI

I v,i 6/~1 51 W 41 l...r.-~3/rep jj')'>I,JI . v'~2

11/.h,,;.J1

~ u.ill

~,;;JI.j 1\~ W~ ~I

.A

I p"

.2!;J1

~ v~ ~ vl.illl ..:,;\k;J1
.b;.J1 .j1SJ1

.:.;0

~ ...y) .~ W 141

;i

13 I rep

4,-.,!iJ 1 12

182

Translation

8a-d (P3)
a 8. (Conic) section ABG is a known hyperbola, its axis is AD and its centre
is E. The ratio of Z to H is an assumed ratio and Z is less than H.
We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section which ends at the axis
such that the ratio of it to the diameter drawn to the place of contact is equal
to the ratio of Z to H.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it be line BK.

We join EB. Then the ratio of EB to BK is known.
We extend EB in a straight line, and we draw from point A an ordinate to
it, let it be A TG. Then AT is equal to TG, and the ratio of ET to T A is equal
to the known ratio of BE to BK.l

We make angle ETF equal to angle TAF. Then triangle ATF is similar
to triangle ETF. So the ratio of EF to FT is equal to the ratio of FT to FA.
So the product of EF and FA is equal to the square of FT.
So line FT is greater than line FA.
The ratio of EF to FA is equal to the ratio of the square of EF to the square
of FT, which is the known ratio of the square of ET to the square of T A. So
the ratio of EF to F A is known. But EA is known. So line AF is known, and
line FTis known. 2

We draw from point G a parallel to line TF, let it be GS. Then GS is twice
T F, and SA is twice AF. But TF is known and AF is known. So GS is known,
and SA is known. So point S is known.

Text

183

8a-d (P3)
.) L j

~, .A

.l....J- ,

~A ,-,.lI1 ):.ill

,)1

So

~I...,..I.: lb.> ~~ u l
...,..I.:;.II~,..

,)1

u,s::.; ":-' .A

ab.i.;

uo

u,s;,

j.:..;, .!l ":-' .b>.

~~, 4. Ii;;... I ~ ,,:-,.A

";.A ":-'~

~,

t:..J"

~.b J;. .b I u~
4."L-J1

......... ,

.)1

4jS.J" ,

..

..;.b I .!..L.. u~
I..;

..)1.1,..;

I..; .b>.

~ ~

I.A,

.!l,,:-,

4.,L..

uo

~~,

~,,:-,I

j ,

,)1
..;

,,:-,.A

l.b

")l

..)1..;.A

~ ~ .!.lJ.l";'';'':';

4.,L..

~l I
~

~t

~,

~ u~

..;.b.A

.b..; t:..J"

J;.
,..;

,,:-,.A

")1.b.A

J;. ..;.1,.A

..)1..;.A

,,)1

.!l,,:-,

l.b

";.A t:J'

u,s;, ......... ,)1 ~,

L .)1 j ~

4,..J~

~.r'o ~

~.b I ~, ~.rJ1 ~

.b..;.h:i.J

~I

uo .,.....,1

2-

.;JI 3.b..; t:J'

I..;

.:,$"J, ..1-6:J I

~ .b..;

r,L.. ~~~

I..;

..)

.)1..;.A

l.b t:J' ,)1 .b.A

, 4."L-J1

r,L.. .b..; .b>., r,L.. ..; I .h:i.J r ~

d
...,..~

.; r,L.. ..;

I,

r,L.. ";.1. , ..;

'...,..,";.1.

I ~

4.,L.. ...,.. 4hU r~

..>G_-_____

HL
Z

AK
l.!l

ME
r.A

I...,.., r,L..

Translation

184

8e-9d (P3)
e
f

SG is greater than SA, since TF is greater than FA.

We make SM equal to SG. Then point M is outside point A.3
We make point S the centre and draw with radius SM a circle, let it be
GM. This circle (f. 8b) is known in size and position since its centre is known

in position. So point Gis known. 4

So line AG is known in size and position. So point T is known. So line
ET is known in position. So point B is known. This is the (point) that solves
the problem. 5 0
a 9. As to the synthesis of this problem:
We repeat the (conic) section. 1 We make the ratio of Z to W equal to the
ratio of H to Z. Then the ratio of H to W is equal to the ratio of the square
of H to the square of Z.
We make the ratio of EF to FA equal to the ratio of H to W. We make
SF equal to FA. We make the product of EF and F A equal to the square of F L.
b

c
d

We make point S the centre, and we draw with radius equal to twice FL
an arc of a circle, let it be arc MG. 2
We join AG and bisect it in point T. We join ET. It intersects the (conic)
section, since point T is inside the (conic) section. Let it intersect the (conic)
section in point B.
We draw BK tangent to the (conic) section. 3
I say that the ratio of KB to BE is equal to the ratio of Z to H.
Proof: We join SG and FT. Then they are parallel, so GS is twice TF.
So the product of EF and FA is equal to the square of FT. So the ratio of
EF to FT is equal to the ratio of TF to FA. So the triangles EFT and AFT
are similar, and the ratio of EF to FA is equal to the ratio of the square of
EF to the square of FT.4
~G

...---

H c:

z;
w,

o!lJ r ....

Text

185

8e-ge

J!. rv-

~v-

s..

lu

~I u b

Vt

,.

r"t.....

4.l::.A:.i ~I

;;.,....j"

ii.hA:.i ~ I,

1__ '

4,......;

1\,

...... ~.J,

~,.

.)t

.)1

~ ~

d.hi..:

u......,<.:=;

-.i:,

..>

J!.

~J"

~J"

.)t

.."so ..;JI

~ .;;~
d

6 I

8 I

v-

;:.A-,

lu

~v.j

u..lb

lu

,)1

~J"

,)1

,)1

u..lb

1 4 I

I rep lu

~J"

')-

bU

' ":-'

u.b

ll.i.;

~ bU

u..lb

~,

~ ;

.)t

":-'~ v"s",o

w..lb

J..;.;, 3 I , 2 I

.)1

b..lb

J..:..; l; 1 ~ LA.J"!'

~,

~ r v-Ji .:A:.I,

ub

,)1

":-'rP

u..lb

4hi.;

,)1

5I
7

!is,,.

W::..;;,s",o , lu

.bu

l;"s",o

.;;,s",o

~J" J:;.

8-

~J"

.j

lu

.!l,,:-,

I,::. 5.;; l;"s",o .b u

.b u

bW 1 bU..lb

I .hi 9 I .b

v..::j

10

u..lb

lot
~

.;;~~I~ W

d.hi..:

L.I...

.)~ u..lb

lu

3J..:..; ,

J>.1,,).j b

.;;,s",o

~.;;,s::.t

u..lb

~I..!.:;.

.)1

,-'J'

~ r- ~,

r,L..

~I

-..

u......,<. J!.

Ju

~~I~,~I

u .b

i.,L..

.L..;;II ..w..,; l;1t 4l!.....J1 d.lA......s-

~'c--

~,

Uv-

L,.

Vt

4.1:"

J..:..; ,

ii,;I.l.I1

if" , i.,L.. ":-' 4.l::.A:.i

4hi.; ~

(f. 8b

~ I .ki..i

Ju ~J"
ii,;l,,)

v-

.;;,s::.t

4hi.;

~ ~J" .)1 ;- ~,.J" ~ - ; ,)1 ~ ~ .;;,s::.t ;- .)1

---

J!.

~, lu

1-

.;;,s;

~I ~v- ,

Vt

r-~,!iS".

J.w I r,L..

4l!.....J1 J-; ..;JI

..lb

L'

Iv-

~ ~J I>

LA)"". .;; ~ ~I, J.wl i."t.....

i.,L.. b

.ki..i

b ..lb

rv-

r~~' ii,;l,,)

.;; ~

4hi.;

(P3)

~,.J"

dV-

~ .bu

1
.)~

I , 10

186

Translation

ge-lOc (P3-P4)
e

But the ratio of EF to FA is equal to the ratio of H to W, which is the ratio

of the square of H to the square of Z. So the ratio of the square of EF to the
square of FT is equal to the ratio of the square of H to the square of Z. So
the ratio of EF to FT is equal to the ratio of H to Z.

But the ratio of EF to FT is equal to the ratio of ET to T A. And the ratio

of ET to T A is equal to the ratio of EB to BK. <So the ratio of EB to BK is>
equal to the ratio of H to Z.
So the ratio of the tangent KB to BE is equal to the ratio of Z to H. That
is what we wanted to prove (f. 9a). 0

This problem does not need a diorismos because it works out well under
all circumstances.

a 10. ABG is a conic section, line GD is tangent to it, and the ratio of E to Z
is known. We want to draw another tangent to the (conic) section, which
meets GD, such that the ratio of it to the part of line GD which is cut off by
it is equal to the ratio of E <to> Z.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it be line AD, and let the (conic)
section AB first be a parabola.
Wejoin AG and bisect it in point H. Wejoin DH, let it intersect the (conic)
section in point B. Then DH is a diameter of the (conic) section since it
bisects GA and since the two tangents meet it in one point. 1

c So AG is an ordinate, and DB is equal to BH.2

Text

187

9f-lOb (P3-P4)
.)~.b..ll>

l.b

.A

:, .)t
~ .:;i 1; ..)

~,

l.b

<.!l,":-,

I. 41,),

~ .bu

.)t.b..ll>

,)1

L .)1:,

,":-,..11>

>

..11>,":-,

.!l,":-,

')l

U..ll>

.)L

,":-,..11>

~,

.)lv-I..JI ,":-,.!l ~

g
, jj",J....... :, .) 1..11>
I.

L.,)

~,.J v- l..

.,) ~ .h>.,

c.S J"~

~ '":-' I ~

.)t ~ .:;,s;, .,)~ ~ ~ t.:..l.. ~i 1b. c~ ) v,

:, < .)1 >..11> ~ .,)~ .h>. vo .u....a.:

J.,...; ,
I.>

d.hi.; ~ ~ cI.o-i.:,
-

~ o:.~'J ~

1).;

L.,)':;~

~ I J.,...; ,
1'":-' d.hi.;
2

~.,).>.I, d.hi.; ~ o:.~

.j ISJ I ~ I

~ ~I ~,

~I..JI.:;~,

/ v-I..JI 2 /

:,Z

T .b

o .,)
G~

.,) 1

ioS

TranslatIon

188

lOd-llb

(P4)

If E is equal to Z,3 then AD is equal to DG. But AH is equal to HG, so

angle H is a right angle. 4
So DH is the axis of the (conic) section, so it is known in position. 5 Line
GD is known in position by assumption. So point D is known. So if one draws
from point D a tangent to the (conic) section,6 it will be equal to DG.
That is what was asked for. 0

If E is not equal to Z, AD is not equal to DG, so angle H is not a: right angle.

Since the (conic) section is a parabola, its diameters are all parallel to each
other and parallel to its axis. 7 Its axis is known in position, and line GD is
known in position, so it meets the axis at a known angle. So line GD meets
every diameter of the (conic) section at an angle equal to that angle.
But DH is a diameter. So angle GDH is known.

We draw from point A a parallel to line HD, let it be AT. We produce GD

till it meets it, let it meet it in point T.
Then angle T is equal to the known angle HDG; TD is equal to DG,8
and the ratio of DG to DA is known, so the ratio of TD to DA is known. But
angle T is known, so triangle ATD is known in shape,9 so angle ADT is
known (f. 9b). So angle ADG is known.
But the ratio of AD to DG is known. So triangle ADG is known in shape. 10
So angle DGA (is known).
But line GD is known in position. So line GA is known in position, so
point A is known, and line DA is tangent. 11

a 11. The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe.

We draw the axis of the (conic) section,1 let it be TK. It meets line GD,
let it meet it in point T.
We make the ratio of TG to some line equal to the ratio of Z to E. We draw
GK equal to that line. 2
We extend TG in a straight line on the side of G. We cut off GL equal to
GT. We join LK.
We draw from point G a line parallel to line LK, let it be GA. This line
intersects the (conic) section in another point, since it intersects the axis
[so it intersects all diametersp
Let it intersect the (conic) section in point A.
b

We bisect GA in point H. We draw from point H a parallel to the axis.

It intersects line GD, let it be line HBD.
Then this line is a diameter, and AG is an ordinate to this diameter. So
DB is equal to BH, since GD is a tangent and GH an ordinate. 4
We join AD. Then it is a tangent, since DB is equal to BH. 5

Text

189

We-IIa

,p.

r,Lo..

~...;.,JI
~I

".:S

V'"

I..:

'..

v"s; .... IS.

o)hi I

4.o,Lo.. 4..,., ~ ~ r-r-ll ~ ,.... ~...;.,J I r,J....

d:.t!iJ 1

.!lJ:; ,p. ~ ~I

.
Jlhil

..I~ ~~, .b I .,;,.s;,J,

d:.t ~ J;;.

.b

d:.t ~

~~

V"

v,s;.;

,.b

r,J....

J5

,4.! Ii

I dJ:.i.;

,p.

..I.b I ~

..I~ ..b..i

d:.t ~ "hi
8

dJ:.i.; ~ ~

4.o,Lo.. .b d:.t ~,
-"""1 ..l I~, a.,J..- ~..l I a.:,1,;0 (f.9b)
-11-< a.,Lo.. > 1~..1 a,..,,~ d~1
r,J.... ~..1 I
dJ """ I

v~ ,

~I

e..l ~

..Ie .h:iJ 01,.

1..1 .) l ~..1 ~, ~..1

4.o,Lo..

vl5' vb
~

..I ~ .h>, ~ I r,J....

4.o,J....

~ ..I e

'=:,t..... vl5'

7-

4.!1i

..I d..bi:.i uD,,&J ~

,t.....".:S..II..t;J,t.....".:S.JIo

.....-, ......-.J 4.:i 1,., 4.:i!,:;. t..JS"

.h>,'

e..l"

.JIo ,;-,,J.6JI,so, ~..IJ

-

vl5' v~

.JIo

3-

4-

.h>..1 dJ:.i.; vo ~ ,,> I l.l: 4.o,J....

~..IJ

1-

,p.

r,J.... ,.... ~I r-r-

..I~ .h>, ~I
5

d:.t~

-2- ~..1 ,p. ..I1..t ;

e I ,

(P4)

..I.b

e ..I

~~,

V"

,0 Ii.\,:

..;.>

v~' 4.o,L.J I

4.o,J....

10

12

~,~I r-r- ~~

.!.l.b

.h>

I d..bi:.i~'" I r,J....

4.o,J....

.)t

~.b

I..> ..b..i ~ I r,L..

t.

....0......;

~ v~

.b;;.w.; ~ ~

~ ~,

--

~~,.k;.JI.!lJ.l,p. .!l~ ~~,

..>.b

-.!l J

~~,

J.,....:,

~ I ~ .k;.J I U......
[

,p.

.b~

I~

~,

u..;'"~ I ~ ~

J~

.!l

,....

,
r,J....

6 /
10

ih> .,>. : .h> ..I 5 I

a,..,,~

~ 15 /01

14

.)l; ~

4.J1o

r-r-ll

j...;.;, ~ ~

.k;.J

I e';

I::.i I,. 11..>

0.:.";

~;i

.,>.-1; 2

13

t.

4.o\i;...1
dJ:.i.; V"

dJ:.i.;

15

'';-'

Irep ,t..... . ; J

I ; 0 Ii.\,: : ,

o Ii.\,:

I t.

13/ r,J..-12

I (M+ )A- r,Lo..

dJ:.i.; ~ ~I

~~,

.h> ~ ,....

..I~

1 -

-----

Gl!......J1 dA

..II

11

\.,

Translation

190

llc-f (P4)
c
d

I say that the ratio of AD to DG is equal to the ratio of E to Z.

Proof: We bisect LK in point M. We join GM. Then it is parallel to TK.
since TG is equal to GL. So line GM is parallel to line DH.
But line GA) is parallel to line LM. So triangle DGH is similar to triangle
GLM.
So the ratio of DG to GH is equal to the ratio of GL to LM.

<

But the ratio of GH to GA is equal to the ratio of ML to LK. So the ratio

of DG to GA is equal to the ratio of GL to LK. So triangle DGA is similar
to triangle GLK.6
So the ratio of GD to DA is equal to the ratio of LG to GK, that is the ratio
of TG to GK, which is the ratio of Z to E.
So the ratio of AD to DG is equal to the ratio of E to Z. That is what we
wanted to prove. 0

The diorismos of this problem is that the ratio of E (f. lOa) to Z is not less
than the ratio of (1) the perpendicular which falls from point G on the axis
to (2) line GT?
The reason is that the ratio of Eta Z is equal to the ratio of KG to GT.
Angle GTK is an acute angle, since it is the angle contained by the tangent
and the axis. So it can only be an acute angle. Therefore the ratio of KG to
GT is not less than the ratio of (1) the perpendicular which falls from point
G on the axis to (2) line GT.
Therefore the ratio of Eta Z is not less than the ratio of (1) the perpendicular which falls from point G on the axis to (2) line GT. That is what we wanted
to prove. s 0

.i

E
.AI

~-~=-----..:~

K,.;::-_ _-+-_
o!I

LJ

_+_~

D ,)

Text

191

Ilb-f (P4)

~!,.

Ik;.

1-

~r-' ~ 4.W.; ~ ~ I~ ~,
. ,) ":-' ~ .h.> .:.S:.J, ,) ~ .h.> ~ ,...... r-r--U

.k;J I 1.lAo u~

u~

--

J!. ":-',)

~":-'

":-' ,) u)

t.1.. u~

--

u~)=iJ1 l,y ~,,:JI ~ ~ I u,5.:, ~

~,,:JI ~ L~' v-I..

,) 1 J...;, .

,)~

J!.

~":-'
.)1

~!,. u~
.h.>, '

J...;, r

r~

~ ~

4.W.;

~~,)

')l~,)

,)~

~ ,

,)1

.!IJ

.!I J~ ~ ~

~ u1 J"'~

r-i.:

J!.

..
u~

rJ .k;J;!,.
J~

.!I J

I~,) ~

.l:.~ .h.>

.Jb

.)~(f.10a

.)1

r-r-II ~ ~

>

J~

,)1

I')

~ u i l:,)) I. .!lJ J,

u,x. u I

4! ~,

Al!.....J1 O.lAo

4.bi.; vo

ti!,J1 ~I ~ vo ~l:

a')l> .!I.l:.~ ~~, .l:.~ ,)1 ~.!I ~ ; .)1.Jb ~;~

a')l> ~ t u,x. ~ r-r-II, v-W1.k;J1 <~ > ~ .,;oJ 1 4,-.,!;J I t.;~

,)1

til,J1 ~I ~ .:... ~l: ~ .l:.~

;

.) ~.Jb ~

u,x.

~.iIi

.h.> .)~ r-r-II ~ ~

,)0

6 /

1~

5/.5 .....

<1~

u,x.

.!lJ.iIi

4.W.; .:...
Co

ti!,J1 ~I ~ .:... ~l: ~

.Jb

~.!I

.l:. ~ .h.> .) 1 r-r-II ~ ~

4.W.; vo

>.h.>

~
4 /

~,

.Jb.)t; ~ ~

.Jb
~;

I~

~~

.)l

6-

.Jb ~ ~,) .)~ .) 1 ~

.!I.l:.J

<

.,;oJ 1 .!I~ ')l~.l:. ~ ~i .!I~ ,)1 ~ J ~

; .)1

L~.)~ ~ .)

51~')1

Jr ~

l:lo,.;LA.r:

~.l:.

r J ,)1

.) 1

.!I J

3J~

.k;J;!,. r~.k:;..j

~,)

1.>

4.W.; .:...

ui

l:,)) I. .!lJ J, .k ~

J,) 3 /

,)

2 /

I;

192

Translation

12a-c (P4)
a 12. Let (conic) section ABG be a hyperbola or an ellipse. Let line BD be
tangent. Let the ratio of E to Z be known.!
We want to draw another tangent to the (conic) section, which meets
line BD, such that the ratio of it to the part of line BD which is cut off by it is
equal to the ratio of E to Z.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let the required tangent be line AD.
Then the ratio of AD to DB is known.
Let the centre of the (conic) section be point H.
We join HB; it is a diameter which is known in position.
We draw from point A an ordinate, let it be AT. We extend AD in a straight
line on the side of D. Then it meets 2 HB, let it meet it in point F. Then the
product of T Hand HF is I~qual to the square of HB, as is proven in proposition 37 of the first book. 3

We draw from point H a line parallel to the ordinates, let it be HKN.4

We extend it on both sides.
We draw from point A a line parallel to HT, let it be AK. It meets HK, let
it meet it in point K. We extend AF in a straight line to meet KH, let it meet
it in point N.

Text

193

12a-c (P4)

...

..l

~ .1.>.A , ~ 1 V" ~
...,J 1 ..A

u,s::;

--

..l

uS:.J,

..} ..:..:,
L ~

uS:.J,
uS:.J,.

..l

-I.S ~ L ~J"

J!.

uS:.J, .b LJ ~,.
.A ..;- a.~1 ~ U
~ I

~1
..l

u,s;,

41..i ~~
..l

I"W

r,J.....

1 ~~,

u~

.b 1
ll.i.;

.
.), '.i 1 aJ Ii.J 1 V<

1h>

d.b.i.; V<

1 ll.i.; V< ~~,

1 ~.,;.;"

1 ~

.j L.b ~~ .;;~ U

~~,
~I

d.b.i.; ~ ~

T .b

...,J ~

I. ...,J 1 .::..:-;

~ ~
--

a.~1 ~

U L

..
lb:>.

a.,J..a..

a.,J..... ~..l ...,J l

~~,

.j

J...6.;J 1

u ~ L uS:.J, ~;:J 1.b,kiJ C,; I,.

~,

.k;.. V< ~

t..J 1 .k;J 1

-~ L .A w

.j v.:-;.

V"

..l~

d.b.i.; ~ 1 jS.r'
....
...,.....:;;:J 1 ~ lb:>. 1 d.bi; V<

~ ~

.A

-1

J....; ,

~ L

1 .1.> ~,.1l:..JI

i lb:>. ~ ~ ..)

",..

~ L

d.b.i.; ~ ~

Translation

194

l2d-i

(P4)

Since A T is an ordinate and AF is a tangent, the ratio of the product of

HT and T F to the square of A T is equal to the ratio of H B to half of the latus
rectum-which is a known ratio-as is proven in proposition 37 of the first
book. So the ratio of the product of HTand TFto the square of ATisknown.5

The product of HT and HF is equal to the square of HE. So the ratio of

HF to FT is equal to the ratio of the known square of HB to a square, the
ratio of which to the square of A T is a known ratio, since the ratio of HF
to FT is equal to the ratio of the product of HF and HT -which is equal to
the square of HB-to the product of HT and TF, and (since) the ratio of
the product of HT and T F to the square of A T is known. 6

The ratio of HF to FT is equal to the ratio of NH to AT. So the ratio of

N H to AT is equal to the ratio of the square of HB to a square, the ratio of
which to the square of A T is known. So it is equal to the ratio of a known
square to the square of AT. 7
So the product of N H and AT is equal to the square of a known line, the
ratio of which to HB is known. So the ratio of the product of NH and HK
to the square of HB is known. 8

[For the ratio of NH to AT is equal to the ratio of a certain rectangle

to the square of AT. So the ratio of the square of HB to the square, the ratio
of which to the square of A T is known, is equal to the ratio of that rectangle
to the square of A T. What we wanted appears by permutation (of this proportion).]9

So the ratio of the product of NH and HK to the product of TH and HF

is known. So the ratio of KH to a line, the ratio of which to HT is known, is
equal to the ratio of FH to HN. So the ratio of HK to a line, the ratio of which
to AK is known, is equal to the ratio of AK to KN (f. lOb).
So the ratio of the product of NK and KHto the square of AK is known. 1o
We make the ratio of KH to d equal to the ratio of the product of NK and
KH to the square of KA. Then the ratio of KH to d is known. The product
of d and KN is equal to the square of KA, and the product of d and HN is
equal to the square of HB, because AK is equal to HTY

195

Text

12d-h (P4)

.j

uJ:,

.r I f Ii.! I ~ I u.,.,.;

a.,Lo. ~ .".

.j

u J:,

'-:'rP ~ u,s: U"I.. u I

J:, c

ull '-:'

i.:-=oi ' ul;~ I ~ IiJ I

J:, C '-:'rP

"=",,,,";:.11 ~ J:, I u~)\i

ull

~ J:, I ~J"

.j ~

uo.;J J1.;

I.S

ul ~

a.,Lo.. J:, I ~.J"

2-

ul ~

J:, u

"
u~

C'-:' ~J"

ull

J:, I ~J"

J:, I

, a.,Lo..

J:. ,s.

u c

'-:'rP

.j

.)1

~ ~J"

--

.j

'-:'rP

J:, c

~J" J:. u

ull

~J"

--

1S.lIi J:, C
-

.j

uJ:,

i.:-=oi 1,-:,

u c

J:, c

'-:'rP J

r,.L....J1 '-:' c ~.J"

3---

~ J:,u

4--

~J

u.l..j J:, c

ull

u c

"-:"rP ult
a.,Lo..

i.:-=oi

~ J:, I

~J" ull

J:, I

~ I o!lI.l ~

i.:-=oi ' u ~ ull

(f.10b

6 I.

a.,Lo.. J:, I

, a.,Lo.. u c

-u o!I

ull

5-

ull u c ~J
~.J" ~."ri ,a.,Lo.. J:, I ~.J" ull ~ ~J" ull '-:' c ~J" ~
~ r,Lo.. .h>~.J" J.:. J:, I J c u ,-:,,,,;.i J:, I ~J" ull r,Lo..
a.,Lo.. "-:" C ~J" ull o!I c .j c u '-:'rP ~ a.,Lo. '-:' c ull
ul~ C u

J:, I

2- ~
ull

~J"

.j

'-:'rP ull

-o!Il

cJ:,

~ a.,Lo..
~

6/.h>

a.,Lo..

I o!I ~J"

5/ ...H

J:,u

ull

J:, I

nJio

W..I.: Ul, J:, I

.j

o!I c

c.;;

-o!Il

c o!I

4 I.J:,C

.j

'-:'rP i.:-=oi

o!I u '-:'rP

3 IJ:,J

~.J" ull

')l ~.h> ull

ull ~.h> ull

J:, c

ull

~ .;~ ]
.) l '-:' C ~.J"

c u

~ 1S.lI1~."J I

I. W

a.,Lo..

1'1.

[ L;.J)
7 Cu

ull

c u

c o!I
o!I c

i.:-=oi

2 luC

I cJ:,

Translation

196

12j-m (P4)
j

We draw through point H the hyperbola with transverse diameter NH

and latus rectum a line such that the ratio of N H to it is equal to the ratio
of KH to d. It passes through point A on the hyperbola ABG.
But on line N H of the ellipse ABG we draw an ellipse with diameter N H
and latus rectum a line such that the ratio of N H to it is equal to the ratio
of KH to d. It passes through point A on the boundary ofthe ellipse ABGY

We make the product of Wand NK equal to the square of AN. Then the
ratio of W to d is equal to the ratio of the square of NAto the square of AK.13
We draw from point D line DS parallel to KA. DB is tangent, so it is parallel
to HK. The product of TH and HF is equal to the square of HE. So the product of AN and NF is equal to the square of ND, and the product of KN and
NH is equal to the square of NS.
So the ratio of AN to ND is equal to the ratio of AD to DF. So the product
of AN and DF is equal tOi the product of AD and DN.14

The ratio of W to AN is equal to the ratio of AN to N K, which is the ratio

of DN to NS, and (which is) equal to the ratio of DF to SH. So the ratio of
W to AN is equal to the ratio of DF to SH. So the product of AN and DF
is equal to the product of Wand SH.
So the product of AD and DN is equal to the product of Wand SH, that
is DB. So the ratio of AD to DB is equal to the ratio of W to DN. So the ratio
of W to DN is knownY

w ,
d ..;.

E.JII

F.....

Text

197

12i-m

.j

I.!I ~.,.,. u-l~ C.!l

~.,.,.

..b C"

J!.
J!.

.;,.!I

2-

~\iJ1 .......w.,

.,rJ1

C"

~.,.,. J!. .;;

C"

J> u-lt C".!I

~ ft ,....;

r.;,

'

F'

r-r'

~ ~l r';' ~ .;,,i;
- \..,:;
<P l:J I ..>
. .....
. I ~

u-ll,

OJ:.&; ~

~.;;,x.;

'4hi:.,.. ft

"
<r

I.
IJ"'"

J!.

.;,'~"'"

s. ..;.;,

.).;; u-ll .;,'

.;,.l

.j .)

.j .;,
~

.;,,x.; ,

'-:'rP j.:;.

4--

I ~rAi

";.l

C"U'"

.)

.;,.) .j

1 ";.l
-

.l'

.;;

,-:,rAi'

~ ~.l

.)1

.l

.j , ~rP~'

.!I.;,

(M+ lA- ..:.'

.)

5-

l , 4.:-:.i '

cU'"

.j , '-:'rP S.

I:U'"

I ~

~. 5 /

u-l t

6--

/ '-'"

..

~rP'

~.l~'

.)1,

.;,.l

4 /

7 /

1:'"

(M+ lA-

.) ~ " ; . l

";.l

.;,'u-ll,~,
~,

.j .;;' ,-:,rAi
-

.j ,

.;;.l

.!ll 2 /

,-:,.l

S.
u-ll,

~rP

7-

.l .;;

- -

I:J'"

I.;, ~.,.,.

c .j r.b

~.,.,. j.:;. ..;

u-ll.;,1

d..,J.-

W:...

3.."
~ V'
U"..
r .!I

J!. r.;; .j .;,.!I ,-:,.rP,

.j .;, I ,-:,rAi " ; . l u-lt .l I

.!I.:,
,

~.;,,i;.b.

~.,.,.

U"'.;;

.l!!.;J' ~~ I ~ ~

.!I' ~.,.,.

~.,.,.

I.!I

~\ill.......w., C.:.> 4;W .;,~ ~l.;

.k;..

.h...-

~ ~~ C".;,

r-r, .

.h> ~

.;,,x.;

.j...P ~rP .;;~,

C"';' .,..;~I ."w ..s.lll .ll!.;J1

'pl:J1 ~~ I ~ VI

~ J>

' 4.,L.. J> u-ll C.!l

~rP .;;~,
1--

.!I I .;;~

J> u-lt C.!l ~ ~,

.!I.;, ~rP ~

.j J>

(P4)

C"

~rAi

1
6

198

Translation

12n-r (P4)
n

The ratio of W to d is equal to the ratio of the square of NAto the square
of AK. So it is equal to the ratio of the square of ND to the square of DS.
But the product of d and HN is equal to the square of DS, since it is equal
to the square of HB. So the product of Wand HN is equal to the square of
ND. So the ratio of W to N (D) is equal to the ratio of ND to NH.
But the ratio of W to ND is equal to the ratio of AD to DB. So the ratio of
DN to NH is equal to the ratio of AD to DB. 16

(The ratio of DN to AN is equal to the ratio of NF to DN), that is the

ratio of HN (to NS. So the ratio of DN to HN) is equal to the ratio of AN
to NS. So the ratio of AN to NS is equal to the ratio of AD to DB, which is
the known ratio of E to Z. So the ratio of AN to NS is known.
But the product of KN and NH is equal to (the square of) NS. So the
ratio of the product of KN and N H to the square of N A is known, and this
is the ratio of HN to w. 1 ?

We make NO equal to W. Then the product of KN and NO is equal to

the square of N A.
Wejoin AO. Then triangle ANO is similar to triangle ANK. So angleNAO
is equal to angle AKN. Angle AKN is known, since it is the angle of ordinates
of diameter HB. So angle N AO is known. 1s

If line N H is known in size and position, 19 (conic) section H A is known in

position. Then (also) line NO is known in size, so [OJ (f. lla) point A is on
the boundary of a segment of a circle which is known in position. 20 So it is a
known point.
So line AN is known in position. So angle ANH is known, so angle N F H
is known.

So line AF is tangent to the (conic) section and contains a known angle

with diameter HF. So point A is known. 21 0

199

Text

12n-r CP4)

~J' ~ 1 ~ .!I I ~J' ~ ~ I v ~J' ~ J> ~ ~, ~,

,,) v

. -- ~J'
.,;~

~J' ~

~~,

.) v

--

.) v ~J' ~

4-

"':'.)~~

v c: .} J> ",:,.;-p,

fJ" .)

3-

~l

a.,J..-J1
<

~J'

~l..A

>

c: v

'fJ"

fJ"

fJ"

~l v I ~

.} v.!l ",:,.;-p ~

-t Iv ~~

v,s;;

~
~l >
"':'.) ~~ .) I ~
v ~l v I

I v ~J' ~~ c: v

v.!l "':'rP

I v ~.r ~ t v . }

4.:-:.i

--v

-v.)

",:,.;-p, a.,L..

.} v.!l

.."., a.,.t....

< v c: ~l

..". .,;oJ I

~l v.)

~ v I ~~ v .) ~, >

--

~t v I ~

fJ"

--

'''':' c:

c:v~l.)v

.)1 ~ c:v

v c: ~ ~t < .:..'.) ~~ J v

2-

v c: .} , ",:,";';

5-

--v

.)I~.)v~~'~"

"':'.)

~J' ~~

'fJ".)

--

-.!Iv I ~

uA-i ,

-tv I ~

~l v c:

6-

t v

fJ"

~,

v~ t I j...;,

7"':' c: ".biJ ~;;.ll a....J~ trt~ a.,L.. v.!l I ~~,

v.!l I ~~

a.,.t.... t I v

~!;.i

.. L ..A -,...-

I ............
., . , ".1.
,...-- "I'
<I,:J:J':

eLi

. c: rL:

....

6/,c: 5 / .!II

/ v,s", 12/ v,s", 11/

v~

J....:.....
.1.... 1I fJ" Ia.."
"", C--

Li3

I .1::.W

....

/Uc: 2 /~

10/ -=..;15, 9 / v 15,

8 / .... c:

1
7

200

Translation

13a-d (P4)
a 13. The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe.
We repeat the (conic) section and the ratio. We assume two known lines
LM [and Lt].l We make the ratio of LM to Lt2 equal to the ratio of (half 0[)3
the latus rectum of diameter HB to diameter HB.
b

We draw4 through point L of one of the two lines the hyperbola with
transverse diameter LM, latus rectum Lt and angle of arrangement the
angle of arrangement of diameter HB of the hyperbola ABG. Let it be (conic)
section (L)R.
We draws on the other line LM the ellipse with diameter LM, latus rectum
Lt and angle of arrangement the angle of arrangement of diameter HB of
the ellipse ABG. Let it be (conic) section LRM.

We make the ratio of LM to MJ equal to the ratio of the square of Z

to the square of E. We draw 6 on line JM a segment of a circle admitting an
angle equal to the angle of arrangement of diameter HB. Let it be segment
MRJ.
This segment intersects (conic) section LR under all circumstances. 7 Let
it intersect it in point R.

We join RM. Then angle M is known.

We join RJ, and we draw the ordinate RX. Then angle RXM is equal to
angle MRJ. 8 So triangle MRJ is similar to triangle MRX. So their sides are
proportional.
So the product of XM (and MJ is equal to the square of MR.
So the ratio of the product of XM) and ML to the square of MR is equal
to the ratio of LM to MJ, which is the ratio of the square of Z to the square
of E.
And the ratio ofthe product of M X and X (L) to the square of X R is equal
to the ratio of ML to Lt, which is the ratio of (half of) the latus rectum of
diameter HB to diameter (f. llb) HB. 9

201

leKt

13a-b (P4)
...;.~, ~I ,~I

~ .:-J

..)1

u-;

uA

",):.i .s.lll .ll!;J1

-1

..)1 ":-' L foJ

~I ~I .).>t

~ VI ":-' L ,):.i~;; ~~ ~;; ~~, .:-

r-.r-,.

~I.r>-'JI rJ.b. ~
~;;

a.:, ~

lli....J1 dlb ~;;,

rJ ~ ~, [.:-J 1 rJ ~ u.-o,L.. ~
":-' L ,):.i

..,....:~I

t.

-- --

4-

VI

~ lill ~I <u-;

J 4hi.;

JJ ~~,

r-.r-,

~lill.....J...<"

>

2 -

rJ

3--

.ll!;J1

~,,:-,I

a.:, ~, .:- J ~ til I .....J...<" r J ",):.i .s.lll ~ WI

5---r J J ~ .:..~, ~W I ~":-' I ~ VI ":-' L ,):.i

~;;

--

.,).>,,:-,

5/

4 /

o!J I 3 / t

rJ

2 / ~ 1

TJ..

K o!J

C....,..

Xt

202

Translation

13e-h (P4)
e

We draw from point L an ordinate, let it be LI.l0 Then angle LIM is

known, since the two angles L andM are known.
It is explained in the fifty-seventh proposition and the fifty-ninth proposition of the second book of the Conics 11 how we draw a tangent to the (conic)
section which forms with the axis of the (conic) section an angle equal to a
known angle.
By this case it can be explained how we draw a tangent to the (conic)
section which contains a known angle with any diameter which is known
in position. The reason is that the axis contains a known angle with every
diameter which is known in position.
So we draw a tangent to (conic) section ABG which contains with diameter
HB an angle equal to angle LIM, namely line AFY

We draw the ordinate AT. We draw AK parallel to diameter TH. We

draw from point H a line parallel to the ordinates, let it be HKNY Let
it intersect line AK in point K and let it meet AF in point N.
We make the ratio of ON to NH equal to the ratio of JM to ML, which
is the ratio of the square of E to the square of Z. We join AO.

Since KH is parallel to the ordinates, and AK is parallel to TH, angle

K is equal to angle T and equal to angle FHN. But angle FHN is equal to
angle ILM, and angle F is equal to angle I. So, by subtraction,14 angle N
is equal to angle M.
So triangle N AK is similar to triangle M RX and triangle N F H is similar
to triangle MILY

The ratio of the product of MX and XL to the square of XR is equal to

the ratio of M L to Lt, which is the ratio of <half of) the latus rectum of diameter H B to diameter H B. So it is equal to the ratio of the square of A T to the
product of HT and TF, as is proven in proposition 37 of book 1.
So the ratio compounded of the ratio of M X to X R and the ratio of LX
to X R is the ratio compounded of the ratio of A T to T F and the ratio of
AT to TH.
But the ratio of MX to XR is equal to the ratio of ML to LI, which is the
ratio of NH to HF, which is the ratio of AT to TF.
So, by division,16 the ratio of LX to XR is equal to the ratio of AT to
T H, which is the ratio of HK to KA. So the ratio of H K to KA is equal to the
ratio of LX to XR. 17

Text

203

13c-f (P4)

r-r,

.JII

~ vS:J, "':""

rJ ~~,
):.:i ~;; d,:, ~ J:. ~ ~ J.:.i:; ;;,; I.) ~ r..r .k>-

(!:'..r.)t

(!:'..r ~..rr

.)~

~ ~ JI,>~I ~I....:; ~ J J ~ ~

tJ

~.rJ I ~

d."..biJ1 d.t-i

..rJ r

d.hi.;

..r J J....;, 4.y....... r d,:, ~ u,s:;; r J J....;,

'C ~,

~ ~ ..rJ r ~ uW ' ..rJ r d,:,~ J:. r tJ d,:,~ u,s:;;

-

<t >rt "':"""....

~ Jr (!:'J" J:...r r
2-

3 -

J t <t t r "':"".rP

.) l

--

y)l..;1i

--

tJr

..rr')l rJ ~ Jr (!:,..r')L J r <t< rt "':"".rP

~,rJ1

r!1iI1

1~-

~I.:.:;.

~I

< u..,..; >

u,s;,

,rJ1 .:.. J ')l J r

~ ~

"':"" L

5--

(!:'J" .) t

..JII

( f.llb )

):.:i

~J" ~

t (!:'J"

--

')l "':""

"bi.l

4-

r.sJ 4..,.,~ u,s:;;

.sJ~, ~.rJ1 ~ Ih>. J d.hi.; 0" 'C~'
~I, ~WI ji.:J1 .j V::-i-..u, u\:;..y.......
...;:--'~ u"-j 4.y.......

u.s .:..1b,.,:>.J I "':"" 1:;5 .;."

'C ~

4.~ ~~

r,J..-J1 )::-All

J:.

-;J

~ b.J I jJ Ia.J I 0" ~ I ,

u.s

..

c..;,.ll ry....... ):.:i JS ~ ~ ~ I ';'J

):.:i ~~, ~"':"" I

"':"" L

9-

...; I

'C~'

0"

:;!
11LU

)::-Al

L'.b

1.-.;1,.

t"" I:-J I ~ I ,

~~, ~I U"~ \.b>.

~!i-: ~I ~

~ ~, ~I U"~ Ih> 'C~

J6J1

d..iA

0"

U(

t I J....;,

Q,:,~

~~,

(!:'..r

.)1

r~

.JII

4.y....... ~!i-: c..;,.ll

~ U"~ 11.> 'C~ 4.y....... ~!i-:
-.k>- yo, 8 r.s J Q,:,!;.J Q,:,t..... Q,:,!i-:

.!II

t:..r

5 / <-.l

/ tu 11/

u_:_"

ctI,j, ,

'C~' ~.rJ1 ~ .b I 'C~'

.k>- 10 c-:-'
_ \"". 1
~.
<I ~
-II .b. L .:. I LI
..., L ~,
. -:r
.,.-.-::,/,. \.b>.
-

.)t

..:A:J,

d.hi.; ~...;I

~ ~ ,rJ1

4 /

.;..l.J, .!I

9 /

d1.A;

d.l::J.; ~

J r .)l r..r ~

3 / ...;.:.. 2 /

10/ "':"" I

-L

r<-.l

y)l..;1i 1
8/

.:,..-..t

Translation

204

13i-j (P4)
So the ratio of the product of N K and KH to the square of KA is equal
to the ratio of the product of MX and XL to the square of XR, which is the
ratio of ML to Lt, which is the ratio of (half of) the latus rectum of diameter
HB to diameter HB. IS

But the ratio of AK to KN is equal to the ratio of RX to XM. So the ratio

of HK to KN is equal to the ratio of LX to XM. So the ratio of KN to NH
is equal to the ratio of XM to ML.
But the ratio of HN to NO is equal to the ratio of LM to MJ. So the ratio
of KN to NO is equal to the ratio of XM to MJ. 19
But the ratio of XM to MJ is equal to the ratio of the square of XM to the
square of MR. So the ratio of KN to NO is equal to the ratio of the square
of XM to the square of MR, which is the ratio of the square of KN to the
square of N A. So the product of KN and NO is equal to the square of N A.20

Cv-

Text

205

13g-j

~~.:.>,!;

.!I

rJ..s~!;J

.:.>~,

."....

I Alii. VO )
6-

if"

-.:.>

~!;J ~L...

"':'

~.rJ1

.k,.b.:>J ,i;'

t ~J' .)~ J t

.)i

.)~

t J ~

VOJ

-J

.... .k

~ VOJ

.)~.k I

~ VO W;.JI ~I

7;t

11-

.)l

C.!l .j

J..!I ~J' .)~

~J

.;JI .... C

"':' c "hi

.)~ .!I C ~

t.:.>

, J r ,)1 r t

.)~

II ~J' c.S's- r

t.:.> .j

~J'

-15

.:.>.!I

101 ,i

9 /

~J
~

--

..rr.)l rt ~
II

..< -

"":'--' t.:.>

-:;
0

IJ'"

.'
~

~J'

",:,.,..;.i' I.:.> ~J' .) l 0.!1 ~J' ~ if"

/,it 4/ rep ....... ~L...3

I .i t

t ~J' ')l

C )=.i.I ~1iJ1 ~I

13-

rt~J'~..rr')1 rt ~J

.)lrJ ~t.:.> ')l0C ~J

"':'rP ~

12-

')l tJ ~ .:.>.!I.)~.!II
c.:.> ')l .:.>.!I ~ r t .)t t J

rt

.)1.:.>.!1 ~"';'r

14-

"':'

t J ~

.!I.:.>

< ~ >~ if" .;JI .::. J ')L J r ~ if".,rJ1

11

t;

.!l c ~ , I.!I . .)~ .!I C ~ if" .;JI c.k .)~.k I

Jt .j tr "':'rP

I J.!l

~1iJ1 ~I < ~ > ~ if"

.j .k c "':'rP .)t .k I ~J' ~
t .)t t r ~ VO W~I ~\;

10

.:.>.!I

5)=.i.1

.j ~ t.S .... .k

.)~.k I

.j t r "':'rP ~ J

.)t BC':'> ~ if".;J1 ..sJ .)~:J;~

')l
~ 9 J t .)~ t J ~ ~ , .... .k ,)1 ~ ~ if"
I.!I

c.!l .:.>)1;
3.... ~~J

~!;J ~L...

4-

"hi .)~ "':' C

-..s

~~ ~

C.k

4....JL... .:.>C .... ~~J ' .:.>C .... ~!;JJ .k ~!;J ~L...

.)~ J r ~

.;JI .::. J

1~

2 C.kJ,iJ,.

(P4)

licC.!lJAC.kJ:C.kJ 2 l.!JJl

t.:.>

,i

/ "':'~ 151 0

6 / ~ 5

r 14

,s

131 j

12

206

Translation

13k-n (P4)
k

We make the ratio of HK to C equal to the ratio of (half of) the latus
rectum of diameter HB to diameter HB. Then the ratio of the product of
NK and KH (f. 12a) to the product of NK and C is equal to the ratio of
(half of) the latus rectum of diameter HB to diameter HB.
But the ratio of the product of N K and KH to the square of AK was
(shown to be) equal to the ratio of (half of) the latus rectum of diameter
H B to diameter H B.
So the product of NK and C is equal to the square of KA. So the ratio of
the square of NA to the square of AK is equal to the ratio of NO to c. 2l
The ratio of KN to NH is equal to the ratio of AK to FH, which is the
ratio of TH to HF, which is the ratio of the square of TH to the square of
HB, that is to say the ratio of the square of AK to the square of BH.
So the ratio of the product of NK and C to the product of NH and Cis
equal to the ratio of the square of AK to the square of HB.
But the product of N K and C is equal to the square of AK. So the product
of NH and C is equal to the square of HB. 22

We draw DS parallel to KA. Then DS is parallel to HB. Since the product

of TH and HF is equal to the square of HB, the product of AN and NF is
equal to the square of ND, and the product of KN and NH is equal to the
square of NS. 23

The ratio of ON to NH is equal to the ratio of JM to ML, which is the

ratio of the square of E to the square of Z. So the ratio of ON to NH is equal
to the ratio of the square of E to the square of Z. So the ratio of HN to NO
is equal to the ratio of the square of Z to the square of E.
But the ratio of HN to NO is equal to the ratio of the product of HN and
NK to the product of NK and NO, which is equal to the square of NA. So
the ratio of the product of KN and N H to the square of N A is equal to the
ratio of the square of Z to the square of E.
But the product of KN and NH is equal to the square of NS. So the ratio
of the square of NS to the square of N A is equal to the ratio of the square of
Z to the square of E. So the ratio of the square of AN to the square of NS
is equal to the ratio of the square of E to the square of Z. So the ratio of AN
to NS is equal to the ratio of E (to> Z.24

Text

207

13k-n
):.il ~1iJ1 ~I <u.,.,.; > ~

":- C

f .12a )
--C.)1"hi( .)t
-":- c

":-~
o

c.!l

~JA ~ uP

":-,,..Ai'

.!l 0

.;

.)1 t

uP

.)
C.!l
2--

.;

.!l I ~JA

,)1

CU

f -~ ":- C ~JA

.!l I ~~ ~ uP

.!l 0

~ uP

.;

":-~

..::...; IS" oli"

0~~ J

'

4-":- C J

I 0 ~JA ~ 0,s:;.;

.; .!l0 ,,:-~~,

I::i I,.

~~ ~ u 0

,) 0

.) L .AI ~~ ~
.) l 0 c ~ j
-

":-~ J

C":- ~~')l
.) t .!l I ~JA

C ~~

":-

~ t

~JA .) l

.)

10 ~JA ~ JA <,$..iI1
o.AI

~JA.)t

510 ~JA .) t

~JA ~

vSJ

~JA ~

V"

0 ~JA ~

')l

< .) l >.AI

/ '-c-

.;

.) 1 0 t

C0

~JA .) l

0 ~~

-:t ~~ ~

4 /..>.1;.

.)

J:.

V"

.;
c 0

0 I

V"

.;

~J
~~

~~ ~ t

0C ":-~

.;

0.!l ":-~ ~
0.!l ":-~ J

.;

~ ~JA ,)1.

3 /(M+)A-":-C
A

.!l0 ,,:-~')l.!l0

V"

'J"

~ j

~~ ~

~JA .)

"hi')l

2 /

0 ~~ .)

to

0~ J

0t

.) l

~~J

V",)

0.!l ":-~

c 0

10 ~JA')L C0

I::i ""

.;

.AI

to .j

5-:;::; ~JA

~JA ~

C0

r .) l r"';

.AI

l.!l J

0AJ

V",)

0 ~~ ~

~ .,rJ I J

l.!l

0 I ":-~ 0~ ":- C ~~ ~ u c

.;
V"

.!l 0

):.il r!1iJ1 ~I

":- C C:'JA ~ "'"

C .k ":-~

.)~

.!l I ~ C 0 ')l 0.!l ~J

3-.) l
C.k ~~ ~ ~ .,rJ I U C

.!l 0

.;

>

.)1.

C0 ":-~ ')l"",

":-,,..Ai

"hi

"hi ')L ":- c

":- C

~ ~ .,rJ1

c.k

~JA

1.!l I

~ ~"

.!l c

":-~ ~ 0,s:;.; ":- c

.!l 0

)::.iJ ~1iJ1 ~I < u.,.,.;

":-

< u.,.,.; > ~

.;

.)t

uP

CP4)

.AI

.!lJ

I0

208

Translation

13o-p (P4)
o

Since the product of ON and N K is equal to the square of N A, the ratio of

ON to NA is equal to the ratio of AN to NK, which is the ratio of FN to
NH. So the ratio of ON to NA is equal to the ratio of FN to NH.
So the product of ON and NH is equal to the product of AN and NF,
which is the square of ND. So the product of ON and NH is equal to the
square of ND. So the ratio of ON to NH is equal to the ratio of the square of
DN to the square of N H.
But the ratio of ONto N H is equal to the ratio of the square of E to the
square of Z. So the ratio of the square of DN to the square of NH is equal to
the ratio of the square of E to the square of Z.25

But the ratio of the square of AN to the square of NS is equal to the ratio
of the square of E to the square of Z. So the ratio of the square of AN to the
square of NS is equal to the ratio ofthe square of DN to the square of NH.
So the ratio of AN to NS is equal to the ratio of DN to N H, and equal to the
remainder (after subtraction), that is AD, to the remainder, that is HS.
So the ratio of AD <to> DB is equal to the ratio of AN to NS, which is the
ratio of E to Z. So the ratio of AD to DB is equal to the ratio of E to z.26
That is what we wanted to prove.
God knows best. 2 7 0

lext

209

13o-p (P4)

.)1

I.:;

,:;c.

c..,-rt> J.:.
C-J"

,:;c.

J.:.

.:;,s:; 10

~u

1-

UU

.)~

~u

.) L

.)~ .:; ,,) C-J" ~

,:;c. c..,-""'" ,
C-J"

,,)

c-J"

~u
2--

,)1

.,)
~

.)t .:;
~,

..rI. clI':',

C-J"

I ~,

.;;.II
.::....
j

V'

u
-

..AI C-J" ~

L 0

C-J"

')l

--

,)1 .:; .,)

V'

u C. ~

c..,-,,)

,,) u
~,

~ u C-J"

u C-J" ')l .:; I C-J" ~,

V'

u C-J"

,)1.

')l.:;") ~

~.:;

< ')l > ,,) I

-3

.)t..AI ~ c..,-") ,)1 ,,) I

,)1 ,:;c.

~u

C-J" ~

~, .jL:JI~,

u I ~

--

.) ~

L 0

J u

u 0

IS.lJl

c-J" .) ~ ..AI c-J" ~

.)t

.jL:J1 .)t ,,) I

u C-J" ~

~.

~ ,
- j

')1..A1

u I

-V'':;
V'

( f. 12b

1.;)

4 /

,,) .... 2

.)t

':;u ~ I.:;

.)~

..AI C-J" ~
j

C-J" ~ j

..r-

u .} uc. c..,-""'"

~.:; C-J"

.!l0 ~ uc. c..,-rt> u':l,

.rJ1 .!lu .)1 0 I ~

C-J" ~

/..,.

210

Translation

13q-s (P4)
q

[If lines E and Z are different the diorismos of this problem is as follows:
We assume two lines such that the ratio of one of them to the other is
equal to the ratio of the square of E to the square of Z, as the lines which are
in the figure lines J M and LM.
We make the shorter of them diameter of the hyperbola corresponding to
(conic) section LR. For the construction of the hyperbola it is unnecessary
to add any other condition. 28

For the ellipse, it is also necessary that we make the shorter line diameter
of the ellipse corresponding to (conic) section LRM.
If the diameter of the ellipse is a diameter but no axis, it is necessary that
we make the excess of the longer line over the shorter line, corresponding
to line LJ and adjacent to the extremity of the diameter which is the line
from which a tangent to the (conic) section is drawn, such, as to form with
the diameter an acute angle, in order that the other extremity of the diameter
be an extremity of the base of the segment ofthe circle, <and the tangent to
the segment of the circle> at this other extremity fall inside the ellipse, because
it (the tangent) forms with the base of the segment an acute angle.
For in the case of the ellipse, the segment admits an obtuse angle, and in
the case of the hyperbola it admits an acute angle. 29

The tangent to the ellipse at this extremity forms with the base of the segment an obtuse angle. Therefore this extremity of the segment is necessarily
inside the ellipse.
But the other extremity of the segment, which is the extremity ofthe greater
line, is necessarily outside the (conic) section. So the segment intersects the
boundary of the (conic) section.
Thus it becomes clear that the segment intersects the boundary of the
ellipse in one point. So the problem has one solution. 30

211

Text

13q-s (P4)
1

~.illl ~I ~

e'~ .sll

.A

e'J'

,,>~ I

.sl l

~..I.:ooV,

a.:-;

I..A ol>l

~I ~!;JI ~ ~ l..A".....,t ~, -;:J rJ. Ih> d~1 .j I..A

,,>1 J:.r d')~ .sll ~!;JI ~I ~ .j ~~~, ' ;J ~
~ !,hi ~I ".....,i I..o.:i ~ ,) ~ .pWI ~I .j

l.ii

~ ~ !).i ..,..WI ~I ~ ~IS ~~ rJ J ~ ~I..,..WI

32
....
~

1.:.'11
ll.kiJ1
I. -1:.~~I.k>J1 ii.)L
1--'1
.. '
..,. J .kiJ d~.r""'"
.s-r':J~v~
~ ~

tt..

~ ~~ ",.lJ1 .k>J1 .;;~ ",.lJ1 ):.&II '-'):> ~ t..

;; ~ IiJ 1i):>):.&1 1
'-')oJ I IlA ~
,

V"

,,>~ I '-')oJ I

~AJ ' ii.) I.:.. 4,:,!,;.:

<ii,;I..\.I1 ii...J...i.l ..,1.J1.k>J1 ~~,

4):.&1 I t!'

>

ii,;I..\.I1 d..a.6i

d.)1.:.. 4,:,!,;.: ii...J...i.l1 d~1i t!' ~ ~~ ..,..WI ~I J>I.)

.j

~!;JI ~I

~,

~,;.;. G,:,~

J.:i:; ..,..l:J1

.j

~I

.j

~ ,,>~I

ii...J...i.l1

d .) I.:.. G,:, ~
~,;.;.

v~
J.:i:;

G,:,!,;.: ii...J...i.l1 ii~1i t!' ~ ,-,)oJ1 IlA ~..,..WI ~ ..,I.JI,

,...,...l:JI~1 J>I.)

.j

ii...J...i.l1 V" '-')oJ1 lolA .:,,~

.:,,1

.!lI.l

V"

r..;J..i

ii...J...i.l1 ~ ~JL;... ~":il .k>J1 .....):> ,.s- ",.lJ1 ii...J...i.l1 V" ,,>~l ,-,)oJI,

~ ii...J...i.l1 ~I .!lI.l V"

d ol> ~ d.l"

~,. ~I ~ A....kli ii...J...i.l1 ~

4.I!.....J I

v,s;. d ol> ~

~,5 / ~I 4

/..A

ib.i; ~..,.. W I ~ I ~

/ " ~I

2 /

~~, 1

212

Translation

13t-v (P4)
If the diameter is an axis and if it is the minor axis, then the segment is a
semicircle. Then the tangent to the segment is also tangent to the (conic)
section.
If the chord which cuts off (f. 13a) from that circle a segment which admits
an angle equal to the angle which is made at the extremity of the minor axis
and which is contained by the two lines drawn from the two extremities of
the major axis, is equal to the major axis, then the boundary of the segment
passes through the extremity of the major axis. Then the rear side of the
segment is outside the (conic) section, so the problem can be solved. 31
u

If this chord is less than the major axis, then the segment intersects the
axis of the (conic) section inside the (conic) section. So it intersects the
boundary of the (conic) section on the side adjacent to the exterior extremity.
It does not intersect it on the side adjacent to the tangent. For every circle
constructed on this diameter, such that the chord we have defined in it is
less than the major axis, and such that the circle is greater than the first
circle, is externally tangent to the first circle. 32
But it is internally tangent to the (conic) section. So the segment, which is
a semicircle, intersects the (conic) section in one point. So the problem has
one solution.

But if this chord is greater than the major axis, the problem has no solution for the ellipse. For the segment of the circle is tangent to the (conic)

section at the extremity of the axis, but it intersects the major axis outside
the (conic) section, and its rear side is outside the (conic) section. So the whole
segment is outside the (conic) section. 3 3 So it does not intersect the boundary
of the (conic) section. So the problem has no solution.

>-'

Ii-:,r

"

r.

"

..:'

'\..

let

>-'

H,

()

"

'--

r.l

,,~

c;

r't-

~.

-N

L.

<tr..f

'~

~ 'to

eu
'to

~.

t.

OJ

'to

ot,

'l!..
_

r..:"

..~

~. (.

~ .~
[,c...

~'"

(.

1.~1~'1.1.
-.!~
E

,. ~

~\ k~1;

f.' "'k

\-f:~~~

r't-

(.

-t

- 't

l:.,

~ cIA.

<!

r't- (.'j 1. c.
~ ~ ~ ~-

~
-

~-

.~, ~ ~ ~
L r't- (. ~ ~.

('t-

...:

f.'

F 't.:

-t 'Ii..

,,~.

''i

c.

[-

't.: _'~ ~. v

0..

. <t

'Ii.. ';.,-

t.

-~.

1..~

t/\ y._ ~

'-.

1 ""t 't

~.
..-

'-l:.,-

t~ \-~ t.1 =

1:

r.

'l!o- ''i1. .. ' '1. 1 1L

~ 11
r't... [t:
r ~. ~ '\: .r ~
r. ~
..
,r ~~ 't.: r ~. ~ ...~. ~ .~ 1. 'to,.

t }, t L
l~ 1 \- 1~

~ 1 11~

- 'Ii..

E} [

f.'

(~ 1~'1

IA.

(.
,.~

'b

if''' -

~.

..:"..

'f>..

f'

r,'

~.

Ir

'i..
.f c.~

,.

'~.

l-l

..:"

(.

>-' -

l:.

:';

IA.

(.

't-

f'

'-

.....

'l!o_ ,F
~ ..~ .~
c

r.

tr~

r~~~:<t

'-

1:-"'\.-r 1\
.
,- E~

..:'

tt

~...,..

. .r .
r[ r . [ (
.f ..
- .. 'l!o . - .. \
\ 1 - ~ 1 ~,.
\. 1 ~ f.'

t11

~l....
-

~ ~.
(.If ttr-t.
c (.

'Y" ,.~:["
(.
\.:

.r

f""

......,..

[I::-t.

(.

r."

oJ

E
. .: ~

~
'-"

't:a

I
<!

......
w
.....

-l

tv

::;:;

(J)

214

Translation

13w-z (P4)
w

If the diameter of the (conic) section is the major axis, then the problem
also fails to have a solution. For the whole segment falls outside the (conic)
section.]

If the two lines E and Z are equal, the method of construction is that we
draw the axis of the hyperbola and ellipse. It intersects tangent BD.
If it intersects it in a point other than point B, then we draw from the point
of intersection another tangent to the (conic) section. Then it is equal to the
first line. So the problem has been solved.

If the axis passes through point B, no other line can be drawn which is
tangent to the (conic) section and equal to what it cuts off from line BD.
The reason is that the diameter which is drawn to the place of concurrence
of the two tangents bisects the line joining the points of contact. For that is
demonstrated by the converse of the twenty-ninth and thirtieth proposition
of the second book of the Conics.
But this diameter is not perpendicular to the line joining the two points
of contact, since it is not the axis. So the two tangents are not equal.
So if the two lines E and Z are equal, the problem has a solution only if
point B is outside the axis. 34

[We have exhaustively treated the diorismos of this problem.] That is

what we wanted to explain.

13w-z (P4)

r-t- c:.~ ..) yo

J-II

4 4..:P..hi .;; ~

";,,.P ~JI....:;.,

L I.. .;> I lk>. ~ li::J I 4.hi;

.;;~ ~

.;;\5

2 lk>.

-'b

.).,... .k;. ~ ,.yi u<>i l~.JI ,

u- I..J I
-

VO

c:. ~ .,...

.. (

.)1

.l....11 u- I... r 1.k;.

c-

I:

4hi,; ~ 4hi,;

J, Su "L-

c:.AI ..s~1 ):.ill .;;1 .!ll.),

UO'

I.::J I ~ .:...-:

J...::

vo ~I, u-."..:.....JI

.;;A ~ ,

d..I!....J 1

--

't:"1;J1 ~I ~

~I

~ ';;':-J I....:;.,

yo
j

-'b

.
.,.;~ u-I.::JI

c:..;>1 5 /
/

~~

4 /

4".;WI 4.l1iJ1

.:...-: ~!,JI ~I

lk>..;; b I.)li

10 .!ll.), [ a.l!.....J I

1dLt:P3A

~ .!ll.) ,;~ ~

VO

. __ ...11 .:.,&
. 4>..",)1>
,.
rr-

.;; i 1.;.))

~ W

';;':-J I....:;.,

.;;

L I...J 1

""'.'\5
I"
"I
"""""" ~
~ .. ' ..

.,...

~ .-:;

..;..~ 3 / ~ 2 / ~I

9/ .;;Ll.:4l1

7
~ I..J I .. li::J I

.::.-lb,~I.,...\:;.5 vo

u-:=J
-

vo

.).,... .k;.

..s ~ I .k;.J I ~ yo

~ I~):.ill lolA .;;~ u-:=J,

.;;1.b:;.J1

._.I1\5.1i
. J"t. rru
u#'

'-

c:.~ ~.

~ I,;J I ~ I

CU!.....J I.:...:;.lit
U:rf.'

.;;~ lot;

8/ ~l.:4l1

7 /

216

Translation

14a-c (P5)
a (14). If there is a known parabola, how do we draw a tangent to it which
ends at its axis and is equal to an assumed line?
Let the (conic) section be ABG, let its axis be AD and let line E be assumed.
We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section such that the part of it which
ends at the axis is equal to line E.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it be line BH.

We draw the ordinate BT, and we make angle HBD (f. 13b) a right angle.
Then the product of DH and HT is equal to the square of BH, and the product
of DTand TH is equal to the square of BT.
But BT is an ordinate, and BH is tangent, so line HA is equal to line AT,
as is proven in proposition 35 of the first book. And the product of the latus
rectum of the axis and AT is equal to the square of BT. So line DT is half of
the latus rectum of the axis. 1

But the latus rectum of the axis is known, so line DT is known.

The product of DH and HT is equal to the square of HE. But HB is known,
so the product of DH and HT is known. And DT is known, so line HTis
known. 2
Point A is known, so point H is known. But HB is drawn from it tangent
to the (conic) section. So point B is known, as is proven in proposition 51
of the second book. 3

Text

217

14a-c (P5)

~ .)~ ~,
.6.,

,) 1

u.:s r,..t...... .J!S.. ~

th.> ~~

e-I..:

-~,~":-' 1 ~I ~

.)~..:.. ~ I. .;;~, ~I V"I..:

..;.,,;...k>J bl.....

16

~~ .;;1
Jb

,,:-,rP.;;,s..; &.lli

t:,)

~ .k":-,,

.k,,:-, ~J' ~

(f.13b

t:.k

J...:o..j

.k,,:-,

~.,. ~ .kI '"

2-

.k t : . j

t:,)

r,L.

.k ,) "

4.,..t......
~

Jb

....-J 1

-t:

":-'rP'

.k t:

r,..t......
.j

ii.l.:.U

loS 4.,..t......

r..-u

3-

t:,)

4.,..t......

-1t:

~?I

t:":-"

.),~I

":-'rP' '

r! taJ 1 ~ 1 u.,...;

iJl:i..Jl

>A .k ,)

r,L. r..-u ~1iJ1 ~J..;.JI,

,,:-,rAi r,..t...... ":-' t:' ":-' t: ~.,. ~
1 61:.&;, ' r,L. .k t: ~ r,..t......

.k ,) J...:o..j

":-' 4l..i.:.i ~ V" t.. ":-' t: .b. L...,:. ~ ~ .li,

5

,)":-'t: ~~~,

~ V"t..

~taJl ~I

r..-u

cJWI

5 /

4/

~I:JI

iJl:i..Jl

V"

1 3 / .k')

AS;:
o

').k

\;

2 /

EJb

G~

":-'rP .;;~, t:":-' ~J'

'" .k ,)

..J ~ .j ~ loS .k 1 .b. ~

V"

..

<...1.1 > a

.;;~,

~,..;.,,;..

.k>J C, l.....

ul

~~, t:":-' .6. ~, ...J...6..:;J1 ~ ~ .!JJ J";'';':''

~,;:JI ~ .k,,:-,

~ .kt: '"

.;;IS"

'"

/"1"""' 1

218

Translation

ISa-e (PS)
a <15). The synthesis of this problem is as follows.
We repeat the (conic) section and the assumed line.
Let the latus rectum of the axis of the (conic) section be KL. We bisect
it in point M. We make the product of MN and NK equal to the square of E.1
We make AH equal to half of KN. We draw from point H a tangent to the
(conic) section, let it be HB.2
b

I say that HB is equal to E.

Proof: We draw the ordinate BT. Then T A is equal to AH.3 So TH is

equal to KN.
We make TD equal to MK. Then the product of DH and HT is equal to
the product of MN and NK. So the product of DH and HT is equal to the
square of E.
Since DT is equal to half of the latus rectum, two times the product of
DT and T A is equal to the square of TB.4 So the product of DT and TH
is equal to the square of T B.

We join DB. Then angle DBH is a right angle. 5 So the product of DH and
HT is equal to the square of HB.
But the product of DH and HT is equal to the square of E. So line BH
is equal to line E.
Thus BH is tangent to the (conic) section and equal to line E. That is
what we wanted to do.

This problem does not need a diorismos since it has a solution under all
circumstances. 0

Text

219

15a-e

vS.J, ,..h;W I .b;J I, F I

1.... ' .

~,

4hi;

.Po

v.!1 1 u..,..;

I...
u~

<: I
'-:'

2 v~

<:..k

..k <:
Jo

J;.

..)

~.".

V;;J'

<: I

.Po

l..k

<:,)

'-:'rP

v~

.Po

..k <:

l..k

..) ..k')

J;.

..)

<:'-:'

.h;..t Jo

..;......: vi \;,))

/ r-'

<:,)

<:,)

If

J.!1 c.. \..,.11 rr_. ... I

..)

'-:'rP

--

.!1 v . j

_ 1:.11
r- IiJ I c
-

1-

<: 4hi;

'-:'rP

( ;:..:. ,

..:;.0

q ~l.sl.;:

(;:..:.

r J;.

.Po

<: .b

j...i, 3 /

~"

..) .b ,) '-:'~ ,-:,.b ~.".

-- 3

<:'-:',) ~~ v~ '-:',)

.j <:,) '-:'rP' ' '-:' <:

6,L...,

v~'

2 /

J.,...;,

~J" J;.

5 <:,-:,.i

.h.:;..

rep u..,..; .

vr

v-I...

Jo

~--H,)D

l..k

JL M

K.!,I

.::,.!1

4--

v~ d.!1i

')..k

/ (,L..., 6

< ~> a

.Po
<:,) '-:'rP v~ .!1 v ..) v r '-:'rP .Po
'-:'rP v~ ~ IiJ I ~ I u..,..; J;. ~ v~)U
.!1

~J" J;. ..k <:

4J!..-l1 ~ ~,;.,

v~

v~ ~;;JI ~..k,-:,

I. .til oJ, -;; ..b.:iJ

5 /

~, ' Jo ~J" .Po

<: vS.J , ~ t.1... 11..;.

,-:,..k ~J"
..k <:

IliA.

~:

CP5)

AI

<:

N v

220

Translation

16a-c (P5)
a 16. If a hyperbola or ellipse is known, how do we draw a tangent to the
(conic) section which ends at its axis and is equal to a known line?
Let the (conic) section be ABG, let its axis be AD, and let its centre be E.
Let line W be known. We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section,
which ends at the axis and is equal to the known line W.
b

So we assume this (f. 14a) by way of analysis. Let it be BH.

We draw the ordinate BT. We draw from point A line AG parallel to the
tangent. We join EB, and we extend it to meet AG, let it meet it in point K.
We draw the ordinate KL.
We make the ratio of EM to M A equal to the ratio of DA to its latus rectum.
Then MA is half of the homologue, and the ratio of the product of ML and
LA to the square of AK is equal to the ratio of ME to EA.1

Since BH is known and AE is known, the product of AE and BH is known.

But the product of AE and BH is equal to the product of KA and HE, since
the ratio of KA to BH is equal to the ratio of AE to EH. So the product of
KA and EH is known.
It has been shown earlier 2 that the ratio of T E to EA is equal to the ratio
of AE to EH. So the product of TE and EH is equal to the known square of
AE.
So the ratio of the product of KA and EH to the product of T E and EH
is known, and it is equal to the ratio of KA to T E. 3

Text

221

16a-b (P5)
.".~, ~I

(.)"1..:

\k>. ~~ ~ L."L..

uAil;

vS.Ji r"L...wJ
~ 1 (.)" I..: tl.> ~ ~ v t ~..;., C"L.. -;-

~~,

..b,,:-,
,,:-,..A

4.;.....:, (.)"L...l.I

~?I

u...:.;
-;:;

c":-'

u-k

J.!l

.wJ

"L...

~, J...6.:;J1 ~

~I,..
~~,

3~ 1 .l.:.>

.!l

.l.:.>

~,

..A

2 .;5J" ,

vA,

~I

.)1

~,

u-k

(f.14a

~ 1

uiJ,: ...;.>

.,jL.;,

r v~ r!1iJ1......J...;, .)t I') ~ 1r .)t r..A ~ ~,

~ .!ll ~J" .)~ IJ J 5 ~ ,,:-,.rP ~ v,s;, ~I .wJ1
I..A ,)1
1

j...i, 4/

"...i

\k>.

1 .l.:.>

3 /

j5J",2 /

t~.~ :,i..l.l~

/ J--

.!lI,)";P

~~, ~?I u-k

1 d.l.:.i,; vo

u-k .w.:J,

y ..

4o-t- .) 1

vA,

~ L...

,) 1 4o-t-, ~ ":-' 1 ~ 1

r,J.-J1

.t

, ..I.l~ ~ vIS" U~

Translation

222

16d-g (PS)

H~--~~~~~------;D

No

But the ratio of the product of ML and LA to the square of KA is equal

to the ratio of ME to EA. So the ratio of the product of ML and LA to the
square of T E is equal to the ratio of ME to a line, the ratio of which to AE
is known. 4
It has also been shown earlier s that the ratio of LE to ET is equal to the
ratio of TE to EA. So the product of LE to EA is equal to the square of ET.

So the ratio of the product of ML and LA to the product of LE and EA

is a known ratio. 6

We draw through point E the parabola with axis EL and latus rectum
EA, let it be (conic) section EN.
We extend KL in a straight line to meet it, let it meet it in point N.
We draw through point A the hyperbola with (transverse) axis MA and
latus rectum such that the ratio of MA to it is compounded of the ratio of
ME to EA and the ratio of the square of HB to the square of EA. Let it
intersect (conic) section EN in point N.
As to the question whether it intersects it or not, we shall explain this
afterwards. 7

Then point N is on the intersection of two (conic) sections which are

known in position. So point N is known.
N L is a perpendicular, so point L is known.
Line N L is known in position, and it is a rectilinear extension (of LK), so
line LK is known in position.
But AK is equal to KG. So line AG is known in position. For if we cut
off from the axis (a line) equal to AL and if we draw an ordinate from the
place of separation, it will end at point G. So point G is known. So line AG
is known in position. 8

Text

223

16c-g (P5)
,'_1__
u1t

1 ,

c"':-

lOr-

a:-.; v~~

I.!I

~ ..li,

.j

r,J.....

C..A

C..A

u1 ~

.:J

..A .k 3 "':-.rAi

",:-.r-P

"':-.r-P v~ r,L..

",..A I
..A C

~.!I

u1t C..A

..A.k

u1t

",:-.rAi

I.!I

",:-.r-P

C..A

~ i:"'

ii, ';

u1

r,J.-J1

.:I" "':-.r-P

2.j

vi

a:-.;

..A.k

4-

..A I ~J' ~

J:.i

UO

.j

.j

..A.k

~ J:; ~J' u11 IJ .j J r ",:-.r-P a:-.; ,

u11 ~ .h> .)~ ..A r ~ ..A.k ~J' u1t iJ .j J r "':-.r-P
"
.
~ .k..A u1L..A J a:-.; vi J:.i uo 41 ~ .li, . ",J.....
.k..A ~J' 8.Po i:" J ..A J ",:-.rAi I..A u1~

I..A

7:\
..A.k

u11..A

-.w.,

~ IiJ I

J ..A

J ISJ I < ~ I

do-f- ..s.lll

M.\,.J, .~ ...;- .. \i:..1 ~ J.!I ~~,

9 -

Ir do-f- ..s.lll ~~I ~I

uo ,
s-

..,J ~

I..A
-

1.1

..A

r a:-.; uo
-

d..6.i.; ~

",J.....

~.!.I

4~t,

uo

iihi,;

r,L..

JI

-.!.II,

uo

l;li

UO,J..... ~ ~ Ii: ~

v .h>, ",J.....

r,L..

'~I

d.bi.;;

,I

7 /

I..A

a:-.;
6-

~ ,,;1

iihi,; v~

v ,

- - 11
.!.I J
.h:;..; .. Ii::....I ~

.Po ~I uo u..; I ~L I!~ , ~I r,J..... ;I

~ ~ ii.bi; u11 ~ I ~? I ~ It..> J...i.ll ~
~I r,J..... ~ I .h> v~

~ 5 / .k,

.h:;..; .. \i:..1

11 /

5 /

~,I : ~

4 /

,1

",:-.r-P,

10/

3 /,

,) I r
/

-.w.,

I..A ~J' u1L "':- c ~J'

10"

d..6.i.; ~

..s.lll ~ IiJ I

uS::J,

'

r a:-.;

r-';',

d..6.i.; ~

>..A

v..A ~
I ii.bi; ~ r-';', . v

V..A ~ ~,

d.bi.;; ~ I

~~ .li, ~I
--

w,. . ,.,1

C"':-

C..A

5 L..A

u1L..A I

ii.,J.....

~ <.J'I"

I.!I

c"':- v~'

'r,L..

",:-.r-P.Po c"':-

I.!I

.j

..A I

",L..

2/,

.Po

9 / rep

Ja:;.... .. 1i ~I

224

Translation

16h-17c (PS)
h

But line LK is known in position, so point K is known. Point E is known,

so line EK is known (f. 14b) in position. (Conic) section ABG is known in
position, so point B is known. Line BH is tangent.
Thus the analysis has resulted in us drawing from a known point a tangent
to the boundary of the (conic) section. 9

a 17. The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe.

Let the (conic) section be ABG, let its axis be AD and let its centre be E.
Let line W be assumed.
We want to draw a tangent to the (conic) section which ends at the axis
and is equal to line W.
b

So we make the ratio of EM to MA equal to the ratio of DA to its latus

rectum. Then line M A is half of the homologue.
We make the ratio of line! MA to line 0 compounded of the ratio of ME
to EA and the ratio of the square of W to the square of EA.
We draw through point A the hyperbola with transverse axis MA and
latus rectum 0, let it be (conic) section AN.2
We draw through point E the parabola with axis EA and what is adjacent
to it, and latus rectum AE.3 It intersects (conic) section AN, let it intersect
it in pe>int N, and let it be section EN.
As to the question whether it intersects it or not, we shall explain this
afterwards.

We draw from point N perpendicular NL. Then point L is inside hyperbola ABG, because it is inside (conic) section AN and the axis of the two
(conic) sections is one line.
In the case of the ellipse, point L is between the two points E and A,
because axis AE is common to the two (conic) sections AN and EN.

Text

225

16h-17b

.!i.Jb

d."Lo.. .Jb

..b;..t

4.bi.:i ~"'I

":-'

4l:.i.; VO ~ ~

4l:.i.;,

r"Lo..

d."Lo.. .!i

4.bi.:i ~ I

4bi; ~

~ ~,

'": ~ I.,

~, ~

Ir

.h> u.l~

r-""

Y..

4bi;

~ 5~

4 /

~ ~

1.Jb

VO,

Ir ~~I G6.t-- < ..s.lll

G6.t-- ..s.lll .} I4J I ~ I .Jb

r.Jb

~I J...;.JI u.....;

1.Jb e'J" u.ll , C:J' ~

~\iJI.....J..;.,

5 /

I r u.ll

.h> ~~,

1.Jb

.....J:.i..li

(f.14b)

>

,1

4l:.i.; ~

~,3 /~,

r-""

d lot;
2 /

H M

c:

~!;JI ~I

rep

, W

Dt

u.ll.Jb

=' ~ ~,...; ~ ~\iJ1

~ vo ~ \;, ~ ~

.h>,

r"Lo..
~ I u.l ~ ~ I ~ I .iii V" t.. c: ":-' .h>, d."Lo..
Lt.. U:.> ~ I ~ ~ d."Lo..
~":-' I ~, , ~"'I

I r .h> ~A-i ~\iJ1 .....J..;. u.ll I') ~

vo AI;' t

r"Lo.. .!i J

I-

3 ...,.".
.

(PS)

. .;; I

.....J..;.,

~.Jb ~

r"Lo..

226

Translation

17d-g (PS)
d

We make LF equal to LA. We draw the ordinate FG. 4 We join AG. We

extend NL in a straight line, let it meet line AG in point K.
We join EK, let it intersect the boundary of the (conic) section in point
B. We draw from point B line BH tangent to the conic section. 5
I say that line BH is equal to line W.

Proof of this: We draw the ordinate BT. Then the product of LE and EA
is equal to the square of ET. But the product of LE and EA is equal to the
square of NL. <So line NL) is equal to line ET.6

The ratio of the product of M L and LA to the square of LN is equal to

the ratio of MA to line 0, which is a ratio compounded of the ratio of ME
to EA and the ratio of the square of W to the square of EA. So the ratio of the
product of ML and LA to the square of ET is compounded of the ratio of
ME to EA and the ratio of the square of W to the square of EA.
But the ratio of the product of ML and LA to the square of ET is compounded of the ratio of the product of M L and LA to the square of AK and
the ratio of the square of AK to the square of ET. And the ratio of the product
of MLand LA to the square of AK is equal to the ratio of ME to EA. So by
division (of ratios): the ratio of the square (f. lSa) of AK to the square of
ETis equal to the ratio of the square of Wto the square of EA.
So the ratio of AK to ETis equal to the ratio of Wto EA.7

Text

227

17c-g
-?"..,.. I ~ J>1..>.j

4l::..i; u,s;;

~ ul

-?" I

~.:.-. ~

J....;, ~;;.JI ...,k -?"u

..
ly;1

"C.~'

J:.

IJ

4l::..i; UO

u J

~,

2Ju

"C.r-,

~ LI..

J:.

<Ju .h.:>.i> Ju ~J"

J:.

.j .AJ

I.A

C..,.. 5 .1..>

l;l

.!II J ulA~

.)~ I r ~

~J" .)~ ,

~J" ~ UO,

.A

~ UO Wjo

.j J

.!I I ~J"
.) ~

IJ

I.A

a.:-;,

.)1

IJ

.j J

.j J

..,..,ri- ~,

')1.A

-I.A

..,..~

.)~ .!II

u J ~J" .) l

.l:..A ~J"

.!I I ( L15a ) ~J"

.l:..A

7-

.)1

IJ

~J"

..,..,ri-

.)1

a.:-;
-

.j

-, ~J"

I.A ~J"

I.A

I.A

I.A

.)!

,)1

IJ

.!I I ~J" ~

uo'

..,..~

uo W$t .l:..A

.)1 ,

.)~.A

uo,
~J"

o!l I ~J"

~J" ~ .l:..A ~J"

I.A

/ (H+)A- ..,.. "C.~J4 /

a.:-; ,

..,..,ri-

.jJ1

a.:-;

;;r 1.lI I
/)

3 /

7/

.!I u

J:.

~ ..",.

uo Wjo

J r

'.b.A ~J" .)

a.:-:-.P. '
,

.j J

IJ

,.l:..A ~J"

..,..~,

.J.,.A .1..>

t .1..>

.!I.A

J:. c..,.. .1..> u 1 J,i~

.1..>

.j .A J ..,..,ri- u~ ~;;.JI ...,k .l:...,.. "C.~

I.A

lot

.j

"C.~' . ..,.. 4bi.:...,k 3~1 ~~,

.!ll J, ~!;ll

u: . . . . ~I ~I

4bi.:

J....;, .!I 4bi.: ~ -?"I .1..>~, ioli:o...'jl ~

4..,..

uo "C.~'

4l::.i,;

u I ~ .1..> .j

.l>~.1..> ~I ~,

-.!II J, I.A

~ u

J u

(P5)

.)~,

2 /

uo 6/

,)1

J...;,1

iL.

Translation

228

17h-j

(P5)

So the ratio of the product of AK and EH to the product of T E and EH

is equal to the ratio of W to EA.
But the product of AK and EH is equal to the product of BH and AE.
<So the ratio of the product of BH and AE) to the product of TE and EH is
equal to the ratio of W to EA.
But the product of TE and EH is the square of EA. So the ratio of the
product of BH and AE to the square of AE is equal to the ratio of W to EA.
But the ratio of the product of BH and AE to the square of AE is equal to
the ratio of BH to AE. So the ratio of BH to AE is equal to the ratio of
Wto AE.
So line BH is equal to line W. That is what we wanted to prove. 8 0
The diorismos 9 of this problem is that the two (conic) sections AN, EN
intersect under all circumstances.
For the ellipse this is clear, since the concavities of the two (curves) are
opposite and they have a common axis.

For the hyperbola: The asymptote of the (conic) section, which is drawn
from the centre of the (conic) section, which is the midpoint of MA, intersects
the parabola EN, goes out from it and moves away from it indefinitely. But
the hyperbola AN approaches its asymptote continuously. So it intersects
the parabola EN [before it approaches its asymptote].lO
So the two (conic) sections necessarily intersect.
They intersect on one sidell in one point. So the problem has a solution
under all circumstances, without a (necessary) condition. It has on one side l2
only one solution.
That is what we wanted to prove. 0

229

Text

17h-j
1-

,~

L'"

...

~>,

J ... .b

'-:'rP

'-:'rP ~ L'"

L'-:'

... 1 .)~ L'-:' ~

...

vi

L;.,,)

I. clI.l ,

~ 1 '-:'rP

J ~ 1 '-:'rP' I... .)!..

-')l < ... 1 J L'-:' '-:'rP

.)1, a.:-;s L'" J ... .b '-:'rP

... 1 J L'-:' '-:'rP ~ , I... t:'J" Y.
~ J L'-:' '-:'rP ~, ' i:- ')l 2

I...

.)~ L'"

(P5)

-;

'-:'rP'

..} ... .b

L'"

~ :I t:'J" .)~

<.I" ... 1 t:'J" .)1

.;J .) ~ -; ~ <.I"

, ... 1 .)~ L'-:' ~

-; .k>.

--

L '-:' .k>.i

J5 ~ vt...b~ v'" v 1 ~) y. 4.l!.....J1 ..lA

1........-, v~1i::. 4~."...:&:; .;~ ~ ' """;I.;JI F I J lot . Ji>

1S.lII

<,

> FI ~

&- ~

1S.lII .l::..2.J.1

vI

v'" ~ ~ y. , 1r .k>..1:..., Y. ..s.lll F I jS~ 5

,-:,.ii=

v 1

~!;JI

JIS:JI
6

vt...b~

repUO

5/

oW ~~,

jj ~~I

jj~!, o.b.i; ~

~I

UO

,-:,.ii=

vt...b~

\..r-"...a.

4 /

vt I.:-.,,}

~~H /

JIS:JI
UO

vi

I~.l.:t

J:i']

I.A, G.lb..

J F ,.b~1 ~ J~~I ~l...:; ~ F

...

~~

UO

v'" ~ ~ ' ~ ~ < ~ >IS.lI1 .l::..2.J1

vW:.iJlt. [~~ ~ ..s.llI.l::..2.J1

jj~~1 ~I

~, ~~ ~ oW ~

J lot,

~!;JI F I

4.l!.....J1t

I. clI.l, .hit jj~!, jj~

2/ rep L .....

.)l

/ v LJ,.i.J1, 6

230

Translation

18a-c (P6)
a 18. If there is a known conic section and iftwo points on its axis are assumed,
how do we draw from those two points two lines which meet (each other) on
the boundary of the (conic) section such that the ratio of one of them to the
other is equal (f. 1Sb) to an assumed ratio?
Let the (conic) section be ABG, let its axis be DAE, let the two points be
D and E, and let the assumed ratio be the ratio of T to K. We want to draw
from the two points D and E two lines, which meet (each other) on the
boundary of the (conic) section such that the ratio of one of them to the other
is equal to the ratio of T to K.
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let them be lines DB and EB.

We make angle DBH equal to angle BEH.l Then triangles HBE and
DHB are similar. So the ratio of DH to HB is equal to the ratio of BH to HE,
and equal to the ratio of DB to BE.
So the ratio of DH to HE is equal to the ratio of the square of DH to the
square of HB and equal to the ratio of the square of DB to the square of BE.

So the ratio of DH to HE is equal to the known ratio of the square of Tto

the square of K. So point H is known. So the product of DH and HE is known.
But the product of DH and HE is equal to the square of HB. So line HB
is known. But point H is known, so point B is known. For point B is on the
circumference of a known circle with centre H and known radius, and it is on
the boundary of the (conic) section, which is known in position. 2
Thus the analysis has resulted in the discovery of a known point. This is the
point where the two required lines meet. That is what was required. 0

T.b

~ H

D ,)

Text

231

18a-c (P6)

~ uo ~ ~ ~ .:; I;l..i; ........ ..)s uP,;,

.r>-~I

,)1

1...A.l>1 ~ .:;,5;, ~I ~

... I,) ........ ,~"':-'I~I

....
'"' f

~.r-

.1..'
'!J' ,

IJ'1I.b

r,.t.- W'>- ~
..)s .:;I. i -,_ ~
...

t..

~1

)~J!.

.......',;.<f.15b

4,......;
~I
. . .- .'..;11
,,,
-.,

.:; IS' I.i1

,) .:; \::.6i.:..11 ,

l...A.l>i ~ .:;,5;, ~I ~ ..)s .:;1)-1. ~

b
~L!.::. "':-' 1:: ,) ... ",:-, 1::

~.:;~

J!.

~~

L"'''':-'

1::"':-',) ~~

.)~ "':-',) ~, ... L ')l 1::"':-' ~ "':-' 1:: ')l 1::,) ~ .:;"s;.;
2"':-'1:: ~J' .)~ 1::,) ~J' ~ ... 1:: .)~ 1::,) ~ .... ",:-,
3... ",:-, ~J'

41.i.;;

a.,.Lo..J 1

... 1:: ..j

..:; J!.
~ a.,.t.- "':-'

L,) "':-';-P'
41.i.;;

<F' J r"J.- 1A"bi

~

,)1

~ ~J' .)

J..L..:;.JI

...,...:.;1

.:; L"ll-J 1 .:; lh.:iJ 1

.li.i

.):J.:

~J' ~ ... 1::

r,.t.- ...

r,Lo.. 1::
u....; J

1 .b

1::

,)1 "':-' ,)

4l:.i;,

-4

1::

.j 1::,)

r ,Lo.. "':-'

1A";S,,. a."J.- ;;,; I')

~I

.,;oJ'

r,.t.-

~J' ~,

.) l 1::,) ~
"':-'~

a.,.L.-..

1:: ~ "':-' 1:: ~J'

~

..)s "':-'

4l:.i;

..)s

~ ..s.lJl ~I ~

i.bl:J 1

<F' < J > a.,.L.-..

...

/ "':-';-P J 4 / .l.:.i 3 / :- 2 /

4l:.i;

~1~J

uo ~

232

Translation

19a-b (P6)
a 19. The synthesis of this is as follows.
Let the (conic) section be ABG, and let the ratio be the ratio of Tto K.
We make the ratio of DH to HE equal to the ratio of the square of T to
the square of K.l We make the product of DH and EH equal to the square
ofHM.

We make H the centre, and we draw a circle with radius HM. Let it
intersect 2 the boundary of the (conic) section in point B, and let it be circle
LBM.
We join DB and EB.
b

I say that the ratio of DB to BE is equal to the ratio of T to K.

233

Text

19a-b (P6)
o!I

')l.l:.
~,

i:--..:.II ,

~ ":' I ~I ~

o!I ~J" .)1 .l:. ~J" ~ -" ~

lla

.:;,s.:

lolA ~;;,

.)~ ~,,) ~ ~,

~ ;t.l:., ~J" ~ ~, ~ ~J" J:. ~-" .; ;-; ,,:,"';'

- r":' J ;;1,,) vS":J, ":' 4.6:L: ~ ~I ~ ~,;;I,,) r ~
-"":' ":',,) J.....;,

.ba
..

234

Translation

19c-f (P6)
c

Proof: Wejoin (f. 16a) HE. Then the product of DH and EH is equal to the
square of HE. So the ratio of DH to HB is equal to the ratio of BH to HE.
So triangles DHB and HBE are similar.
So the ratio of DB to BE is equal to the ratio of DH to HE. So the ratio
of the square of DB to the square of BE is equal to the ratio of the square of
DH to the square of BH.
But the ratio of the square of DH to the square of HB is equal to the ratio
of DH to HE, which is equal to the ratio of the square of Tto the square of K.
So the ratio of DB to BEis equal to the ratio of Tto K.3 That is what we
wanted to prove. 0

[The diorismos of this problem is as we shall describe. 4

If T is greater (than K), and if one of the two points is the vertex of the
(conic) section and the other is outside the (conic) section, as in the first
figure, the problem has in every case a solution, without a (further) condition.
For point H is inside the (conic) section, and point M is outside the (conic)
section, and the antecedentS in the ratio is adjacent to the exterior of the
(conic) section. 6, 7

If one of the two points is the vertex ofthe (conic) section and the other is
inside the (conic) section, as in the second figure, the problem can also be
solved in every case. For point H is outside the (conic) section and point M is
inside the (conic) section, and the antecedent in the ratio is adjacent to the
interior of the (conic) section. 8

If the two points are outside the (conic) section as in the third figure, the
problem can be solved only if a condition is added, namely that the ratio of
DE to EA is not less that the assumed ratio. 9 For since we made the ratio of
DH to HE equal to the ratio ofthe square of Tto the square of K, point His
either (f. 16b) inside the (conic) section, or on the boundary of the (conic)
section, or outside the (conic) section. But point M is always between the
points D and E.
So if point H is inside the (conic) section or on the boundary of the (conic)
section,tO it is clear that the problem can be solved. For the centre of the
circle is inside the (conic) section, or on the boundary of the (conic) section,
and the circumference of the circle goes out from the (conic) section. So the
circle intersects the (conic) section.

Text

235

19c-f (P6)
~

..j

~.A

~,) "':'~ vA-i "':' ~

( f .16a

J.,..; L:L a.:lA.I':'

.A ~ u-Il 2 ~ "':' ~ 1 "':'~ u-Il ~,) ~ ~ "':' ~ ~J"

.A "':' u-Il "':',) ~ v,s:.; , ~ 1..:.:;. .A "':' ~ "':' ~,) I!.b. vA-i
~J" ~

.A",:,

~,) ~ "':' ~ ~J"

.A",:, u-Il "':',)

u-Il "':' ,)

~J"

~,

J.

.b

u-Il ~,)

~"':' ~J"

u-Il
~J" ~ ..r" .;JI .A ~ u-Il
..
3~ v I l;,)} I. .!JJ,) , .!l u-Il
.b ~

.!l ~J"

vIS' 1.)1 1.1

~I.b

"':'

u-Il ~,) ~J" ~,

.A
.:..;IS',

~J"

---- ~ u-Il ~,)

~

I.S vA-i i.l!...Jl .iA

....i.,..;

I-

1.1, 1

~..:;

jj~1 ..j I.S ~I vo ~Jl:;. u;''''JI, ~I U"t ..r" ~I u.)..-.1

.;..,s::
~I

-..
~ i.l.:.i; v~' .b~1

rolio vA,

<vo >

~I

Jb. JS

~Jl:;.

v,s. r

~\....II

..j I.S ~I ~I,) ..j u;~I, ~I U"t \..A1.b-l

v"~

i.l.:.i;

~ ~I

...

'Jb. JS ~ F ~1

r.lie vA,

~I

J>I,) .j

i.l!...Jl

-r

u-I,~I

i.l.:.i;, ~I ~I,)
~

v,s. ~

'"

v1

i.l!...Jl

~J

l:;.

vl:;l..i:Jl .:..;IS'

..j
J.

<r-

v~

vI ~~I jj~1

i.l.:.i;, ~I

vo

~Jl:;.

~I ~I,)

i.l!...Jl

F...-.,Ii

..
vo .,.......~.::..-J

a.......:s ~
~J".
~

1.1, ~I

..j loS

4!J~1 jj~1

I.A

u-I~.A')

II

-,)

U"'~

;;,.....;

~.

v,s.

i.l.:.i;.:..;1S'

~ ~ ~ I~t ; i.l.:.i;, ~I ~Jl:;.

W ~I ~ ~ ,1 ~I ~I,)..j ~

~ ~

,1

~I ~I,)

~I ~

(the scribe first wrote

I.lJ

;;,)~ ~l

- u~-I\
- -a......:J1
.

L:...

.!l ~J"

~I ~

i.l.:.i;.:..;1S'

5.b

u-Il
6

vI .A ,)

5 0 .

F i.I!...J.1 vi ~
~I ~Jl:;. ;.;1..\11 ~, ~I

..j ;.;1..\11 )'". vA

7 ;;.;I..\I1i

vhl.i:;J1 .:..;IS' vI

..
vi ,so, .br

La....:... .1.)1
l;~
.

..j 1.1 ~

~I,) (f.16b)

~I ~Jl:;.

a.:~

I.

,then he added the

/

;;.; I ~ I ,

I
J

,)"':' 2 / .b
and
7 /

thrp.e dots)

..j

6 /.

Translation

236
199~j

(P6)

But if point <H) is outside the (conic) section, it is between the points
E and A, if the antecedent 11 in the ratio is adjacent to point D. But the ratio
of DE to EA is not less than the ratio of T to K. So the ratio of DH to HA
is greater than the ratio of Tto K. So the ratio of DH to HM is less than the
ratio of DH to HA. So line HM is greater than line HA.12 So the circle with
centre H and radius HM intersects the (conic) section, so the problem can be
solved.
But if the antecedent 11 in the ratio, that is the greater (term), is adjacent
to point E, the problem cannot be solved in any way. For point H is further
from the (conic) section than point D, but point M is between the points
D and E.

If the two points are inside the (conic) section, as in the fourth figure, the
diorismos of this figure is as the diorismos of the third figure. That is: point H
is either outside the (conic) section or on the boundary of the (conic) section
or between the points A and E.
If point H is outside the (conic) section <or on the boundary of the (conic)
section) the problem can be solved in every case.
If point H is between the points E and A, the diorismos of the problem is
that the ratio of DE to EA is not less than the ratio of T to K,13 and that the
antecedent of the ratio is inside the (conic) section. 14
If one of the two points is outside the (conic) section, and the other is
inside the (conic) section, as in the fifth figure, then the diorismos of this
problem is that line HA is less than line HM if the antecedent is (part) of
what is adjacent to the exterior of the (conic) section, and that HM is not
less than the shortest line drawn from point H to the (conic) section, if the
antecedent of the ratio is (part) of what is adjacent to the interior of the (conic)
section.]15

If T and K are equal, thl~ diorismos of this problem is that the two points
are inside the (conic) section, <or one of them is inside the (conic) section)
and the other is on the boundary of the (conic) section, or one of them is
inside the (conic) section and the other is outside the (conic) section and the
part of line DE inside the (conic) section is greater than half of DE. It is clear
that the problem can be solved in these three cases. 16
This is the diorismos for all situations in this problem.
That is what we wanted to explain. D

237

Text

199-j
I.A
~

~I

.".... ~

u-IL.A') ~, '

I.A
..

.;..0

. 1...11

1...1
-

-L:.

. . , - - 0::-:

u-I~ <::.)

I <::

~J

<....r >

I>

.) dJ:.:i.; ~ ~I

~,;",s::;

r..li. ,;"IS

U~
So

u-It J:,

.. 1

u' Ii

.:..:IS

dJ:..i.;

.;..0

.,;.....~

~ .;..0 .,;.....t ~ u-I~ <::.) ~,;",s::; .!J u-Il J:, ~

~ LA..;SJ" .;J I jj~ I.lJ I,;",s::; J;-.h> .;..0 ~, r <:: .h>,;,,~ I <::

u-It <::.)

#.....:J
. I

,.
..u..1

r ..li..'-' 15

.-(-

<::

U~

dJ:.:i.;.~

.)

~ V::-:

-I .A-

.;..0 .,;.....

dJ:.:i.;

I.A

-<::

u-Il':;:

.,;.....1

. lob'

1<:: .h> .:;~

.:;~ .:;1

~I .)1 ~

.)

.;..0

~~

,;" b

1<::

..l::~ 4

.;..0

.:;,s"

\.A1.l>1
4

..l::~

r..li.

,;,,~I

..l::~

u-Il J:,

.:..:IS

,;"I,

o......L>J1 jj~1

.j

r <:: .h>

.;..0

--

.:;~,
.;..0

4.I.!.-.J I ..l:: .l...:J

.,;.....~ ~

[ ~I J>.I.) ~ I.. ~I

1
~

~I

.;..0

. J 6. JS

r..li.

.,.,,:J"~I.k>J1

..s.1J1

4.l.:.I.;

..

dJ:.:i.;

~ ,;",s:; ,;" f y..

..s;~I, ~I ~JI>
~
.:;1 y.. A.l!....J1 .a

.A

2-

I> 1.1.. <:: dJ:.:i.; .:..: 15 u. ..Ii

~J

~I ~JI> ~ I.. ~I

4.l.:.I.;

....

r-:":r-'

~ I J>. I.) ~ I

I.S' ~I J>.I.) .j

LA.rL:
. .
1...A.o<>w,

~-

,;",s:;,

dJ:.:i.;.:..: IS

r <::

.~

~
.I;... ~I

I!
~

I. 1.1
..,., >.J...ill
~

~ V::-: ~

~~

--' 1...11
,...

4.l!.....J1 r--

-;7;

<~
.-~ 1.1.,.,.,.
_

'"
'I u~
. Ii
.............

4.I.!.-.J I

--

.A

. Ii
u..
'-

I .)
..l::~

r..li.

.:;~,

I ~,

..l::~ 6

(P6)
g

Translation

238

20a-c (P7)
a 20. If there is a known conic section, and if two points on its axis are assumed,
how do we draw from those two points two lines which meet on the boundary
of the (conic) section such that the sum of them is equal to an assumed line?
Let the (conic) section be ABG, let the two points be D and E, and let the
assumed line be Z. We want to (f. 17a) draw from points D and E two lines
which meet on the boundary of the (conic) section such that the sum of them
is equal to line <Z).
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let them be DB and EB.

We make each of (the lines) EH, DT equaP to half of the excess of Z over
line DE. We make the product of HT and TK four times the product of
HD and DT. 2
We draw through points Hand T the ellipse with axis HT and latus
rectum T K. Then it passes through point B, as is proven in proposition 52
ofthe third book. 3 Let that (conic) section be (conic) section HTB.

Line DE is known in size and position, so line HT is known in size. And

the product of HD and DTis known in size, so line TK is known in size.
So (conic) section HTB is known in position. But (conic) section ABG
is known in position, so point B is known.
Thus the analysis has resulted in the discovery of a known point, and this
is the point that solves the problem. 4

z ;
A

,) D TJ..

Text

239

20a-c (P7)
1

VO

~~ ~

...;.,,;...k..:oJ
f.17a)

t;,t....

QI:.l:.i.; Mot-

~ Q~'

~,;- "';'",;...JI

~ Q~' ~I

~ Q~I, ~'-:-'

.)s Qti-'_ ~ -AI

Ul

~ a

I FI

vo

.l

QIS"

~ ~I

F I .b,..- .)s Qt i -,-

.1.>.11, ::

.J:....-

'"""~ ~

.)s...;.,;, r,J.....

~~

<.i> .h> J:.

..b- ~

.b L

J5

'-:-'~ ~,

--

~ .)s

.b L
3 -'-:-'

.,
.
~

,-:-,.l uk>-AI.l .h> .)s .i

'-:-' -AI

~,

r-"" . .b.l

l;A:J,

J-t-'.

.!l.b

.;

.l L

'-:-'rP

,..b""
L

("-I&.II .............
,

,-:-,.b L ~ F I .!ll.) ~ 4!J1:J1 4..I1i.J1

.l L

r,L..

'-:-'rP'

J.liJ I

,-:-,.b L

~I

.lit

r,J.....

.b L

, J.liII

2-J:..b.l L-AI

Ii,)~ ~

JI:.I ;;""'JI

a.,J..... '-:-' dhi:.i

~ jS:.!

r,L..

lli-JI J.....:; .;JI ~, a.,L..

/ ~,

r,L..

4 /,

3 /

.;

Jil

~ I.S

-AI.l .h>,

r,J.....

-~'-:-' I

ii..I:.i;

vo

'-'~

.!l.b ..k;..; J.liII

~,JI

.!l.b

"I ..p-1"1
.1..;;;1\
... ~

Mot-

vo

1>-

I>

.k;..t ~II, J.liII

r,L..

.!l.U...;.,;.:.;

J..k.:;J I ~ ~

.b.l

.;

~, ~I

')l J....1.:...:.!1
2 /

240

21a-c

Translation

(P7)

a 21. The synthesis of this (problem) is that we cut off from Z (a line) equal
to DE) and we take half of the remainder. We attach (two lines) equal to the
two halves l to DE, at D and E. Let them 2 be Hand T. Then HT is equal to Z.
b

We make the product of HT and TK equal to four times the product of

HD and DT. We draw on line HTthe ellipse with axis HTand latus rectum
(f. 17b) TK.3 Let it intersect (conic) section ABG in point B.
As to the question whether it intersects it or not, we shall explain this
afterwards.

H E
c: ..

DG

Tok

,)~

H E

K ~
c

We join DB and BE. Then the sum of these lines is equal to line HT, as
is proven in proposition 52 of the third book.
But HTis equal to line Z. So the two lines DB and BE are equal to line Z.
That is what we wanted to prove. D

Text

241

21a-c (P7)

~ I.i

J:.>

<.A,)

~ L;~

1.:,..

L:.,S:;J, .A ,) ~ ~I J:.

J:, l:

..:.!,o e'J I

r: liJi

J:,,)

J ,) l:

0.:-"';'

J:.

G.l!....JI

<

> .. ~ ~;;,

0.:-

AJ.:.i.;

-j

o!l J:,

J:.

J:, l:

.:;~

J:, l:

J....?;,

0.:-"';'

~ ~o.:-I ~~, ~2(

J.U

5.A 0.:- 0.:-,)

\b,;.i

.k>.

J:.

.A

/ o.:J

4 /

J...:.i

3 /rep ~1iJ1

J..l:'
~

.:;1

.:;*'

f.17b

-0.:- 0.:-,)

;W~I

&J Ii.J I .:,..

4~

.k>.

J:.

.:,..~

/ .. ,) :.Ao.:-

1;')1
I. .!lI .l,
'.J

2 / u- ~

3j...;,

.A

(~)

r-""

.u.....:,..
. ~
I;I~J' ......J:.i..- 'lI ,
-.

.j v-. loS' J:,l: .k>. J:. ~

.)l~,"';""'; .l:;.'\;

.A,)

~, J:, l: ....- 1S.il1 u-il:J1 ~I J:, l: .k>. ~

~ ..:11.1;.

\S

242

Translation

21d-f (P7)
d

The diorismos of this problem is as I shall describe. 4 That is to say: in all

situations line Z must be longer than line DE.5
If one of the points D and E is outside the (conic) section and the other is
inside the (conic) section, 6 or if one of the two points is outside the (conic)
section and the other is on the vertex of the (conic) section, 7 or if one of them
is inside the (conic) section and the other is on the vertex of the (conic)
section,8 then the problem can be solved in any case without addition of a
condition. For it is a consequence of this that one of the two points Hand T
is inside the (conic) section and the other is outside it. So the ellipse intersects
the assumed (conic) section in every case.

If the two points D and E are both outside the (conic) section 9 and if the
line between the point which is nearer to the (conic) section and the vertex
of the (conic) section is shorter than half of the excess ofline Z over line DE,
the problem can also be solved, without addition of a condition. For one of
the extremities of the <axis of the> ellipse is inside the (assumed conic)
section and the other extremity is outside it.
But if the line between the vertex of the (conic) section and that one of the
two points which is nearer to it, is not shorter than half of the excess of line Z
over line DE, then the problem has no solution. 10 For the entire ellipse falls
outside the (conic) section.

Ifthe two points D and E are both inside (conic) section ABC, and if the
line between the vertex of the (conic) section and that one of the two points
which is nearer to it is shorter than half of the excess of line Z over line DE,
then the problem can also be solved without addition of a condition. 11 For
one of the extremities ofthe axis of the ellipse will then be outside the (conic)
section, and the other one will be inside it. 12 ,13

Text

243

21d-f (P7)
~""

,:, 1 ~ ,,; 1 .!ll.l,

<$.l>1.:...;1S'
<$.l>1.:...;1S'

u.... 1 I.S"

':'1 . ~
,'I ~I

.l:.>

J>.I,,)

.;;~

"
,,; : lli.-J 1 4.lA 1
4:.l:>,; I. Ii

~f t W,~ 1 ~

vo

,:,~

..j -; .l:.>

.j <$;')1, ~I e::,J1> ;; :;- ~

'4.,

J>.I,,) ..j I...w.l>~ .:...;IS' ,1 ~I V"~ ~ <$,,1, ~I e::,J1> v.;.bi:J1

~

vo Jb. JS

J>. I") ..j I...w.l>

1b
-

'.

lli.-JI ,:,~ ~I V"~ ~

So

1:;1.&;,:,,s::,:, 1 .!lJ.l

..;.,~I ~I ~ ..pil:J1 ~I

.;;A-i

<$,,>~I, ~I
j

vo";'J""t.

b,r

,,; ~,

4,,) \,:;

's

~I e::,J1> <$,,>~I, ~I

Jb. JS

1.y..';1 ~ <$.lJ1 .k;J1 ,:,IS', ~I e::,J1> ~

---

.A ,,)

.l:.>

< r-t- >..j}:>

,,)

1::.bi;.:...;IS',:,r

..,.......1 ~I V"~ ~, ~I vo
u~ 'b,r 4")\,:; ~ vo F 4i lli.-JI u~

.l:.> 4")\,:;
.l>t

.A

~ vo

~I ulS' u! ~,JI> ,,>~I u.l'6.JI, ~I J>I,,) .j u~ ..pil:J1 ~I

4")\,:; u...,.; vo ..,.......~..-.I ~1 v.;.bi:J1 ",:-';1 ~,~IV"~ ~ <$.lJ1

~ ..pi l:J 1 ~ 1 ~ u~ F ~

lli.-J 1 ,:, ~ ;;:- .l:.>

-; .l:.>

.J,.,iJ I .
I>
c-.:? b.
.J

<$.lJ1 ~I ulS', ~"':- 1 ~ J>.I,,) ..j ~ .A ,,) 1:;.bi.;.:...;1S' uJ,

..
2

j .l:.> 4")\,:; u...,.; vo ..,.......1 ~l v.;.bi:J1 ",:-';I~,

~I V"~ ~

r.-..";~

, b,r 4")\,:;

41;.1")..j

~ vo

F 41

4l!....J1

ut

.A

,,)

.l:.> ~

3 .
,,>~I, ~I e::,JI>..pil:J1 ~I ~ ..j}:>

ol>l

244

Translation

22a-e (P7)
a 22. But if the two points D and E are inside (conic) section ABG, and if the
line between the vertex of the (conic) section and the nearer of the two
points is <not) shorter than half of the excess of line Z over line DE, then the
problem can only be solved on an additional condition.
b

If the (conic) section is a parabola, that condition is that the ratio of (1)
the square of half of the diameter of the ellipse to (2) the product of (2a) the
line between the centre of the ellipse and the vertex of the parabola and (2b)
the latus rectum of the parabola is not less than the ratio of the diameter of
the ellipse to its latus rectum. 1

Let us repeat the figure. 2 We bisect line HTin point M. We join HK. We
draw M N parallel to T K. Let the latus rectum of the parabola be W. 3

Then, if the ratio of the square of H M to the product of M A and W is

equal to the ratio of HTto KT, the ratio of the square of HM to the product
of M A and W is equal to the ratio of H M to M N.
But the ratio of HM to MN is equal to the ratio of the product of HM and
MTto the product of MN and MT. So the ratio of the square of HM to the
product of MN and MT is equal to the ratio of the square of HM to the
product of MA and W. So the product of MN and MTis equal to the product
(f. 18a) of MA and W.4

But the product of MN and MTis the square of the ordinate drawn from
point M to the boundary of the ellipse. And the product of M A and W is the
square of the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary of the parabola.
So the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary <of the ellipse is
equal to the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary) of the parabola.
So the ellipse meets the parabola at the extremity of the ordinate drawn from
point M, that is the erect axis. 5

Text

245
22a~e

~ <$.lI1 .k;.J1 .:;15", ~"':-' I ~ J>.I.l .j

t
vo~.

ii.ll.:;u.,..;

.:;"s:;

u.,..;~.,. ~

...,..~ ~,"""';~I ~I

~ 4.l.!-J1

.:;1'

--.l
.Jb

.1.>

.1.> ~ j

:JJ"

>~l~I",:-,';1 ~,~I...,..~

G...b.i ..P,~ I ~ I .:; 15" .:; ~ ~ .l:..rJ I ~.),

~ IS".

J : , .

<...,...J

.l:."..:. ii.lJ.:.:..t ~t

\:a.i;':"':I5".:;b

.l

.Jb

(P7)

"':-'rP

~ <$.lII.k;.J1

}:>i

.,Jlu<>i~1 ~I

~ vo ~~ .:....,.J J~I ~ ~Ii.ll ~l .j J~I ~I

}:>i

r-Ii.ll.....w.

11 ut-LJl c_1...11

If #

.,J~ .l:. C

.l:..!l

3-

17 ",:-,rP.,Jlrc~,J" ~.:;1
-

, .:;r .,J~ rc ~ 4~ .j
.l:.

r .j .:; r "':-'rP

.:;li

, . j 1r "':-'rP .,J~ r c ~.,. ~ .:...:15"

.,Jl .l:.

r .j r c ",:-,.r-P

~ .:;

rc

.,JL

~,

"':-'rP ..,J~ r c ~,J" ~ .l:. r .j .:; r "':-'rP .,Jl r c ~.,. ~

-

, J

Ir

.,J~

~.h.

(f. lSb
d.J...i.;

<$.lI1

.......

I.

~~
'~I

u- '"

.J.-.:;..;,

_1...11

C-

0;1

-~l

u-:: ut

<$.lI1

5 1 1, 4 1 I,

-\....11;.

C-

J~l ~I ~ .,Jt

-11.k;.J , l....
<$ .lIl .......:;
.-r'
u t -~I

~Ii.ll ~I ~

"':-'~ ,

d.J...i.;

31

I.k>...s

vo

c-

~II

'~I

'"

~h.

:JJ"

>

r .j .:; r "':-'rP'

J; 6 "':-'rP' u<>i~1 ~I

~?l .1.>~,J" ~ ~ .j

--

",:-,rPi' , .j

vo ~h. <$.lIl ~?I .1.>~,J" ~ .l:.

vo ~h. <$.lIl ~?l

d.J...i.; ....

-5

"':-'rP ~ .l:. r .j .:; r

I.

d..bi..: vo

11
U'.

_\...011 <.l.....-

C-

<$.lIl

d.bi;

II

If.

~?I ~ J)=>

2 I(M+ )A- u.,..;

I.k>... 71 "':-'rP-

"':-'~,

246

Translation

22f-h (P7)
f

If the ratio of the square of H M to the product of M A and W is greater

than the ratio of HTto TK, then the ratio of part of the square of HM to the
product of MA and Wis equal to the ratio of HTto TK. Let that part be the
product of HO and ~T.
Then the ratio of the product of HO and OTto the product of MA and W
is equal to the ratio of HTto TK.6

We draw perpendicular OF.? Then the ratio of (HO to OF) is equal to

the ratio of HT to TK. So the ratio of the product of HO and OT to the
product of MA and Wis equal to the ratio of the product of HO and OTto
the product FO T. S So the product of FO and 0 T is equal to the product of
MA and W.
But the product of M A and W is greater than the product of 0 A and W.
So the product FOT s is greater than the product of OA and w. 9

The product of FO and OT is the square of the ordinate drawn from point

o to the boundary of the ellipse. And the product of OA and W is the square

of the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the parabola. 1 0

So the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the ellipse is
greater than the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the parabola.
So the parabola intersects the ordinate of the ellipse drawn through 0 inside
the ellipse. So it intersects the boundary of the ellipse in front of (the point)
in which it intersects the ordinate.

Since it intersects the boundary of the ellipse in front of (the point) in

which it intersects the ordinate, it intersects the ellipse in another point
beyond the ordinate.

C!.

:;x-

AI

C!.

.."

1--:--

,."

.."

Z,r-'-_--j

c-

'V

c_

cz,r'----l

1"1

G>

r .: ~

f:

r:1

f'1 ~

5:

f:

".

r:1

.-

r.

).

'.

Ir

-~...

~ E

..

I -

'i!.

Ii..~:

L-

I-'

,..,

I ~.

Ii.. ,..,

- ,.., I't. ..-

'c;.. ,. of Ii..

I ..

1n

,..,

IS::. .of" I

"[ 'c;.. {

'c;.

b- 1..;- I..

v..c;.. ( . b-I- . ,. 1..

.. (" I.."-I ,..,~. 1 n ,..,

't

of

~. 't. "I'

r .' r

5:

S,. nb-1b-1
n

I ~I("" ..( I ~.
.

b-

Ii..

,,-

I~I

,...r/of"[ n

of

I""

-.. ..;- I 't.

""ll/;

..

~ 'c;..n

I-'

<:.

c.

,..,

'r

::r

rr

0tI

r:1

....,

lo-

S, b
of ,,- n
,e.r
, I f't..e:. ~ "I.. 'c;.. r.
f.' 'r~:,
-""
.." 't.
co. f
~,...I~
.' 't ,.., I'f'
't. n I"=
"to. ~ c;.. '"
~ b..."_I)
r:t ..
';'1 t r. ~ I,. ~ 11.!
"t '.I~ ~ {..~ 'i. ~ 1
Ii..
'- .~ 1,or ~ .
r.- f. ~f: rt-~ rie:. <t.E ,..,'c;. I .. I .. I 't.of nof I~~. I ~ I f. C::.... r.t ~ 'r- s:: -,..,. 'c;.. 5: 't: t ,...r I t ~-r.
.....
1 ~. I ,..,- I"" I b-I''f 'c;... b-~ 1 ['cit
',r
I f (., !f;;,."
.:= I , " of"of ,..,- (......c. ,..,
t E_ _ ..Ii..- ,.., If:..,. 't...,. -c;..
tt.. n I b-/_'- ..(.

~..

\- ..~

<:.

~f
_."
~. E rt. 'f 1i: r:t'i ~f'1 (. - .f' '.
. ~ f't.. ,. 1i: [: ~;f.

- .F'

~.

Ir "

rt. ;f. r:1 ). ;f- ~

.r . .F '";~.e
..... "~ '"~CoP!

l-

r t.

r. rt.

't.

of

rt. <t. ,..,

~ <t. ~ g ~ .. )'''''1

'r

I "'\0. rt.

'c;..
n 1

,..,

,...r

.....

'"

.....

j>

-.J

'-'

';:a

::r

N
N

-..,J

.j>.

IV

248

Translation

22i-n (P7)
I say also that if the parabola meets the ellipse at the extremity of the erect
axis, then it intersects the ellipse in another point in front of the extremity of
the erect axis.
j

Proof of this: We make the product of AM and MOll equal to the square
of MT. Then the ratio of AM to MO is equal to the ratio of the square of MT
to the square of MO. So if we convert the ratio,12 the ratio of MA to AO is
equal to the ratio of the square of MT, that is the product of HM and MT,
to the product of HO and OT.t3

But the ratio of MA to AO is equal to the ratio of the square of the ordinate
drawn from point (M) to the boundary of the parabola to the square of the
ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the parabola. And the ratio
of (f. 18b) the product of HM and MTto the product of HO and OTis equal
to the ratio of the square of the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary
ofthe ellipse to the square of the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary
of the ellipse.
So the ratio of the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary of the
(parabola to the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary of the)
ellipse is equal to the ratio of the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary
of the (parabola to the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary ofthe)
ellipse.

But the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary of the parabola
is equal to the ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary of the ellipse.
So the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the parabola is equal
to the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the ellipse. So the
parabola intersects the ellipse at the extremity of the ordinate drawn from
point O.

So if the ratio of the square of HM to the product of MA and Wis not less
than the ratio of HT to TK, the two (conic) sections meet under all circumstances. Then the problem has two solutions under all circumstances.
That is what we wanted to prove. 14

Text

249

22i-n

u)o

~,-""WI ~I

~I u)o J.:.i ..s;=>-t

d...bi,;

..A.;.,15 I.:l~ .jts:..J1 ~I

~,-""WI ~I ~

.;.,t

(P7)

~I J,.I,

,,;~ ~liJl ~I
2 <liJl
("

.;.,,i:;.i

~J' ~

.:...;15 ~I l:.,Ji I')~

.)~ .k

tr

r L '-:'rP

.j

tr .j r I '-:'rP
~J'

,.so ..s.lJ1

~ l;~

,)1 .k r ~J' ~ tr u-ll ('I

.k r ?::,J' ~ t I .)1 I r ~
.j t

.k t

<r >
t

~~ ..s.lJ1 ~.rJ1

.)t

.k

r
t

r .j

rL

d...bi,; V'
d...bi,; V'

,I..... .jts:..J1

'-:'rP (

~,

.jts:..JI~1 ~

'

~ ~ ..s.lJ I ~.rJ I .6.?::'J' .)

~I ~

.)1 r

d...bi,; V'

L.. II J-:,.,.
II
c- ..r.

.,< 'I c L..II

cJ'~

~......,

J-:,.,.
-

.6. ~J' .)~ .jts:..J1 ~I .b,...- .)~

.j t

~~ ..s.lJ1 ~.rJ1 .6. ~J' ~.kt

<P

.k;J'
, ......

f.18b

- WI.

.h:;..;,

'-:'rP

t I .)~ Ir ~,

~ V' ~~ ..s.lJ1 ~.rJ1 .6. ~J' ~

d...bi,; V'

41.) .;.,1A,r.,

d...bi,;.
V'

II t

.)t
'-:'rP

1'-"" W I ~ I .b,...-

.) 1

,-""WI ~I ~

.)t

::::~ ..s.lJ1 ~.rJ1 .6.,

ill

1I1 ......:;
-II .k;J
~n..s
.-r'
.

d...bi,;.
V'

~n..s

.lJ1 ......:;-11
.-r'

-WI c.L..II J-:,.,.

II t ~.V' ~n..s
.
.lJ1 ......:;-11
..Jts:..JI.L..lij.
c<P
- cJ'.
.-r'
~ d...bi,; V' ~~ ..s.lJ1 ~.rJ1 .6. u)o ~ ,-""WI 5 ~I ~

rz

~J'.6.

V'

.,.......~..:.-,.J -; .j ~ '-:'rP .)l ~ ~J' ~

.;.,15 I.)t

..tk .;.,tji~_ ~I.;.,p .!l.k .)1

..:.~ ..:.i l;. I. .!.Il.j, JIp.~1 ~ ~

A.l!....JIi JI,>~I ~

.6. ~J'

4 /

'-:'rP

3 /

(M+)A-

~1i.J1

.k L

v,:;".

c..rL

/.k;J1

,,;ij 2 /

Translation

250

23a-c

(P7)

a 23. If the assumed (conic) section is a hyperbola, the diorismos ofthe problem
is that the ratio of (1) the square of half of the diameter ofthe ellipse to (2) the
product of (2a) the line between the centre of the ellipse and the vertex of the
hyperbola and (2b) the line between the centre of the ellipse and the remoter
extremity of the axis of the hyperbola is not less than the ratio compounded
of (3) the ratio of the diameter of the ellipse to its latus rectum and (4) the
ratio of the latus rectum ofthe axis of the hyperbola to its transverse diameter.
b

Let us repeat the figure. We bisect line HT in point M. Let the axis of the
hyperbola be AR and let its latus rectum be A W.
We join HK and WR. We draw MN parallel to TK. We extend it and we
extend RW, to meet (each other) in point C.
We make the ratio of SA to AW equal to the ratio of HTto TK. Then the
ratio of SA to AR is compounded of the ratio of HT to T K and the ratio of
W(A) to AR.1

I say that if the ratio of the square of HM to the product of AM and MR

is not less than the ratio of SA to AR, then the problem can be solved. But
if the ratio of the square of HM to the product of AM and MR is less than the
ratio of SA to AR, then the problem cannot be solved. 2

G~

H~~~~~__~~~~A~__~__~~R.

c:

SUO'

251

Text

(P7)

23a~d

~ ~,s:; ~i

:JJ'

y. 4.l!......J1

~ y. .s.lll .1:.,;.J1

tPl:J1 ~I

:JJ'

~~I ~I V"~ ~,""";l:J1 ~I

.j

~ .s.lll ..6.;J1

~I v- ~~.:.....,.J ~~I ~I r-r- v- ~'jl

Wj.J1

vi'

~ ~\'iJ1 ~I ~

v-:--,
1 __

4,

?;..r--

~~I

.)1

<.J'"

r .j r I '-:-rP

-w.,

u->

'J

5 -

.)1

c:

, , ~,

v- W;. v,s:;
'-:-.rP ~

,-:-.rP

I r ,-:-.rP

r.j

vi'

.b

~ ..". .;JI

o!l.b

~r

.)1

.j ~ '-:-rP .)l ~ .j
..". .;JI

Jr

.)t

--

r<.JO

4t.J;.

&:1 J,.1i*
v-

'-:-rP

.)1
d

~J" ~..:...;\S' ~t.!l.l..i ~LA.r.

-

.)1 r c:

r .j r ~ ,-:-.rP

.b r .j rc: '-:-rP ~,

~ 6;1 .)1 IV"

- o!l.b .)t.b c: ~ v-

c: ~J" ~ .::....;\S' ~t

rc:

.)~

8-

I
\...
::J,"

o!l.b J

' F 4.l!......J1 ~li J I .)l t....,.

vl' ;I .)~ t....,. ~ v- ~f ; ; .j r I

Jr ...j r

v-

~~I

3J I

~J" ~ .::....;\S' ~b

'j 4.l!.....J1

t....,.

c.r'

~~,s:.; o!l.b .)1 .b

7-'
~ v-,
J I .)l I,

IV"

" ..,.J
~l:-.:...
rL

\..:i;l.

t.

iW.;

~,

~~I ~I

2".6i.l1 .)1

J.,...;, ' , I ~1iJ1

o!lc:

J'

J):JI

~\'iJ1 .....J..;. .)t...,..;l: J1 ~I ):.i ~

Al

~r

~ a

~ ~ I~~ ~ ..h,;.J1 ~I ~15 ~l'

'-:-rP .) 1...,..;l:J I < ~ > "hiJ I ....A..,..; ~J"

.)l
-

v}i

~J" ~
.b

r .j r

.j Ir '-:-rP

')l

.)1

'-:-rP ~

c:

.b r ...j r~

r .j r ~ '-:-rP .)1
'-:-rP ~ ~,s:.; , ;J .)1 IV"

~ ..". .b

.b c:

9 ;:-

~ ~ .;JI J I . ) t

10-

I,

~ Jr

'-:-rP ~ Jr .j Ir '-:-rP .)l l r.j r<.JO ,-:-.rP ~

11')l Ir .j r<.JO '-:-rP ~ Jr .j Ir '-:-rP .)1 .br.j r v
'-:-rP
I r .j r<.JO '-:-rP j:. y. .b r .j r ~ ,-:-.rN J r .j I r

(f.19a

7 /

.J

6 /"

5 / rep,

/ ;J

11/

4 /

.;., I 3 / ~

10 /

;-:;

~~ 1

2 /

r~

252

Translation

23d-f (P7)
d

Proof of this, if the ratio of the square of H M to the product of AM and

M R is equal to the ratio of SA to AR:
The ratio of the square of HM to the product of MA and MR is compounded of the ratio of the product of H M and MT to the product of N M
and MT, and the ratio of the product of NM and MTto the product of MA
and MR.
But the ratio of the product of HM and MT to the product of NM and
MT is equal to the ratio of HT to TK, which is the ratio of SA to A W. So
the ratio of the product of NM and MT to the product of MA and MR is
equal to the ratio of WA to AR, which is the ratio of eM to MR, which is
the ratio of the product of eM and MA to the product of MA and MR.
So the ratio of the product (f. 19a) of NM and MTto the product of MA
and MR is equal to the ratio of the product of eM and MA to the product of
MA and MR. So the product of NM and MTis equal to the product of eM
and MA.3

But the product of N M and MT is the square of the ordinate drawn from
point M to the boundary of the ellipse, that is the erect axis. And the product
of eM and MA is the square of the ordinate drawn from point M to the
boundary of the hyperbola. So the ordinate drawn from point M to the
boundary of the hyperbola is the ordinate drawn from point M to the
boundary of the ellipse. So the two (conic) sections meet at the extremity of
the erect axis. 4

If the ratio ofthe square of HMto the product of MA and MR is greater

than the ratio of SA to AR, then the ratio of SA to AR is equal to the ratio
of part of the square of HMto the product of MA and MR.
Let that part be the product of HO and ~T. Then the ratio of the product
of HO and OTto the product of MA and MR is equal to the ratio of SA to AR.
The product of MA and MR is greater than the product of OA and OR.
So the ratio of the product of HO and OT to the product of OA and OR is
greater than the ratio of SA to AR.5

Text

253

23e-g (P7)

r ~ IJO~h .;.lll
~ Ir .j rv" ,-:,.,..P"

u.I~

.t !;J I ~ I

~;:.II.ki. t:'j ~

a.:-::

IJO ~I

a.b&; IJO ~ h

u.ll r

..:;~ ..:;LJ.:.iJ1i ""':;l:J1 ~I ~

IU"

-r .j

.I

,-:,.,..P ~..:;,s::;
,-:,.,..P, '.II

ull .bt

u.lt

.j

41.a.; IJO ~h

;t

.;.lI1 ..,....:;;:.11

u .;..

~1iJ1 ~I

I r ,-:,.rP

-I

u.I~

.I

Ir

Ir ,-:,.,..P u.I~.bt .j tc

a.,.....;

IJO

IJO

~t

~t ;;
.It

.j

J;

.j It ,-:,""p

u.I ~ .b t .j t c ,-:,.rP a.:-:: ..:;,s::; <!l.b .b.J I(j I,. u t ~.,>:-,

,-:,.rP u.ll.bt .j t c ,-:,""p a.,.....; IJO MJjJI ~I ~ .It .j It
.Ie. ..; It '-:'~ u.I!.be. .j e. u '-:'~ a.,.....; IJO, .be. .j e. u
< .b C ~ >.b t .j t u ,-:,.rP u.ll.be. ..; t L '-:'rP ~ .;.SJ
.j e. u '-:'rP a.:-::..:;,s::; , , I u.I~ Iv- a.,.....; ~ .;JI <!l.b u.ll

,-:,""p

---

~ ..". .;JI ;1 u.ll i; ~

IJO

~f

.It .j

~ '-:'r'> u.I~ .be.

't ,-:,.,..P u.I~ Ie. .j t";' ,-:,""p a.,.....; ..r" .;11 .It u.l1 t";'
,-:,""p a.,.....; IJO ~t .It .j
,-:,""p u.I~ ,1,t .j t u '-:'r'> ~
~ IJO ~I .bi .j t U '-:',.,... .It .j It ,-:,.,..P u.ll It .j t";'

.Ie. .j

-- it

.!ll~.:,..S.Ji .If

.j ~ ,-:,.,..P
IU"

.::.;~

u.ll IU" a.:-:: ..:;,

-tc '-:'''''p~1
.It

-I ..:;1,u.ll
- .j -

u.lL r c t:'J" a.:-::

IU" ~.If .j

.j ~ ,-:,.,..P ~

.;.lI' ~;:.I I .ki. t:'j

iki; IJO ~h .;.lI1 ~;:.II .J...:;..;

u.ll r

,-:,.rP u.I~ r t t:'j ~ ~ ..r"

; .b t

~1iJ1 ~I ~ .;.lll uAil:J1 ~I ~

.Jr:...- u.ll r

.ki. ~ ~!;JI ~I ~

.b r .j r..:; ,-:,.,..P,

't .j

t";'

'-:'r'>

(no apparatus)

Translation

254

23g-i

(P7)

We draw OF 6 parallel to line TK. Then the ratio of the product of HO

and OT to the product of OA and OR is equal to the ratio compounded of
the ratio of the product of HO and OT to the product of FO and OT and the
ratio of the product of FO and OTto the product ofOA and OR.
But the ratio of the product of HO and OTto the product of FO and OT
<is equal to the ratio of HT) to T K, which is the ratio of SA to A W. So the
ratio of the product of FO and OT to the product of OA and OR is greater
than the ratio of WA to AR, which is the ratio of d0 7 to OR, which is the ratio
of the product of dO and OA to the product of OA and OR.
So the ratio of the product of FO and OT to the product of OA and OR
is greater than the ratio of the product of dO and OA to the product of OA
and OR. So the product of FO and OT is greater than the product of dO
and OA.8

But the product of FO and OT is the square of the ordinate drawn from
point 0 to the boundary of the ellipse. And the product of dO and OA is
the square of the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the
hyperbola. 9
So the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the ellipse is
greater than the ordinate drawn from point 0 to the boundary of the hyperbola. So the hyperbola intersects the ordinate drawn from point 0 <to the
boundary of the ellipse) inside the ellipse. Therefore it intersects the boundary
of the ellipse before it arrives at the ordinate.
Since it intersects the boundary of the ellipse before it arrives at the
ordinate drawn from point 0, it intersects the boundary of the ellipse in
another point at (the place) where it goes out from the ellipse. So the hyperbola intersects the ellipse in this situation in (f. 19b) two points.
I say also that if the hyperbola intersects the ellipse at the extremity of the
erect axis, then it intersects it in another point in front of the extremity of the
erect axis.

255

Text

23h-i (P7)
G~

u1~
~h

d.l..i; VI

~h tS.ll 1 ~;;JI.J:..:;. ~J",s.

tS.ll 1 ~;;J I .J:..:;. ~J",s.

It

be ..j

t U '-:'~,

'-:'~, vAil:J I ~ 1 J....-

..j t";'

d.l..i;,VI
1\
-I....II.J ......t I,:r1\ ~
.k;..;.
.lll .......::."
IJ'~ t

,.:r
'I-I....II.J ....-l:.."t <.Pl:J1 ~
, r:..:;. uo
.lll .......::.'I.J
'
lJ'$t

,.:r
~n tS

'
d.l..i;,VI ~""'
...,

d.l..i;,VI

~h tS.ll 1 ~;;JI .J:..:;. ~

..ttJl ~I

..ttJl ~Ii

J....- u1t

J....- u1t > t d.l..i; VI

Ub . ~;:JI.h,;. .)1 ~ . ) J,.i vAil.;J1 ~I .J....- ~ v.ll
,.... vAil:J1 ~I ..1,)
,

~"'"
VI

tS

.lll .......:: .I\.J:..:;.

,.:r

..j < vAil:J1

1

'I

.'

1J', ~

~I

,1

\"J

-l:J1 ~II .J....

~<.P

_J....
e-

~~ ~ tS":1 d.l..i; ~ vAi l:J I ~ I J....- ~ ,.... ~ d.l..i; VI

~ ~I lolA .j vAil.;J1 ~I ~ ..ttJl 2~1i vAil:J1 ~I
~ (f.19b

256

Translation

23j-m (P7)
j

The reason is as follows. If we make the ratio of TM to MO equal to the

ratio of AM to MT, then the ratio of AT to TO is equal to the ratio of AM
to MT. So the ratio of OTto T A is equal to the ratio of TM to MA.10
But the ratio of TM to MA is greater than the ratio compounded of the
ratio of T M to M A and the ratio of T M to M R, that is the ratio of the square
of TM, that is HM, to the product of MA and MR, that is the ratio of SA
to AR.
We make the ratio of 01 to I A equal to the ratio of SA to AR. 11

Since the ratio of OM to MTis equal to the ratio of TM to MA, the ratio
of OM to M R is compounded of the ratio of T M to M A and the ratio of T M
to M R, which is the ratio of SA to AR.
So the ratio of 01 to IA is equal to the ratio of OM to MR. 12
We make Mt equal to IA. Then the ratio of 1M to Rt is equal to the ratio
of SA to AR which is the ratio of the square of TM to the product of MA
andMR.
But the ratio of 1M to Rt is equal to the ratio of the square of 1M to the
product of 1M and Rt. So the ratio of the square of 1M to the product of 1M
and Rt is equal to the ratio of the square of T M to the product of M A and
MR. 13

But the product of 1M and Rt is the excess of the product of MA and MR

over the product of IA and IR.14 So the ratio of the square of TM to the
product of M A and M R is equal to the ratio of the square of 1M to the product
of 1M and Rt, and equal to the ratio of what is left of the square of TM, that
is the product of HI and IT, to what is left of the product of MA and MR,
that is the product of I A and I R.
So the ratio of the square of HM, which is equal to the product of HM
and MT, to the product of MA and MR is equal to the ratio of the product of
HI and IT to the product of IA and IRY

Text

257

23j-m (P7)
~..:.;IS'''::r

.)1 ~

~t r

,)1

1\ J:,

i.-,;. - <-:

~ ~

rJ:,

ul

l;1

o!lJ.l,

.
cr"
t . u,,- r cr11 r I 4,.....;S
. t J:, cr~1\
a.:-; ~ WjJl ~I ~ ~f ~ .)1 rJ:, a.:-;, I r .)1
I J:,

4,.....;S

So

~I

J:,

a.:-; ..,. .;J I .I r .)1 rJ:, a.:-;

.I I .)1 IV" a.:-; ..,. .;.II .I r J

~,

rJ:, ?:,J"

.)1

.II

2;Z i.-,;.;.;,s:.

IV" ~

-I r

lIS

rJ:,

I r .)1 rJ:,

'":'rP
.)~

.)~

1-

r t:

1St ~

.)1 rJ:, ~ J:, r .)1 rt a.:-; v~,

a.:-; ..,. .;.I I .I r .) J r J:, a.:-; ~, I r .) l r J:, ~ ~ Wj.o
3--.Ir .)1 rt ~
lIS .)1 1St ~ ~ '.II .)llV"

.I r .)~

.)1

IV" ~

r IS ~,

?:,J"

.I r

r IS a.:-; v,s.;

'::".I.)~

.)1

..1

7.::...1

I r '":'~

Ir

5-

J r IS '":'~ .)~ r IS

~ .I r

'":'~

,.. 1S1I1 12-;; .j

/ '-.I
/

lIS

rep

I,":,

.)1

v,s.;

jj,)1:v ,..

: J ~

1S.ll1

vt

lIS 13

10.::...1

11-.
'::".1 '"

'":'~ ~ .}~I .)~

.I r '":'rP'

I r '":'~ .)~ rJ:, ~J" ~

Ir

.lIS JIIS'":'~.)IJ:,1S

rlS

r J r r: '":'~ J:. ,..

J:,

~,

'::".I.j r IS '":'~ .)~ r IS

?:,J"

"W I _.<'
r J:, ?:,J" ~ ",.
~"

,.. 1S.ll1

.::.. r

a.:-; ..,. .;.I I .I I

~ ..,. 6.::...1 .)~

8-

rJ:, ?:,J" ~..,.

Ir '":'rP

?:,J"

4-

I r '":'rP .) ~ rJ:, ?:,J"

r IS

J:.

lIS

J:, I

?:,J"

J:, IS

.
/
-;.

lIS

.)1 1St

..... r

12 /

/;;:-

3/
7

'":'~,

.I IS
.

rlS '-:'r'

J
II

cr.

JISt: '":'~

13;:;

1St:'":'rP~N

lIS

Ir'":'~.)l

r .!l 2 / '":'t
/ .::.. r 6 / .::....

1
5

.::.... 11 /(2) .::....(1) .::.. r: '::".1 10

258

Translation

23n-q (P7)
n

So the ratio of the square of the ordinate drawn from point M to the
boundary of the ellipse to the square of the ordinate drawn from point I to
the boundary of the ellipse is equal to the ratio of the product of MA and
MR to the product of 1A and 1R, which is the ratio of the square of the
ordinate drawn from point M to the boundary of the hyperbola to the square
of the ordinate drawn from point I to the boundary of the hyperbola.

So the ratio of the two ordinates of the ellipse, drawn from the points
M and I, to each other is equal to the ratio of the two ordinates of the hyperbola drawn from points M and I, to each other.
<But) the ordinate of the ellipse drawn from point M is equal to the
ordinate of the hyperbola drawn from point M. So the ordinate of the
ellipse, drawn from point I, is equal to the ordinate of the hyperbola, drawn
from point I. So the two (conic) sections meet (f. 20a) on the ordinate drawn
from point 1.16

Thus it has become clear from what we have proven that if the ratio of
the square of HM to the product of MA to MR is not less than the ratio of
SA to AR, then the two (conic) sections meet each other in two points. Since
the two (conic) sections meet in two points, the problem has two solutions.
That is what we wanted to prove.

If the assumed (conic) section is an ellipse, the method of solution of the

problem is (the same) as the method we have mentioned for the hyperbola.
And the diorismos of it (the problem for the ellipse) is the diorismos for the
hyperbola, no more and not less.! 7.18

259

Text

23n-q (P7)
~l:J1 ~I ~ u-l~ ('

u-l1

~ ~ l:J I ~ 1 ~

.h>. ~J' ~ ..;A

.h>. <..".
_..

U"'' ..I

o..bi.,;

4l:.i;

<.S

.;J 1

vo ch ... .lJ1
vo c h

.j

J <.S

~III
.1...'1 J:.....-.
'J"' C--

't ('

.l!!;J1 ~I ~ u-l1
..

1 --

I..A.>.:..I

<.S

L:.
U - - v-o

.
u.6.'
.:r-:: v.:

<.S

u-l1

J ('

.;,..

4.bl:

vo ch

vo

4.bl:

~ (f.20a

~h <.S.lJ1
,

t......

<.S

J('

.j

Ir
4

'-:'~

u'.il. .;;l....WJIi.

u-l1

('1::

<.S

4.bl:

~J' ~..:..;15

v~\i;: ~I vI

v,;:.J" rZ CU!....J Ii

.lJ1
<.S

.
I:~

<.S

:;J

u-lL

...,k .;; t i '-

4..\!.-.I1 I: '.r>.::... I

~!;JI ~I

olt.l:>.:: ~

<.S

1I1 ~,;;JI

..ra

,t......

o..bi.,; V'
V'

4.hi.;

ch <.S1I1

I: h

.;; t....b.iJ

vo
.b:;..j

~!;JI

<.S.lJ1 ~,;;J 1 .h>.

Ul d d~
~

3 Iu-

t .;; IS"

lao ~

V'

I;..l) I. ctJ,),

lJbolt.l:>.::, ~!;JI ~I .j I;},) <.S.lJt

.;;L,..i.: 'i, jj..ll"j,r.& V'

v~ Ii... 4 I

L:.

3 /rep v~i:;l,.

2 / <.J'> ('

olt~

6 /

~./~ .::......J

Ul,

vt

..w

..;...)::.i WI; G.k.i ..P'~ I ~ t v IS" v li

~~I u-l~

-l:J 1 C-- \.... II .......:;..

~
. 'J"'

..;..."l:J 1 V'

1(' '-:'~

u-lll..A.>.:..1 :;

~!;JI ~I ~;; .h:iJ

4.bl:.V'

.j

.ill 1 ~l:J1 C-.1...11.......:;

L.:. a......:;
. 'J"' ..r-- .

~h <.S.lJI~l:JI~I~;;.h>. <, >. ~~I

, r

. l<.SJ I ~;:w
II
C~

4.bl:

~ vo .;;~h u::.llJI~!;J1 ~I~;; uk>. ~

\....11 .......:;..h:iJ
C-. 'J"'

4.:-:J

.h>. ~J'

<.S.lJ1 ~,;;J I .h>. ~J' u-l ~

I... '-:'~

U"',

~,;;JI

<.S

('

lJbolt~, 5

260

Translation

24a-e (P8)
a 24. (Conic) section ABG is a hyperbola, (its axis is AD) and its centre is H.
We want to find the diameter of the (conic) section which contains together
with its latus rectum a known rectangle. 1
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let the required diameter be BF,

and let the known rectangle be the square of EZ. 2
Then the product of BF and its latus rectum is equal to the square of EZ.
So EZ is the erect diameter conjugate to diameter BF. 3

We make AT the latus rectum of the axis. Then the product of AD and
DTis the difference between the squares of the two axes. 4
We erect in point Eline EL perpendicular to EZ. We make the square of
it equal to the product of AD and DT. We join LZ. We make FN the latus
rectum of diameter BF. Then the product of BF and FN is equal to the
square of EZ.5

But the product of F Band BN is the difference between the squares of

the two conjugate diameters. And the difference between the squares of
every two conjugate diameters of the hyperbola is the difference between the
squares of the two axes, as is proven in proposition 13 of the seventh book.
So the product of BF and BN is equal to the square of EL. So the square
of BF is equal to the square of LZ. 6

LZ is known, so diameter FB is known. So HB is known, so point B is

known. 7
But the product of BF and F N is equal to the known square of EZ. So
line F N is known, and it is the latus rectum of diameter BF.
That is what (f. 20b) was required. 0

Text

)=J

,,;S,,.,

.) .l..";', C

<.)

261

I ........ ,

>

.t~ ~ ~':-'

24a-e

CPS)

.J5

r,Lo.. ~ ~1i.J1 ~ ~ ~ <.$.lJ1 ~I

1

cb-I I ,

j.A

U,:-, ~I):.ill

J:.

~.r

.:AJ,

~I ~

..j U,:-,

~1i.J1......J.,;.

<

':-'~ .;..~

~
j.A

> .!lJ..i..;,;,:,;
~.r

u,:-, ):.il 1!: , !;.oJ I ~ Ii.J I ):.ill,sa j

..j .) I

J.,;.i,sa .k.)

~ I~
.;..U

~,

5j.A

~.r

':-'~ .;..~ ~ r=1i.J1 ~I,sa

3
.l::..>. .A d..b.i.; ~
~,. ~I

J.A

J...;,.k.)..j.)

J:. .;..u ..j

r,L..J1

.A

.;..~

.k I ~,

J:. .........r ~, j.A

u,,:-, ):.il ~1i.J1 ~I ,sa

I ':-'~

U,:-, ':-'~ .;..~,

..

':-'~,

a.,r..... ':-'

~I

vo

,sa, r,Lo..

~.r

~ jS:.! .; ~ loS 4:M-

J:. u,:-,

J.A

~.".;

~.r

..r-.r v.-:

J:. .;..":-' ..j

U,:-,

J ,

A.6i:.i r,Lo.. ':-' c'; r,Lo.. ,:-,u ).ii r,Lo.. j

-

.;.. u

.k>.J

.A

r,L..J I

v-";" JS' ..r-.r v.-: I. ..J..,;ai,

I. J.,;.i,sa .t !;J I ~ I J U:.i I vo ~.)jt

~WI iiJliJl

..r-.r v.-: I.

, ~.),;..I I v-p I ..r-.r v.-: I. J.,;.i,sa .;.. ':-' ..j ':-' U ':-'~ .;..~,
,:-,~.

6j.A ~.r.

~I ( f.

/ . ; . . , 5 / , 5 / ..J..,;ai., 4/

- -

J:.. .;.. u ..j u ':-'

20b ) ,sa, u,:-, ".bAJ ~1i.J1

F,3/,

2/

cb-I li

Go>

uF

262

Translation

25a-c (P8)
a 25. The synthesis of this (problem) is as we shall describe.
Let the hyperbola be ABG, let its axis be AD, and let its latus rectum be
A T. Let line EZ be assumed.
We want to find the diameter of the (conic) section which contains
together with its latus rectum a rectangle equal to the square of EZ.
b

We erect in point E of line EZ perpendicular EL. We make the square of

EL equal to the product of AD and DT.
We join LZ. Then the square of LZ is equal to the squares of ZE and EL.
So the square of LZ exceeds the square of EZ by the rectangle contained by
the lines AD and D T.

We make HK equal to half of ZL. We make H the centre, and we draw

with radius H K an arc of a circle. Let it be KB, and let it intersect the boundary
of the (conic) section in point E. 1
Wejoin HB and we extend it on the side of H to F. We make FH equal to
HE. Then FB is equal to ZL.

Text

263

2Sa-c (P8)

~":' I ~!;JI ~I ~ .......... I.S' vA <i.l:..-.II >

~

vi

-V, ;
;..to

";J).

~~

;..A J..>,

J,.

,L... ~ r'1LI1
1-

J..to

I r'WI.....J..j"

.....J..j, (:! ~

~;..to

\b:o. Go: ~ ..slll ~~ ;..to ~.".

~;;,

..slll ~I

u-II

-;J

~J"..:.W
J,.,)

.:.,.

~c

":' C J,..;,
,,:,U

~ ~~,

!?".

":'

u-II ~I

vAi ":' C

iJ:.:i.;

c~,

"w

u-II ,,;w
J ,) I ":'~

J,.,)

J;

..&.;..; .).

-,) I

~ c ~,

"Ji.;.;,

J.i .).
I ~

ul l ....

ul~ C 2

I J I~ : J..to

~ 1

uF

J..to

.J..,..-~, ":' ~ ~, ;;,;)') ~

2cu~,
u ull c ~ J

.).

~ a

,) I ........ ,

J..> ~ ..to iJ:.:i.;

..to.i "'-J".). .i J e'J" vAi ; J J,..;,

",ia

264

Translation

25d-h (P8)
d

We make the product of BF and FN equal to the square of EZ. Then, by

subtraction, the product of F Band BN is equal to the square of EL.
So the product of FB and BN is the difference between the square of BF
and the square of its conjugate diameter. So line F N is the latus rectum of
diameter BF, and the product of BF and FN is equal to the square of EZ.2
That is what we wanted to prove.

The diorismos of this problem is that the square of EZ is greater than the
rectangle contained by lines DA and AT. Then it is a consequence of this that
the square of ZLis greater than the square of DA. So half of ZLis greater than
HA, so point K is inside the (conic) section. So arc KBintersects the boundary
of the (conic) section in any case.
So the problem can be solved in any case, provided that the condition of
the magnitude of EZ is imposed, that is to say, provided that its square
exceed the product of DA and AT, that is the square of the erect axis. 3

If the axis is shorter than its latus rectum <then every diameter is shorter
than its latus rectum) as is proven in proposition 22 of the seventh book.
Every diameter is longer than the axis, so line EZ must be longer than the
erect axis. 4

We cut off from line EZ a line such that the square of it is equal to the
excess of the square of ZE over the product of AD and DT. Let it be ZOo
We make the product of MZ and ZO equal to the square of ZE. Then the
ratio of MZ to ZO is equal to the ratio of the square of EZ to the square of
ZO, which is the excess of the square of EZ over the product of AD and DT.
So the ratio of ZM to MO is equal to the ratio of the square of EZ to the
product of AD and DT.
So ZO is the diameter and ZM is the latus rectum. 5
The construction can be completed in the above-mentioned way.

[The diorismos of the problem is that ZO is longer than the axis.]6

265

Text

25d-h (P8)
1

u":-

J ,,:-u ,,:-.rP .H

Uu J u,,:- ,,:-.rP

j..A ~~ ~

~,

u,,:- ~~ ~ I. J.N,.sa u":- J ,,:-u ,,:-.rN ' J..A ~~ ~

,,:-.rP, u,,:- }:>il .-:Iill ~I,.sa Uu .l:.,.;.,; , 4J c:::,!;.JI}:>il1 ~~,
~

~i

c.S III c:1-'1 V"

,-

~I Jj ~~ u~

J> l.l J
a.l!....Jl
I .l

t!I

u l \;.l) I. ~~,

d.l.:.i;

p:.i Jb. JS

,,:-.rP

j..A

~~ u~

.!JJ.)

V"..;.,r;

I r:

u,s:.;

~ --~

j..A ~~ ~

u1 ,.sa

s
V" ~I

.b I

J j

.-

a.l!....Jl

2--

Uu J u,,:3

".a
4

l.l

~.l:>.';,

U:.> ~ ~

~ uw

l.l ~J" V"

~ ~I ~ ~ ":- t!I V"'; uw

'~I

;;.li,u ~I j..A

JS

~ .b~1 ~ Jb.

.-:1iJ1 ~I ~~ ,.sa c.S.lI 1 .b I

~ V" ,....,1 "hi JS ul' > .-:Iill .::'';' V" ,....,f ~I UIS" U~
w "hi JS, . ~WI 4J1iJ I V" ....s 5~- ..;- .;-.:; loS" < ,J1iJ1
.-:1iJ1 ~I V" ~t u~ .) ~
j..A.l:.,.;.,; ~I V" ~1

,,:-.rP

~ ..A j

..Aj ~~ ~

;;.li,u ,.sa c.S.lI 1

~ u
rj ,

~.r ;;.li,u

0
0

~~

.)~ rj

}:>ill,.sa

~ --~ u~ Ih>

r ,,:-.rP

~,

j..A

J...i.;,

V"

~, '::.l

.l I

.) 1 j..A ~~ ~ t~.)l j r ~ u,s:.;

4:-:.i ' .b.l J .l I ":-.rP ~ j..A ~~
u~

.b.l

.l I

":-.rP

.)~ j..A ~~

~~,

6/

IJ..A

5/

u:'>4

~~,3

V-

2/..H 1

Translation

266

25i-k (P8)
If the axis is equal to its latus rectum, then every diameter is equal to its
latus rectum (f. 21a) as is proven in proposition 23 of the seventh book.
[So we bisect EZ, half of it is the (required) diameter.
The diorismos of the problem is that EZ is longer than twice the axis.J1

F....
_________________ Z
r~t
;
M~E~O

This notion, 8 I mean that the product of the transverse diameter and its
latus rectum is known, is possible for the ellipse, and the way to (solve) it is
easier than the way to (solve) it for the hyperbola.

That is to say: the squares, of any two conjugate diameters of the ellipse,
taken together, are equal to the squares of the two axes of it, for that is
proven in proposition 12 of book 7.
So if the product of the diameter and its latus rectum is known, then the
square of the erect diameter is known. But the squares of the two diameters,
taken together, are known, since the two axes are known. So, by subtraction,
the square of the transverse diameter is known. So finding it is possible and
easy.
[The diorismos of this problem is that line EZ is longer than the minor
axis.t

267

Text

25i-k
1

r!1iJ I .....J.,;J ,L... ):.i

1 4..o..:L.J1 &J1i.J1

j..lb 2.-.u
~

vi

JS

~ ~I

v~ r! IiJI .....J.,;J

.::S

VI

~.l,:>,;

......J..j,

.j ..,..;~I

"bill

loS (

f. 21a )

~I~ VI ~I j..lb

'-:'rP vA

of

&J Ii.

7 r,Lo..

~ IiJ I

~J".H

~I

VI ':"'::

"bil I

,.a

~.ljo u-."J::.i JS

VI

u.:;.

~ . ; .!ll ~

6~..,.; ',Lo.. ~ IiJ I

v 1.,Lo..

~, ~I

~I

9 ~.l,:>,; , ] .

4 /

~ ~,

us.. ,.,.;

v 1 .!ll ~,

1- os'"-'~ ~

....J.,b .;

us..

J.r-:;o

~~ 3 /
9 /

..u,

5 os'"-'J"

l.a,

".6iJ I '-:'rP v IS"

li

~ I .::~ r,Lo.. ~ u-..):>iJ I L....J'"

[."..-....~I ~I
/

~
1.-

~ !;J I ~ I .j ~ J.t-1 .,..J ~ ,;".,):.JI, ~ ~ I ~ I .j

v J,."L... ~~ I ~ I J IWt

v 15" vb

vA,

"bill ~ .J....:JI
[

',Lo.. r!1iJ1

.; u.:;.

vA,

J,."L... ~I

~I

~
8 /

,~
~1

VI

2 /

t.",.Lo..

(P8)

',.1.- ~ 4-J

j..lb

.l.:.>

vA ) ~

l'

/ e'J"

re p ~ IiJ I v
7 / e'J" J

".6iJ I

Translation

268

26a-c (P9)
a 26. (Conic) section ABG is a known hyperbola. Its axis is AD. Line EZ is
known.
We want to find the diameter of the (conic) section which is (together
with) its latus rectum equal to line EZ.l
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let that diameter be line BHT,

and let its latus rectum be T K. Then BK is known.
We make TLequal to TK. Then the product of TB and BL is the difference
between the squares of the two conjugate diameters, for the product of BT
and T L is the square of the erect diameter.
So the product of TB and BL is known, since it is equal to the difference
between the squares of the two conjugate axes, as is proven in proposition
13 of book 7.

We make BM equal to BL. Then KM is the double of TB. But the product
of TB and BL is known, so the product of KM and BM is known, since it is
twice the product of T Band BL. 2
But KB is known, so line KM is known. 3 So half of it is known, so TB
is known. So HB is known, so point B is known.

z J.

Text

269

26a-c (P9)

r,J...o..

.l."";,
-

j.A

.....J..,;.
1

uS'.J,
v~

v~

.1.>

.1.>,

j.A

J:.

~tLJl .....J..,;. <~

.1. 1: ":- .1.> ~ I .!J.U

.!l.l. J:. J .l. ~ ,

~.ljoJ I v-fll
2.j ,,:-.l. ":-rP v~

J,,:-

J..6.::.l1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Jo;..:.;

. I.,L.. .!l ":- v~

.j

,,:-.l.

,,:-ri',

,,:-.1. ":-;-P

r,J...o..

,,:-.1. ..

,,:-.1.

.j

,,:-.l. ":-rP

~tLJl ~I ~J",s.

J.l.

.j

.l.,,:-

u.......o ,,;"-j

r,J...o.. ......... r,J...o..

',.r.....

J,,:-

r.!l .k>.i

r,J...o..

a.,.r..... ":/

5 /

r.s

4 /

4.l1:i..l1

,,:-.!l,

'

J,,:-

4l:.&:.i r,J...o.. ":- 1:"

3/....J

2 /

,,:-ri'

J:. 4 r":- ~,
r,L.. r":- .j r.!l ":-~ r,J...o.. J,,:--

~ r.!l v~

r! tLJl

.!l.1.

J,,:-

~ I.

.s.lJ1 ~1",.6i ~ vi

~ .j V:!-P loS' ~.ljoJ I ~ I ..r-J" ~ I. J..ALI ,L... .!~

.j

~
I-

> ,s.

uS.-i,

j..-,s.

..r-J"

r,J...o.. ~~ ~ ~":-

.l I M-t-,

vY-t.,

270

Translation

27a-e (P9)
a 27. The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe.
Let the (conic) section be ABG. Let its axis be AD, let its centre be Hand
let the known line be EZ.
(We want to find the diameter of the (conic) section, which is together
with) its latus rectum equal to line EZ.
b

So we make AT equal to the latus rectum of the axis. 1 We make the

product of EK and KZ equal to the double of the product of AD and DT.2
We make HM a quarter of EK. We make H the centre, and we draw with
radius HM an arc of a circle, let it be MB.3
Wejoin HB and we extend HB on both sides.
We make BF equal to EZ.

I say that BF is equal to the diameter and the latus rectum together. 4

Proof of that: we cut off BN equal to ZK. Then FN is equal to EK.

We cut off HC equal to HB, and we make BL equal to BN. Then, by subtraction, LC is equal to CF.
So the product of CB and BLis half of the product of F Nand N B (which is)
equal to the product of EK and K (f. 21 b) Z, which is the double of the product
of AD and DT.
So the product of CB and BL is equal to (the product of) AD and DT.5

So the product of CB and BL is the difference between the square of CB

and the square of the erect diameter conjugate to it. So the product of BC
and CL is the square of the conjugate diameter of diameter CB. So line CL is
the latus rectum of diameter CB. But CL is equal to CF. So CF is the latus
rectum of diameter CB.
So line BF is diameter BC together with its latus rectum. But BF is equal
to EZ. So diameter BC together with its latus rectum is equal to line EZ.6
That is what we wanted to do.

Text

271

27a-d

$-

I$.l.ll ~I}:>i ~ .;;1

.v

>, .

t} o!JJb ,:-,ri>

j.!l

~,

o!JJb t:'.J

~,

5-

J....;, ':-' r .;..S.J

jJb

.Po

rc

.Po

VO

2-

.Po

J.,I

.Po

o!J j

.j ,) 1 ':-'rP u-;

L,..

r-~

rc

.Po .;; ':-'

!is,,.

~,

...:.;, ':-' c

.;;~ J;i~

j...i.: L; 1 .!IJ,j .;; 1A.r:

J ..hi .;; ':-' .Po J ':-' ~, ':-' C .Po ut' C

7 -1$ .l.ll > ':-'.;;
t}
.;; u ':-'ri> u.,..; J ':-' t} ':-'U" ':-'ri> 6 uAJ

Uut'

,:-,ri>
J.,,)

.j

ut'

u......,;.~ I$.l.ll ;(f.21b

)o!J.j

,) 1 < ,:-,ri> > .Po J,:-, t} ':-'ut'

/ ..:...

5 /

.r.: 1,) :

a;l,)

/ ic vo

o!JJb ,:-,,rP.Po

':-'~

<~

J.,,) .j

,) 1

4 /

.lA..o,;,

' A

vi : .;;u 7 / .;;,i- ,

3 /

c4

2/

,s

G~

.;;

N
H TJ.,

o!J

r!1iJ1 ~I, )=.w JL.... u,:-,

.;;~

u,:-, ~,~I t} ':-' C

.Po .;; u

<t:'

r! IiJ I......J.,;.

~I

:"Sa

c .,;S".,

J.,,)

~,

, ;;;1,)

G..
j...i.:, o!J Jb

.k;..

~ r!IiJI

.lIb ~;;,

r,J..-JI.1.,;..JI,

jJb

j Jb

.Po

..AJ u.,..; I. u1> 4l!....J I

,) I '"-1-, ~ ':-' I ~ I

(P9)

o ,)
Cut'

Jb

F
u

1
6

Translation

272

27f-i (P9)
f

The diorismos of this problem is that line EZ is longer than the axis and
its latus rectum taken together. For every diameter of the hyperbola is
longer than the transverse axis, and the latus rectum of every diameter is
longer than the latus rectum of the axis.
That every diameter is longer than the axis is obvious.
The reason that the latus rectum of every diameter is longer than the latus
rectum of the axis, is that it is proven in proposition 21 of book 7 that the
ratio of every diameter of the hyperbola to its latus rectum is less than the
ratio of the axis to its latus rectum. 7

If the axis is shorter than its latus rectum, EZ is divided into two parts in
point d, such that the product of Ed and dZ is equal to twice the product of
AD and DT. We make HM a quarter of Ed. The construction can be completed in the above-mentioned way.
Then Fe is equal to eN, and eN is the latus rectum. 8

If the axis is equal to the latus rectum, EZ is bisected. Then half of it is the
diameter, for if the axis is equal to its latus rectum, every diameter of the
(conic) section is equal to its latus rectum. 9

The diorismos for all subdivisions of this problem is that EZ is longer

than the axis together with its latus rectum. 10

Zd

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E ...

273

Text

27e-i

r: IiJ I ".6i.J I ~J'"

"':'<.P

2--

".6i.J

0 ~I

r: 1iJ1

".6i.J I ~J"

.Po J<.P'.

oJ<.p .t oJ<.p

"w

<.P"':'

4;";'

J..:.i

~ ~J" ~ I.

Y.

1--

J<.P .j <.P "':' "':'rN

"':'<.P"hI.l

.., 0
-J<.P

r: IiJ I ~ I y.

~I VO ~I

~ J5"

v1

~i

VO

j.Jb

<.P "':'

vi

v~

.b;..

J....;..t

W ..l!!;J1 F I .I lbil
r: 1iJ1

~I

J5"

VO ~
VO

v1 Col)

y. d.l!.....Jl d.lA 3 ~.l:>.::,

, . .

lot ~

~I

.&I r: 1iJ1 ~I y.
"bii j.Jb .Po oJ "':' ,
J-;

~ ~I t~

y. oJ",:, J....;..t "':'<.P

r: IiJ I -W ~

I. .!lJ.), j .Jb .h.:>J, L...

"':'rN

J",:, .j "':'<.P

y.

(P9)

~1

v~

, r:1iJ1 -W

r:1iJ1 .u..W.,

~~I

. ~.!lJ' ~I vo ~1 w
.
4
.
a.,....; vi
aJ1i.
15
J
.
r: 1iJ1

VO

~1.,.bi.1.1 r:1iJ1~1) 1.1,

j

VO

~I a.,....;

VO

.r"-~

r: 1iJ1 .u..W.

.)1

.,.;)1; ~

..l!!;J1 F I

~I

)ow, vo ~ J5"
t liJl -W

.)1
g

<'p

vi'J' .b,)
oJ

v~'

r..ll; I.

,) I "':'ri' ..Po- ;.. .j...Jb "':'ri' vA .;.Po ~ J-li rl.;, ...Jb ~..,/ r L ~,
r: 1iJ1 ~I y.

r-i

"bill y. ~I vl5, ~ j.Jb

.Po ~I .Ilbit

5 vo ~

J5" vIS"

V<.P

t liJl ~I

r:1iJ1 -W

v~' v<.P ~

.Po

~I vl5 vI,

.Po ~I vl5 loll .,.;'-J

r:1iJ1-w

~I t~ vo ~,

j.Jb

v~.;;1

Y.

rw'~1 ~ J

&.1!-J1

6~.l:>.::,

tliJl-W~

/ vo.;..-"w

vo

5 /

VO

4 /

4: ~ ,

3 /

2 /

,)<'p

4:~'

274

Translation

27j-k (P9)
J

This notion, I mean that the transverse diameter and the latus rectum
taken together are equal to a known line, is possible for the ellipse and easy.

That is to say: the squares of any two conjugate diameters of the ellipse,
taken together, are equal to the squares of the two axes. But the squares of the
two axes, (taken together,) are known. So the square of the transverse
diameter together with the product of it and the latus rectum is known.
So the product of (1) the transverse diameter together with its latus
rectum and (2) the transverse diameter is known.
Since the <product of) (1) the transverse diameter together with its latus
rectum and (2) the transverse diameter is known, the transverse diameter is
known (f. 22a). So finding it is possible and easy.
The diorismos of this problem is that the known line is longer than the
major axis and its latus rectum together. 11

275

Text

27j-k (P9)

r=1iJ1

~ ~ ~~I
J.t-.:;. u-i l j I

~ ~ t.... u-i l j I eb&J I Jl=.i1

r,Lo. ~I

):.iJ1 e-~

~~I ):.iJ1 t~

< ",:,ri> >

~\S' I,)~

,..-ll

t~

VI

eb&J I J

.)

.".f ~I

r"""'"

'-J'" .

r=1iJ1 ~I

J r=t&J1 ~ ~
vAi ( f. 22a)

,~

~f

r,J..-II.w.J1

.!ll,),

~I ~~ ~

, r,Lo. ~~I ):.ill

I!s'..

lolA,

~~ ~i

J ...,ri> ~

~~I

..j r=t&J1

~ ~

~~I ):.ill t~
~,Lo. ~~I ):.iJ1
&h...J1 ,OlA

~~,

r=1iJ1 ~ ~ ~~I

.1.:oJ ~-' t....

~.),;. v.:):.i JS' ~J"

"':'". r,Lo.

~\S' ~,Lo. ~~I ):.ill

VI

):.iJ1

276

Translation

271-p (PIO)
It is also easily explained how the diameter of the hyperbola can be found,
the ratio of which to its latus rectum is a known ratio. 12

That is to say: the difference between the squares of (any) two conjugate
diameters of every hyperbola is equal to the difference between the squares
of its two axes, as is proven in proposition 13 of book 7.
If the (conic) section is known, its two axes are known, and the difference between the squares of them is known.
So the difference between (the square of) the diameter and the product
of it and its latus rectum is known, since the product of the diameter and the
latus rectum is equal to the square of the erect diameter conjugate to it.

But the difference between the square of the diameter and the product of
it and its latus rectum is the product of the diameter and the difference 13
between it and its latus rectum.
So if the ratio of the transverse diameter to its latus rectum is a known
ratio, the ratio of the transverse diameter to the difference between it and its
latus rectum is a known ratio. And the product of it and this difference is
known, so the transverse diameter is known. Thus, finding it is possible and
easy.14

In the same way it can easily be shown for the ellipse how the diameter is
found, the ratio of which to its latus rectum is a known ratio.

That is to say: the squares of any two conjugate diameters of the ellipse
(taken together) are known, for it (the sum) is equal to the squares of its two
axes, as is proven in proposition 12 of book 7. So the square of the transverse
diameter together with the product of it and its latus rectum is known.
Since the ratio of the transverse diameter to its latus rectum is known,
(the ratio of the transverse diameter to the sum of it and its latus rectum is
known). But the product of them is known. So each of them is known.
So the diameter, the ratio of which to its latus rectum is known, is known
(itself). Thus finding it is possible and easy.15

277

Text

271-p

,.

.)1 ~

u.lJ1 .l!!;J1 ~I)=.i ~ o..A.::5 aJ~ ~I ~,

a..,4.
, L... .l! ~ ~ JS" uo ~.l,;J I v-..}>iJ I ..r-j
aJ Ii. uo ~

J.Ai

~j 0.:-: I.

r: IiJ I ~

.} ~

~ IS' J~,4.

)oil I '-:';i> ,."

r: Ii.J I F

I. ~ .) .!ll'>,

0.:-:

-1.;- ~ IS' 1.,4. ~ loIS' I.>Ji

> ~ I. J.,;.; ~~ C,4.

~~I )oil I ~ .::...;IS'

r,4. J..b IiJ I

l.a

JM,

0,"';' 0.:-:, )oil I?:::,J' 0.:-: I.

V::'!, -.

)oil I;

,C,4.

)oill ,-:,;i>'::~

.....:t.-JI
L:q;;.....;.::...;1S'
1.)1;
. . r
-.
("1iJ1._1.;.II
c;--

u-ll

J..iIiJ

..

0,"';' 0.:-:, )oil I <?:::,J'

o&l

r!1i.J1

1.5 ~ ..r-j 0.:-: I.

&l C'!:,!;JI r:1i.J1 )oill?:::,~ ,L... r: 1iJ1 ~I

~ j.b1iJ1

(PlO)

a..,4.

~ r:\iJ1 ~

0,"';', , a..,4. ~

.lJ1 vI ~1iJ1 ."..

r: Ii.J I ~

.)1

0.:-:,

J.r....:. .:,So. - ~ 1:,4. ~A ~ ~ I

~

It..::.........

V'r

.,.lJ1
~

_' rL.-

,.; ~ r,4.....,... tJl ~ I

3

~.;#

.-i..S
aJ~~<.J'U
."
"tJl c-.1....1\ .!J.Il5 ,
-

a..,4.

\1..i I uo ~.ljo v-.."bi

aJli. uo

)oil I ~ .::...;IS' 1.)1,

~

'":-'!

11 .....:
t.-J
I rL. q ;;.....;

.
. .::...; 15

5 ..

JS

4o lS'; ',4.

1.,4. o,s",: a..,4.

JS ..r-j

r: IiJ I
.

~ I .!ll.l,

~ 1.5 ~ ..r-~ ,L...

<i

r,J..- r: 1iJ1 ~

I.$'

~ ..I.>~

<i

> a..-' yI - --

"'.;i> ~ 15,

0,"';' ~ ~~I )oill

("

IiJ I

I I .....: t.-J

I.$'~.

<, a..,4. r: 1iJ1

r: IiJ I ~ .)1 ~

...,oJ..,,;,
_

u.lJ I )oil Ii , ',4.

J.r...:;. .:,So. - ~
/ 1,4. 5 / ~ IS' 4 /?:::'~

3/" ~ 2 /

W 1

278

28a-c

Translation

(PI I)

a (28). (Conic) section ABG is a known parabola. Its axis is AD. Point D is
on its axis outside the (conic) section. Line W is assumed.
We want to draw from point D a line which intersects the (conic) section
in two points such that the part of it that falls inside the (conic) section is
equal to the assumed line W. 1
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it be DBG, and let BG be equal

to line W.
We draw line AE parallel to line DBG. 2 We draw the ordinate EZ. We
bisect AE in point T. We draw from point T a line parallel to the axis, let it
be T KN. Then it is a diameter of the (conic) section, as is proven in proposition 46 of book 1.

c We draw the ordinate MN. Then AM is equal to NT. The reason is that
the tangent drawn from point N cuts off from the axis outside the (conic)
section a line equal to line AM, as is proven in proposition 33 of book 1.
But this line which is cut off by the tangent is equal to line NT, since the
tangent is parallel (f. 22b) to line AE. So line AM is equal to line NT.3
But KTisequal to AD. So wecut off AH equal toAD. Then, by subtraction,
HM is equal to NK.

279

Text

28a-c (Pll)

, .1.> ~ ~':" ~, ~':".) ~, ~I ~ ~ ,w.l";'j.:i

~~

~,;JI ~ j.Jb

~~, ~':".) .kiJ ~~

tb.

~~,

..b

JS:.:. J

aJ Ii. VI ,..
.kiJ1

Al..i.; VI

,w

j,

~I ~JI> VI r-r-ll VI

I .1.> ~~,

~..b

r I ~ ~,;JI ~

~
3

.Jb

..,.L: ~

Al..i.;

0f.0P I.S" ~ I )o.i u~

..b u

-..b

Al..i.; VI ~h
-

.Jb

r-A- ,

~, ~

r ~.r-'

tS.iJ1 U"t.J1
'"

.kiJ ( f.22b ) j!,oU"t-J1 u"'1 ..b u .kiJ ,L....U"t-J1

5~

tS.iJ1

~ c::

I .k>.i

.Jb

1 aJ Ii. VI

.kiJ I 1.lA,

6 J.,..i.:.t

:I

..b

JS:.:. J
~,

0f.0P I.S"

..b u .1.>
~u

J..<.W

6/.J..Aa..

E.Jb

31

.kiJ I,;, L.... u...,;.

J:. r

J:. rc:: ..H

~

~w,
..bT

41

5/.-

rI

L 0

J t

~u~
MH

c::

A o
.)

.)1

2/ .... 11

280

Translation

28d-29a (PH)
d

We make AS equal to the latus rectum of the axis. Then the product of
SZ and ZA is equal to the square of AE, as is proven in proposition 1 of
book 7. 4
We draw perpendicular TO. Then OM is equal to TN, but TN is equal
to AM, so OM is equal to MA. So OA is twice AM.
But ZA is twice AO. So ZA is four times AM. So ZA is four times NT.
So the product of SZ and NTis equal to the square of AT. So SZ is the latus
rectum of diameter NT. 5

But ATis equal to DK. So the product of SZ and NTis equal to the square
ofDK.
Because NTis a diameter, and BG is parallel to AE, NT bisects BG. So the
product of GD and DB together with the square of BK is equal to the square
of DK. So the product of SZ and NT is equal to the product of GD and DB
together with the square of BK.
But the product of SZ and N K is equal to the square of BK, since N K is a
diameter and SZ is its latus rectum. So, by subtraction, the product of SZ and
TK is equal to the product of GD and DB.
So the product of SZ and AH is equal to the product of GD and DB. But
the product of SZ and AM is equal to the square of DK. So, by subtraction,
the product of SZ and HM is equal to the square of BK. 6

We make AL four <times) AH. Then, by subtraction, LZ is four times

HM.
But the product of SZ and HM is equal to the square of BK. So the product
of SZ and ZLis equal to the known square of BG.

AH is known, so AL is known. But AS is known, so SL is known. But the

product of SZ and ZLis known, so point Z is known. 7
ZE is a perpendicular, so it is known in position. And the (conic) section
is known in position, so point E is known.
So line AE is known in size and position, so half of it is known. So point T
is known.
But line T K is known in position and size, so point K is known. So line
DK is known in position and size.
But BK is known in size, so point B is known. 8 ,9 0

a 29. The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe.

We make AL four times AD. We make AS the latus rectum of the axis.
We make the product of SZ and ZL equal to the square of W.
We draw perpendicular ZE. We join AE and we bisect it in point T. We
draw TN parallel to the axis.
Then TN is a diameter of the (conic) section. 1

Text

281

28d-g (P11)
~~ ~

rt

Ij

u~ t.b

'j,'

r'

"":',P u~ ~ r'1iJ1 ~I ~

jV"

~ ~,,;..:.,
1-

J~f;......) Ij~1 Jt.1 ~1

.b" )oil r'tiJl

eWJ I,s-

o!J') ~~ ~

~ ~"":'

t.S

.A

.b u
.b",,~

5-

~"":',

IJ j!,.

o!J",,:, r:'~ ~ "":',)

jV"

o!J') ~ .b I ,

jV" "":'.......
4.A

"bi .b u

",,:,"';'

,)~
~
jV" "":,,,.;.,.
o!J",,:, ~~ ~ "":',) oj ,)~ ",,:,"';' ~ .b u oj
,7r'liJi ~,s- jI,,)" ,,,bi o!J u ,,~ o!J",,:, r:'~ .)- o!J"
8
",,:,';'
u~ "":',)
,)~
~ o!I.b .j jV" "":'~ .H
8r I oj jU" ",,:,~,. "":',)
,)~ "":',P ~ r:: I
jU"

jV"

"":'"..-

o!J,) r:'~ ~

~~

IjJ

.b I ~~ ~ .b u

jV" J

2_

u ~,

JU oj

't J 'r ~ rt J r' ~ ".b, u.b .)-

"":'......._ ' .b u

i.Jli. V*

I ~,

V"

6-

o!J",,:, r:'~ ~

~ Jt.';......)
r:'J"

.j

Jj

",,:,';'
J

J jU"

r r::

::J H

",,:,,;,.H

~ < J~f > ;......)

o!J')

r:'~ .)-

Ji ~,

r,J.-J1
jV" ",,:,';', ~

~I, ~I

r,.t....

r,.t.... ...... ~I,

10-

JU"J

r,L-

-Jlij,

r,L-

I o!I u 6 I
I

..a.

11/

J- J

J.1i.II

I ..J 4 I ;J, 3 I

10 I

o!I"

9 /

~"":'

r,L- r:: I,
",L- j ;.J...&;i r,.t.... Jj oj
JaW ..,.t.... .A ~ ~I r,LU" I,

J IJ

r,L- JIi I
11..,.t.... o!J i.bi:t J.1i.II J ~ I r,.t....
o!J .b J., ...,.t.....b
JIi ;..,.t.... "":' ;.J...&;i J.1i.II r,.t.... o!J"":,, J.1i.II, ~I r,.t....
o!I')
-

9- j...... ..,...,rOi o!J..,... (::'J" ~ r r:: .j j...... ..,...,;.,

.l:..r,

.b u J 2 I

rep "":',) u~ 8 /

JaW

'ti

o!I"

Translation

282

29b-f (Pll)
b

We draw from point D a line parallel to line AE. Then it intersects the
(conic) section under all circumstances. 2
[For it forms with the axis an acute angle on the side of the (conic)
section.] Since it intersects the (conic) section and the axis, it intersects
(f. 23a) the (conic) section in two points. For every line which intersects the
(conic) section and one of its diameters, intersects the (conic) section in two
points, as is proven in proposition 27 of book 1. 3
Let it be line DBG.

A D

c I say that BG is equal to W.

d

Proof of this: Line BG intersects the (conic) section in two points, and it
is parallel to AE. So diameter TN bisects it. Let it intersect it in point K.
As in the analysis it is proven that line AZ is four times line TN.
But the product of SZ and ZA is equal to the square of AE. So the product
of SZ and NT is equal to the square of AT.

Line NT is a diameter, so line SZ is the latus rectum of diameter NT. So

the product of SZ and NK is equal to the square of BK.
AZ is four times NT. But ALis four times TK, since it is equal to DA. So
LZ is four times NK.
So the product of SZ and ZL is equal to the square of BG.
But the product of SZ and ZL is equal to the square of W. So line BG is
equal to line W. That is what we wanted to do.

In this problem no diorismos is necessary. For the product of SZ and ZL

can be equal to <the square of) any known line whatever. 4 0

283

Text

29a-f (Pll)
~

-I

Jt.1 d..t....;1 J

..II

loS

~ ~

J:.. J; .j ju- '-:'~ ~, r-r-1l

~~,.b 4.W; ~ ~ .-:;.;, :I 2

~..,.

Gw

~
~\.,..:; ~ ~I ~

u~ ~I d.lsb ~;;,

t liJl ~I

yo

J....;,

~ ~~,

Jbj

u .b u,s..;

3-

Jb

I .1..:;J ~J,. Ih:>.

..I

Ja;)

~,

u- I

r-r-1l

1, ~

.;-

~ J,. u.b

4.W; o.JO ~~,

cL,'J, [~I.),: I.. ;;..16- 4,:,!:.:- r-r-ll ~ ~ cL,'J 1 JJ,>'JI

.l:..>. I< ."'J . -L~'
I. _1..,.11 (
) .k..
_, .. 11 _J..... _1...11
V' u
v.--..r c-f . 23 a
c--=""'". rrc--=' c--~

loS ~ ~~I~ W~I.J1ki1

~'-:' ..I .l:..>.

Jb

I ..bJ

jJ,. yo,

'

.1:.

d..t...) J

ju-

'-:'~

~'-:' .b>J ,

u ):..iJ

.b u

I,

~J'

~u

GJ\i.

4-

u.b .l:..>. Jt.1 d..t....;1

J:.. .b u J

Jt.1a......'
r.J

Jt.t d..t...)

.Po Jj J

ju-

ju-

.-

'-:'~

~J'

J:..

1 ..IJ ,L..

.,;'j

,-:,.rP, '

..

~'-:' ~J'

J-; u t l;..I} I. clI.j,

u.b fo

I .l:..>. u l

.b>J )<>.i

~l....,.o

J";

ju-

1
oJ'
8-,

~'-:' .l:..>. u1 clI.j u~;-:

~\iJ1 ~I yo
7-

;S ~

o.JO

4W: ~ ~ ~ ~

.b I ~..,.
'-:'~

~~,~I~

o.JO

~ ~~I~

J ~ 1oS~,
J:.. Ij J ju- '-:'~,

ju-

Jb

~I

I ~J'

.b u .b>.,
6~u
~.b

Jt.t

.Po Jj J
.~ .1..:;J , L..
f

I, 7 /

.!l.,

6/.k>-

5 /

,s

4 /

/ ,-:,.rP,

3 /
9 /

j..;..J 2 /.k>-

~: (;:it) jJ.,;

284

Translation

30a-b (Pll)
a 30. (Conic) section ABG is a known hyperbola. Its axis is AD, and its centre
is E. Line W is assumed, and point H is assumed on the axis of the (conic)
section between its centre and its vertex.
We want to draw from point H a line which intersects the (conic) section
in two points such that the part of it that falls inside the (conic) section is
equal to the assumed line W. 1
b

So we assume this by way of analysis. Let it be line HBG. Then BG is equal

to the assumed line W.
We bisect BG in point K. We join EK and we extend it in a straight line.
We draw from point A a line parallel to line HK. Then it meets the (conic)
section, let it meet it in point N, and let it intersect EK in point O. Then AO
is half of AN.2

Text

285

30a-b (PH)
..h')' ,

.h>, ....

~..;.,

.}

.s.lll

1 ....

.jSJ"'

t, .jSJ"

,,) I 0I0.t-, r,1.- ~ ~ ~ ~'-:-' I ~

..:-.

~ ~ I r-t- ~ a..o""a. c

a:.. .&~I v,s.:, ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ C

..;.",wl , .h>

4l:.i; ,

4l:.i; VI ~~

~ ~I

J>I,,) ..j

J...> ~ ~'-:-' ~ ~'-:-' C J...> ~, ~I ~ ~ ~J.I.l..;.;.:.;

2o!I .... j....:,

~.r-'

~I ~,..;

v I

o!I

c:

....
1(;1,.

o!I 4J..i; ~ ~ ~,-:-,~,

..b.:>J

I v~

Abi; ~

..;.,~I

I Abi; VI ~~, .. Ii:;....I ~

o!I.... ~,

Ja

4l:.i; ~

J:,.

2 /

MJ..Ii

II,:J~' 1

N v

B= '-:-'
Z= j
L= J
K= o!I

,,)

Translation

286

30c-f

(Pll)

We draw the ordinates 3 NF, OS, KI and BM. Then the triangles AOS
and KHI are similar. So the ratio of OS to KI is equal to the ratio of SA
to IH and equal to the ratio of OA to KH.
But the ratio of OA to KH is equal to the ratio of AE to EH, which is a
known ratio, since both of the lines AE and HE are known. So the ratio of
OS to KI is known, and the ratio of SA to IH is known, and it is equal to the
ratio of AE to EH. So the ratio of SE to EI is known.
And the ratio of the product of ES and SA to the square of SO is equal to
the ratio of the product of EI and IH to the square of IK.

But FA is twice AS, DA is twice AE and FN is twice SO. So the ratio of

the product of ES and SA (f. 23b) to the square of SO is equal to the ratio of
the product of DF and FA to the square of FN.
So the ratio of the product of EI and IH to the square of IK is equal to the
ratio of the product of DF and FA to the square of FN, which is the ratio of
DA to its latus rectum, which is a known ratio.
So the ratio of the product of EI and I H to the square of I K is equal to
the ratio of DA to its latus rectum. 4

We draw from point H a tangent to the (conic) section, let it be HZ.s We

draw the ordinate ZT. Then it intersects line HG, let it intersect it in point L.
Since point H is on the axis, the tangent drawn from point H to the other
side of the (conic) section is equal to line HZ, and the line joining the two
points of contact is perpendicular to the axis. So it is an ordinate. So line ZT
is the line which ends at the point of contact on the other side. 6

So the ratio of GH to HB is equal to the ratio of GL to LB, as is proven in

proposition 37 of book 3.
But GH is longer than HB, so GLis longer than LB. So point L is between
the two points Band K. 7

en

....,

'"

>-'

~ I'~I

'"
......

'0

n...

......

"

5"'

['

\-

f,:

~ ~'.
'e

"'"
f
Ir

f,:

),

r:1

E-

(II

r:1

1
,t; ~-

\- ..

ILl""

):

c;..-

tr I'~

I.~, 't.';f.

",!i.::

....,r

I\-

.. r:1

r.~ (.~

C "',!t"-"-

~ ~-' ~ .~ I

'~
,,~

~ ~<n~.

\-

t:

r-

1'[' "- "

("'tI

("'tI_

I~ I
I - ~,.- "t " ~ r.

"- ~ In I

~ .._ ~

("'tI

"-

t;-

I;

~ I ;;-I~ .~ I~ I ~ I~ 1- -[ ~ I}
~ r ~ :: t ~I{;.; In t ~
~ 1'\~. " I [ I(.(;. I ~ '[' f ~ I ~ I~ I -r't..~
~.. ~ .. ' I ..- "-

.- 5= ~ I (;, ~

''i.. '['

,'t.

"-

" t[

,r l-r

c.

"'t

c.

(;.

0.

("'tI

+:

.r

("'tI

("'tI-1

(')

.[: (. I~'~I ~ ~ I n""-~

If ~ t. f("'tl~-11 I
~ In
~ ;, ~ -r ~ t ''i.. ~I~'~ ..' f ,,~,
~
t'
-'i!.~"
. r
~ 'f't.
" I
~
.r, \.:~ t ~ :: f ~ Ir.- \. l 5= '[' : ;: I ~ "- 'f'
.
c ~ I
~("'tI
~ n In I ... t n I ~ r. n I ~"-f. '-I. : : ~ I {. ,,-.~
(I~' ~. n~ Iii" (;,'
I
'\
,
'
r
'
f t' ,,-:t (.
~. ~~ ''=1 r r}. ~
,( ,~ In I ~ - If'..
t ~ 'r ~ (;: I\. I~-I ~. '" r f --= f: t
Llt!'~
~
r ~ .
l;.. Q ,. (.
I "1'[' '" ~
"
~ . ~
'f
~
f't- l' )
t~ ~ ': ~ f' ~ _ ~ ..: ~ I~ {. 5:: t I! I ~ n~ I..~- ~_..'[;; I):
.

+:

;6

......

I
~IL

~ !(,

I.,

......

""'i.

~.

~I

...

......

~I
'1
10.

fIl

1.

.....

0"

......

f!:

......

~ ,~

'\:.1

'-'

......
......

"i:l

??I

!,,;J

00
....,

;:;l

Translation

288

30g-j

(PH)

Since ZH is tangent and ZTis an ordinate, the ratio of the product of ET

and TH to the square of TZ is equal to the ratio of AD to its latus rectum,
as is proven in proposition 37 of book 1. So the ratio of the product of ET
and TH to the square of TZ is equal to the ratio of the product of EI and IH
to the square of I K.
So the hyperbola having axis EH and latus rectum the line such that the
ratio of EH to it is equal to the ratio of AD to its latus rectum passes through
the points H, Z and K. Let that (conic) section be (conic) section HZK.8

We make the ratio of EC (to> HC equal to the ratio of AD to its latus

rectum, that is the ratio of the axis EH to its latus rectum. Then point C is
known, and CH is the homologue, as is explained in the second proposition
of the seventh book.
Then the ratio of the product of CI and IH to the square of HK is equal
to the ratio of CE to EH, as is proven in the second proposition of the
seventh book. 9
But the ratio of CE to EH is known, so the ratio of the product of CI and
IH to the square of HK is known.
Since the ratio of GH to HB is equal to the ratio of GL to LB, the ratio
of GH together with HB to HB is equal to the ratio of GB to BL. And similarly
for their halves,IO so the ratio of KH to HB is equal to the ratio of KB to BL.
So the ratio of HK to KB is equal to the ratio of BK to KL. So the product
of H K and KL is equal to the square of KB. 11

So the product of HI and ITis equal to the square of 1M.

The ratio of the square of HK to the square of KB is equal to the ratio of
the square of HI to the square of 1M.
But the ratio of the square of HI to the square of 1M is equal to the ratio
of HI to IT.
So the ratio of the square of HK to the square of KB is equal to the ratio
of HI to IT.
But the ratio of HI to ITis equal to the ratio of the product of CI and IH
to the product of CI and IT.
So the ratio of the product of CI and IH to (f. 24a) the product of CI and
IT is equal to the ratio of the square of HK to the square of KB.
So the ratio of the product of CI and IH to the square of HK is equal to
the ratio of the product of CI and IT to the square of KB. 12

Text

289

30g-j

...,Jt c:.b .j .b..ll> '-:"r'>

I AJ Ii.

J.

vo ;J Ji!

v,x:

v.:-? 1.5 ~ IiJ I

<t-al,.;

...,J ~ .)

f-

c: j

.,.....:;,;JI ~.bj , ...... 1..

v~,

(Pll)

~ j.b ~.r

...,J1 c: <.S .j <.S..II> '-:"r'> ~ j.b ~.r ...,J1 c:.b .j

.b..ll> 1
'-:"rP-~
..
<.S 1I1

c:..II> -..... <.S 1I1

~ I ~ IiJ I <t-al,.;,

.!l

~ I o!IJ.).:AJi

c:

.rt. ~ IiJ I <t-al,.;

.!l <.S

~.r

~.,.J 1

c:..II>

~!;J I ~ Ii '

...,J1

.) I

.!lj c: ~

ifb

.,rJ1 ~1iJ1 A.a..l..;..)1

c:~

v~

v,s::;

, '

~ L.J I

~ 1.5 c:..II>
~

3-

.) I ~ ~ c:

it,.t..... ~

41.A;

v,s::;

<...,Jl >~..II> ~ ~,

~ WI A.a..l..;.

AJ Ii.J I vo .; I!.J I Ji.!..ll

J.

...,J 1 c: . II> r-r- ~

v.:-? 1.5

~ ,.

..II>~

~ L.J I

~ I ~ I .k>J I

J.

...,J1 ..II>~ ~ .!l c: ~.r ...,J1 c: <.S

it,.t..... c:..II> ...,J1

<.S~ '-:"rP ~

AJ I:i.J I vo .; I!.J I

Ji.!.J' J.

it,.t..... .!l c: ~.r ...,J 1 c: <.S .j <.S~ '-:"rP

c:~

~ o!IJ.l5

v,x:

,-:"J ...,J1 J~ ~ '-:"c: ...,Jl

l.ri t,.,.; t v,x:, ,

c:~

vS:..; ,

J,-:" ...,J1

"':"~
~ '-:"c: ...,J1 '-:"c:
.!l
,-:".!l
J,-:" ...,J1 ,-:".!l ~ '-:"c: .)1 c: .!l
...,J1
~
r: ~
-,-:".!l ~.r J:. J.!l J. .!l c: '-:"~ J.!l .)1 .!l,-:"

,-:".!l ~.r ...,J1 .!l c: ~.r~' . r<.S ~.r J:. .b <.S

<.S c: ~

r <.S

~.r ...,Jl <.S c: ~.r~'

.b <.S ...,Jl <.S r: ~ ,-:".!l ~.r ...,Jl

.j

7.b<.S.j

~.r

'-:"rP ...,Jl

r <.S

~.r

J. 4<.S c: '-:"~
.)t <.S c: 5
~.r ~
-

.!l L ~.r ~
6.

.b

.)1

<.S

<.S .j <.S~ '-:"rP ~ .b <.S ..,J1 <.S r: ~,

~ '-:"rP (f.24a)...,Jt r:<.S.j ~ '-:"rP~ .b<.S

8--

...,Jl c: <.S .j ~ '-:"r'> ~, ,-:".!I ~.r ..,J~ .!I r: ~..,.

9--

a.:-:s

,-:".!I ~.r ...,J1 .b <.S .j ~ ,-:"..r'> ~ .!I c:

7 /

6/

5 / .....

4 / ~.)

o!IJ

/ <.S.!I 9/<.S.!l

3 /

r'

2 /

290

Translation

30k-31c (Pll)
k

But the ratio of the product of CI and IH to the square of HK is known,

since it is equal to the ratio <of CE to EH. So the ratio> of the product of CI
and ITto the square of KB is a known ratio.
KB is known, since it is half of W. So the product of CI and IT is known.
But line CT is known. So point I is knownY
So line IK is known in position. But (conic) section HK is known in
position. So point K is known.
So line HK is known in position. So the points Band G are known, and
line BH is known. This is what was required.

a (31). The synthesis of this problem is as we shall describe. 1

We draw from point H a tangent to the (conic) section ABG, let it be HZ.
We draw the ordinate ZT.
Then the ratio of the product of ET and T H to the square of TZ is equal
to the ratio of diameter AD to its latus rectum, as is proven in proposition
37 of book 1.
b

We draw through point H the hyperbola having axis EH and latus rectum
the line such that the ratio of EH to it is equal to the ratio of AD to its latus
rectum. 2 Let it be (conic) section HK.
Then (conic) section KH passes through point Z, since the ratio of the
product of ET and T H to the square of TZ is equal to the ratio of diameter
EH to its latus rectum. 3
So (conic) section HK intersects (conic) section ABG in point Z.

We make the ratio of EC to CH equal to the ratio of diameter EH to its

latus rectum. Then line CH is the homologue.
We make the ratio of the square of t to a quarter of the square of Wequal
to the ratio of EC to EH.
We make the product of CI and IT equal to the square of t.4
We draw from point I an ordinate to the boundary of (conic) section HK.
Let it be IK.5
Then point K is inside (conic) section ABG, since point Z is on the boundary
of ABG. 6

Text

291

30k-31c (PH)
..A(,)I>

t;..;~ a.,J..-

i--

a.,J..- ~ ,-:,.!I

.1.>,

J.,(,)I>

J>

>~

ull

(!:'JI

--

r,J..-

J.,

ull

.!I ~ (!:'J"

u .)

J.,

.}

-r.SIoJI'

----

~u

.;

'-:'~

r.SIoJI'

<~

, a.,J..- .!I
r,J..-

4J..i;.;~'" 1

r ,J..- .!I

u!:o.,J..-

~'-:' .1.>,

~ ~,~ 1
4--

2-

,-:,.!I,

4J..i;.;

r,J..-

3-

r,J..-

.!I u

I::l.:.i:.i ~I r,J..-

~ '-:'

ull

~..A

'-:'rA' , ...;.,..; .:,~ r,J..a.,J..- u

'-:'~ ~,

r.SIoJI'

.k>.i

.!I ~ .k>.i

~J~,

-i
'-:'~ ~

u,s.;

~;:JI ~ J.,;

ulL

I.S' rliJl ......w.

5:i.,hi

~~,; _

;J., .;:'JI

, caJli.ll

~, ~'-:' 1 ~

ull ~J.,

VI

;,.I

.}

.}

.l:...A

u.ll l .1.:oJ1 rIiJ1......w., ~..A <10;- u.l. ~!;JI ~I ~ ib&; ~ r-~'

7
6~
.!I ~ ~ ~, rliJl ......w. ull .,) 1 ~ ""'1 ~..A &:-:

~
j

;J., (!:'JI

aJ..i; ~

ull ~J.,
ull

(!:'JI (!:'J

..:..

ull ..:..

(!:'JI ~

J.,

'-:'~ ~ u~ -; ~ f t
-~ , r1iJ1......w. ull ~..A

J.,..A

--

~'-:' 1 ~ ~

.1.> u~ rliJl ......w.

,

.;

--

.!l ~

~..A ):.i ~

(!:'JI ~ ~,

..)

r.SIoJI'

ull

~
0

(,)I>..A

'-:'~~,

ull

~
8(,)I>..A

~, .!l~ ~ ~ ull ~;:JI ~ J!.... -:; aJ..i;

~'-:' I ~ ~ j aJ..i; u~ ~'-:' 1 ~ .1.,) ..) .!l

.!I u

1 ;T 5 1 ;:-:; 41 J,-:,.1.>,

):.i

~ ~,

a.:-:J 1 ~ I .h.;J I
~..A

.!I

VI

~
~

~~,

aJ..i;

u,s.;

.!I u .1:.:i.i 3 1 u.!l,21 u.!l

1(,)1>

8/~7

IJ.,~

292

Translation

31d-e (Pll)
d

We join HK. Let it intersect line ZTin point L.

Then the ratio of the product of CI and IH to the square of HK is equal to
the ratio of CE to EH, as is proven in proposition 2 of book 7. 7 So it is equal
to the ratio of the square of t to a quarter of the square of W.
So the ratio of the product of CI and IH to the square of HK is equal to
the ratio of the product of CI and ITto a quarter of the square of W.

We make the product of HI and IT equal to the square of 1M. We draw

the ordinate M B.
Then the product of HK and KLis equal to the square of KB. 8

Text

293

31d-e (P11)
.j ~ '-:'rP ~
..;JO

.j

JU .j

'-:'

Q,s::;

v.:i- 1.5

41:.i.: ~ ..b.i .h>

L..Ib

u-l~..Ib<.J"

H,

~ .!l

~ '-:'rP ~ '~.r~.J u-l~ .:.. ~.r ~

, ~.r~.J u-ll ..b u

j...;,

.!l L

LU

~.r u-l~
2."....;

4.I1i.

.j ~ '-:'rP ~ .!l L ~.r u-ll L U

~;;Jl u-4 3,-:, r r:.~' r U ~.r J:.. ..b u

4--

,-:,.!l ~.r

u.!l

J:..

4/

--

J.!l

ur

.j

3/

'-:'rP ~,

Q,s;..;

.!l L '-:'rP

ui-,

2/

NQ

294

Translation

3lf-h (PI I)

Since the ratio of the product of CI and IT to a quarter of the square of

W is (equal to the ratio of the product of CI and IH to the square of HK),
the ratio of the product of CI and I H to the product of CI (f. 24b) and IT is
equal to the ratio of the square of HK to (a quarter of) the square of W.
So the ratio of HI to IT is equal to the ratio of the square of HK to a
quarter of the square of W.
But the ratio of HI to IT is equal to the ratio of the square of HI to the
square of 1M.
So the ratio of the square of H K to a quarter of the square of W is equal
to the ratio of the square of HI to the square of 1M, which is equal to the
ratio of the square of HK to the square of KB.
So the ratio of the square of H K to the square of KB is equal to the ratio
of the square of HK to a quarter of the square of W. So the square of KB is a
quarter of the square of W. So line KB is half of line W.

We draw from point A a line parallel to line HK, let it meet line EK in
point O. We extend AO in a straight line. We make ON equal to OA.9
We draw the ordinates NF and OS. Then they are parallel to line KI. So
triangle AOS is similar to triangle HKI.
So the ratio of OS to KI is equal to the ratio of SA to I H, and equal to the
ratio of OA to KH.
But the ratio of OA to KH is equal to the ratio of AE to EH. So the ratio
of SE to EI is equal to the ratio of SA to I H, and equal to the ratio of OS to KI.
But the ratio of AS to SO is equal to the ratio of HI to IK. So the ratio of
the product of ES and SA to the square of SO is equal to the ratio of the
product of EI and IH to the square of IK.

But the ratio of the product of EI and IH to the square of IK is equal to the
ratio of EH to its latus rectum, which is the ratio of AD to its latus rectum.
So the ratio of the product of ES and SA to the square of SO is equal to
the ratio of AD to its latus rectum.

295

Text

3lf-h (Pll)
.j

<.StJ"
<.StJ"

,-:,";'
,-:,";'

~ > , ~.r~.J ~ 1
~ 1 c: IS

.j

_'_, ~.r < ~.J_> ~l

~ 1 IS c: ~,.

, ~.r~.J ~l

3--

,-:,.!l ~.r ~1

,-:,";'

~~,

.;J..J ,

It

9--

.)~ It ~,

c: IS

.)~.AV" ~

<

.!l c: ~.r ~ 1 c: IS

.j (

.!l c: ~.r ~ .k IS

f. 24b

,)1

4 ---

7'-:' .!!

IV"

,-:,.!l ~.r ~l .!l c: ~.r ~

5-

'~.r~.J

.h>.i

~
.!! c:_.k;J I,:.j "" I.b.>

ut

V" t I <!...l.!. uw

~ ~

~ u,s:.

~ ';'J,

,-:,";'

------

~.r ~

.!l c:

.!l.A.h>

V"t U u

.j IS~

~.r~.J ~ 1 .!l c: ~.r ~ .k IS ~ l IS c:

.h> u.,...;

,
d.bi; ~

.k IS

2.!l c: ~.r ~ r IS ~.r ~i IS c: ~.r ~

.k IS
----.!l c: ~.r ~ ~ ..;JI r IS ~.,. ~l IS c: ~.,. ~

, ~.r~.J ~ l

<.StJ"

1-

~,

I d.bi; VI ~ ~ ,

..,.k

i.1i:;..1

~r-'

~ "" u l;W ~,,:J I ..,.k

1S.!l .h.oJ

~ 1S.!l

'-:'.!!~.,.;

')l

V"t ~ u,s;;, IS.!! c:

.)1 .A I ~ c:.!l ,)1 It ~, c: .!l

,)1 V" I ~, IS.!! .)1 V"t ~, c: IS .)1 IV" ~ IS.A
tV" ~.,. .) l IV" .j V" .A ,-:,";' ~ .!l IS .) 1 IS c: ~ tV"
10 c:.A

12 :;-11
IS

~1i.J1
~ V"

<..

......w. ,)1

,....,. .) t

'-"

IV"

c:.A

~... V" .A

1S.!l7 / ~ 6/ 1S.!l
/ .>

13/ .!l") 12 / (M+ )A-

1\

<,I'

IS.A

.)1

c: IS

.j

IS.A ,-:,";'~,

,-:,";' ~

~.,. .) I

. a.......:s

I: IS

.!! IS ~.r

5/ 1S.!l

f::'J' c.r _

'-:'~

......w. .) I ,,) 13I ~

~ ...;J I
..
~1i.J1 ......w..)1
, ) I A:-:S

r-.1i.J I

4/ IS.!!

3/.k.:

11/ .!l, 10 / ...; t I

2/.k'C'
9 /

..;.U, 8

Translation

296

31i-n

(Pll)

But AF is twice AS, and DA is twice EA, so DF is twice ES. And NF is

twice OS. So the ratio of the product of DF and FA to the square of FN is
equal to the ratio of AD to its latus rectum.
So point N is on the boundary of (conic) section ABG.
j

Since point K is inside (conic) section ABG, while it is on diameter EO,

and since line HK is parallel to line AN, which is bisected by diameter EO,
line H K, if extended in a straight line, will intersect conic) section> ABG in
two points, and it will be bisected by line EK.
Thus, let us extend line HK and let it intersect the (conic) section in
point G.

I say that point B is the second point (of HG) on the boundary of (conic)
section ABG.
For if that is not the case, let the two points be G and Q.10 Then GK is
equal to KQ.
SO, since HZ is tangent, the ratio of GH to HQ is equal to the ratio of
GL to LQ.
SO the ratio of GH together with HQ to HQ is equal to the ratio of GQ
to QL. And similarly for the ratio of the halves, 11 so the ratio of KH to HQ
is equal to the ratio of QK to <QL.
SO the ratio of HK to KQ is equal to the ratio of QK to > KL. So the
product of HK and KL is equal to the square of KQ.

But it has been proven that the product of HK and KL is equal to the
square of KB. So KB is equal to KQ. But this is absurd.
So point Q is not on the boundary of (conic) section ABG, nor is any other
point except for point BY So point B is on the boundary of (conic) section
ABG.

EK is a diameter, so it bisects line BG. So BK is equal to KG.

But BK is equal to half of line W. So line (f. 25a) BG is equal to the
assumed line W, and BG is inside (conic) section ABG.
That is what we wanted to proveY 0

Text

297

31i-n (Pll)

.......w.')1 .) 1

uU ~J" .)~

lu .j u .) ~~ ~ U"t
u AbU, ~1iJ1

"'!"~ 1 ~ ~ ~

t..A ".bi ~ ~, "'!"~ 1 ~ J>I.) .j :; 0.bA; ,;;")1;

~ ;0-'1 I.) l o!l C ...I..>. u~ ~ t..A ".bi ~ 1S.lIi u 1 .J:..:;J .i I,.
1~
o!l..A.k>...: ..,....a;1, ~ ~ "'!"~ 1 <~ > ~ .. Ii::.-I ~
o!l C ...1..>.,

"'!"~
u~

J J

J:..

Jo!l ~J"

J:..

8.l.:.:i:J1 VI

4-

Jo!l .j o!le ~"....

J>I.)

.j

"'!" o!l

1....a.,...:.J1

J,.fi

3-

.i c

~"'!"
6 - : ; ........ , o!Jl

,)1 J c r::'

Jo!l <,)1 o!lJ ~ Jo!l .)~

,

J:.o J o!l .j o!l e ~~ vi ~ ."

~ ~ ~ J 0.bA;~
Jt- l.a,

J:..

I......
- ....-.

1 ~
--1....J....-

o!l~.i ~

"'!"~, "';,,;.JI ,

u~

~ o!l ~J"

...I..>.

J:..

I J

"'!"~

"'!"~

AbU.....

I J

o!l..A ,

).hH"

...I..>.

~~, 2 /
/

".bi

...I..>. ~ ,.,..

(f. 25a

4l:.i;

~) ~~) I. o!Jl.l, "'!"~

..A

__

..

o!l~,

:;- &bi;

a......:s -.- 1\
"U
- ' ' ' .-' ' e U'; - e

J:.. ~ o!l.i
I.A~ ~, "'!"~

J:..

.:. "U

~r--

,)1 c"'!" ~ u~ U"I..

J"'!" ~ J c

JJ.)l
> 11 o!l'

..>....

u....;

~~I ~I ~

.;-'1

o!l...l..>.
C

I.
....-

o!l",!" ~ J "'!" ul=J..i.6ll ~ o!Jl ~ ~ ..., u1

7_

J o!l

.. Ii::.- 1

~,

,)1 J"'!" ~ J c

~I~, '
o!l ~ a....-.., J--:-

'-

....-~

~~ ~

J o!l

I. .1..JiJ 1 .J.;d

0.bA;

.>

iJ:,.i;J 1

8 I

J..

o..:S,

298

Translation

3lo-s (Pll)
o

This problem does not need a diorismos, since the line drawn from point A,
which is the endpoint of the axis, parallel to the asymptote of the (conic)
section, does not meet the (conic) section in another point. For that is proven
in proposition 13 of the second book. 14

But every line 15 drawn from point H between the tangent HZ and the line
drawn from the vertex of the (conic) section parallel to the asymptote of the
(conic) section intersects the (conic) section in two points, because it intersects
the asymptotes of the (conic) section.
But these lines are infinite,16 and the parts of them which fall inside the
(conic) section increase indefinitely as they move away from the tangent.
But as they approach the tangent, they decrease indefinitely.

So for any line having a finite magnitude, there can fall inside the (conic)
section a line equal to it. 1 7

If one follows in the drawing of the line from point H the method we
explained above, then the part of it which falls inside the (conic) section is
equal to the assumed line.
So the problem can be solved in any case. So it does not need a diorismos.
That is what we wanted to prove. 0

The end of what the master Abu cAll al-I:Jasan ibn al-I:Jasan 18 ibn
al-Haytham composed on the completion of the Conics. 19
Praise to God alone. His grace and His peace be on our prince MUQ,ammad,
his family and his companions.

Text

299

310-8

1-

..s .iJ I .h.:>J I v::-: ,

U"

I..J I ;

c:

..b> ~ ~

c:

~I ~ ~ ~I ...,k ~ ":I ..s.iJI.b.:>J.J

.:.;,s:;, ~I

...,k .:.;~

.j ~

WS ~I J.>I.,)

.) 1 L.r:. ~;; ws,

L.r:.

4:: tr;

.~":II

I. .)

":I

1 rl" t...::.:
4:: tr;

~I

J.> I")

.j ~

ut

.:.;,s:;,
U"

':":1

..li

4::Ly;

JS",

..b>

.
!,vI,. ~I U"~

~.illl ~I ~

":I

.;JI

a.bi,; V' ~ ~

(Pl1)

~A

V'

~ ...,k

~ .k,k;J1 ,~

I..J I .h:;.J I

L.r:.

.:,;$

":I I. .) ~ ~~

., ; ~ )..liJ I a,....o.l::;.J I .l:.,k;J I

U"

I..J I .h:;.J I

V'

..b>

JSt

.J ,L... ..b>
~

..s lJ I

..s lJ I .;.-..,bJ I c:

.:.; 15 ,~

J l:. JS" ...,k F

':'-':-.:.;1

.JlI

.j

~I

1 .j

~ 1.)1

4..I!....J Ii ,..h~ 1.b.:>J.J (, L... ~ I J.>I.,)

~.

rio:;

a.bi,; V' .h.:>J I ~ ~

V:

L;")JI

v--I I

V:

I. .!lJ.),

v--I I

J ..:..

4:~.)1 ~~...,...J.i

..

~ ~I ~I ~ I.

.:..u..,~1 ~I:S

~I

V:

v--I I

3/

4:~

2/ .....

c:

300

Appendix to Chapter 13. Facsimile of One Page and

All Geometrical Figures in the Manuscript
Numbers in the geometrical figures (referring to propositions) have been
added by me. The following notes in Chapter 14 are relevant: 4.4; 5.34;
7.2; 12.12; 12.20; 18.2; 21.4; 22.4; 23.1; 23.5; 25.5; 27.1; 31.1.
/

,/

ri~~'4illf'I:'-----~'t

r~z-~L:~b~JL;&.

----"; Ut"w~L' lj'

~l,.~'.J~l.A.uU:cJlA:lS'~":'luU..JjJ~tS:,~UJv-."..."l.dj I
~Ut~IL&~Li.J~t...:.I!II:Jli4lulp';.J~I~U~~~~
~

,l.L'~U'~I.llI~.i~.J~~i.:i.C'~ I~.)d I'~ IJ~~ 1lj.t~J.A:..~,

~1~~'~"~'''':;~~~~.J~l...~J"'-I,,~~lt;Ajl:,;J.ij
JWJl~~~lalle.!~I~~WUIL~l;~~t$JII"'-'fo~ul~
~~La'~ t~W'i...Ult-IJIt'r':'~lA"'ILit,~W 1.:alA.1I~ t
~l:.~l:.a I ~""""l..,.~~J~~ll~I~I~~l:a'.J..t,c:J I

'-"4,lJP.~~4~J~\~..,.\)I~'~~~'~'~":Uj~

~ulu~u~L>'''''''''''~~'L.:::J~j I~~~,~ I

I'L'__ ',,L . ,
I " I ~", I' ~ 1 II" "
---~..... (.> JO -,-A.:-I r ,- V"..........-:~~ ~u
'/

.1.':" 1 \ I ' '.L

.' 'C::-u"'.,U&~--

~";~J~.),..i.J-~ ~,.I~ I~~ ~t' ':c5.:JL~,,~ J.,..~,

r!~.Jj".;.;;oJ
~Jooou Lr;,;J IL~UJ Ij W t;t.Aj W IWtli'
~

;J'J~-,L..~.)I..;,J'.vl:J
I~",v'r.
~"'.AJ I~ 1z::":::'~,.1.
.
......
~
c=-~IJrkLb>

~..

'~ut,I~U~,~~u.:.z::.~0~~d;J I ~'~J';'"
ttW~~z..~':II,..{f.v' .A.~~~tt4,.v-z:~~~li~UI
~1~U'~Uc.JIJ ~ t;.1Ji,j~~J~ IJ~IJ&~W I
'~ l:A.lI.~u 4;+UJ 'J W J..i ":J l.:i.11,~.,..w;..J,,:\I to: li (..(f; ~,,~l:iJ ,

~~~WI'3lA.l1J,f';u.f.~J.:Wt.;..t,~/~~,~~~~y'I~~

~i-lt.t.~J~~~C~J}J'jv-, ~;":'.JJUV~~~

~i..:.~~'V-~?~vl~~I~",J.l,,~,Jr.~~
,
~I",'
~
..
~"

L:"'I:'_ ..JuH L.:..b' .' u' 'I.. 'iP' t' ,'~''L-'.'. I,. .. 1.,'1 1&, ", ~
,""-",,..;a.. -'U"'\:-t..r I..J"'~ JI
f"/ u$"Jv:--~C''''''u-~

'1J..~.;;.,,,, I~,J I~JI.iLI~~uf.J &J '~ U"'c.,A.);"

Ms. Manisa, Genel 1706, f. 1b, Reproduced with thanks to Mr. Giiler
director of the Ii Halk Kiitiiphanesi, Manisa.

G6niilta~,

Figures in the Manuscript

1.

~~

301

______-=I/J

t;---+--,

2.

3.
('

302

Figures in the Manuscript

5.
, I

J~--~~------------~--~~

6.

Figures in the Manuscript

303

8.
J

9.

Figures in the Manuscript

304

10.

11.

12.

305

FIgures In the Manuscript

13.

14
S

/tt;:

15."....~

2:

j~------~rr---~5----------~

Figures in the Manuscript

306

..

17.

Figures in the Manuscript

307

(iv)

(ii)

308

Figures in the Manuscript

22.

23.

Figures in the Manuscript

309

24.

25.

26.

27.

-L__

~~

__

~~

________

Figures in the Manuscript

310

28.

29.

30.

figure on f. 25a
(see note 31.1)

Chapter 14

Notes to the Translation

The algebraical notations in the following notes will be the same as in

the mathematical summary (Chapter 2). In some of the notes to propositions
4-12 I have referred to Maimonides' notes to the Completion (see Chapter 10).
References such as (f. 32a:23-32b:2) are to part A of the manuscript Manisa,
Gene11706, which contains the text of Maimonides' notes (see 12.1).
0.1

Here and in 31s the name ibn al-l;Iasan appears as ibn al-l;Iusayn in
the manuscript. This error is also found in other places (compare
S.S).

0.2

I have translated maqala (normal meaning: treatise, big chapter) as

book, and kitab (normal meaning: book) as work, because kitab is
used for the Conics as a whole, whereas maqala is used for each of the
eight "books".

0.3

Arabic: al-macanl. The word macna, pI. macanl can refer both to a
concept and to a collection of concepts, for example, a problem, a
theorem or a proposition (see Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur
Physik, 211; in the Arabic translation of the preface to Conics IV,
macna is also used for a problem, ms. Aya Sofya 2762,137b:14,
Oxford, BodI. Marsh 667,70a:6). I have used the rather vague translation "notion ", so that the reader can make his own interpretation.
See also note 0.20 and 6.2.

0.4

Compare the Arabic translation of the preface to Conics I: "and in

the fourth one (of the last four books) there are problems occurring
in conics", wajl l-rabi C minha masaOilu taqaCu fl l-makhrufat, ms.
Aya Sofya 2762,2a:17, Oxford, BodI. Marsh 667,Sa:24-2S). The
Arabic is less explicit than the Greek, see p. 42.

312

Notes 0.5-0.14

0.5

Compare Chapter 4.

0.6

See 6.3 for a discussion of the basis of Ibn al-Haytham's reconstruction.

0.7

Ibn al-Haytham apparently refers to Conics 1:36, to the effect that a

tangent to a central conic and an ordinate through the point of
contact intersect the corresponding diameter in two points R, R'
which are harmonic conjugates with respect to the two points of
intersection P, P' of the diameter and the conic (see the figure).
Apollonius does not assume that PP' is an axis of the conic.

0.8

Conics II:50 (Greek), 56-59 (Arabic, cf. 15.2). In the Conics the
problem is stated as follows: "We want to explain how we draw a
line tangent to an arbitrary conic section, which makes with the axis
of that (conic) section an angle equal to an assumed acute angle,
adjacent to the (conic) section" (translated from the Arabic: nurzdu
an nubayyina kayfa nukhriju khaHan mumassan li-qj(in ~anawbariyyin,
ayyi qi(in kana, yahduthu maca sahmi dhalika l-qit C zawiyatan
musawiyatan li-zawiyatin biiddatin mimma yall l-qi( ms. Aya Sofya

2762,85b:6-8, Oxford, Bodl. Marsh 677,44b:7-8, compare the Greek

in Conics, ed. Heiberg 1,286:26-28).
0.9

P1(1-5), P2(6-7).

0.10 P5(14-17).
0.11

Arabic: mawqi regarding the term "place of contact" compare

7.6.2.

0.12

Conics II:51-53 (Greek), 60-63 (Arabic), compare p. 403.

0.13

P3(8-9); the problem is only treated for the hyperbola.

C
,

0.14 See 4.1 for the Arabic translation of the preface to Conics VII.

Notes 0.15-1.1

0.15

313

The statement following the lacuna, which I have restored as <so

the eighth book), is probably Ibn al-Haytham's own conclusion
(compare the preface of Conics VII quoted in 4.1). The relation
between the preface of Conics VII and P8-10 (props. 24-27) is
explained in 6.3.

0.16 Conics 11:49 (Greek), 51-55 (Arabic, cf. 15.2): "If there are a known
conic section and a point not inside the (conic) section, how do we
draw from that point a line which is tangent to the (conic) section and
meets it in one point only?" (translated from the Arabic: idha kana
qit'un makhrutun maClumun wa-nuqtatun laysat fl dakhili l-qit' kayfa
nukhriju min tilka l-nuqta khattan yumassu l-qit' wa-yaqaCu calayhi
'ala nuqtatin wahidatinfaqat (ms. Aya Sofya 2762,81b:7-9, Oxford,
Bodl. Marsh 667,42b:12-13. Greek text in the edition of Heiberg
1,247 :5-7). The passage underlined translates the Greek EtJeElav
Ka9' v E7tt\j!auoucrav "Cfjc; "COllfjC;. The expression Ka9' EV (in one
point only) is a superfluous addition since straight lines cannot be
tangent to a conic at more than one point. Two conics can be tangent
at two points (Ka"CcX OU0 crllllEla, compare Conics IV:27, 34, ed.
Heiberg 11,44 :5-6, 52 :8--9).
0.17

P11(28-31), apparently inspired by the superfluous addition mentioned in the preceding note. The problem is only treated for a point
on the axis of a parabola or a hyperbola, outside the conic.

0.18

P12, not treated in the extant text of the Completion (compare 6.5).

0.19

Arabic: dirya (Lane, 1,877, col. 1). The reading is conjectural because
the word is not very legible. Or read perhaps: durba (skill).

0.20 "State of things" translates macnan, compare note 0.3 and Schramm,
Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur Physik, 211 ("Sachverhalt").
0.21

These "similar" notions must be P4(10-13), P6(18-19) and

P7(20-23). See 6.3.

0.22

tabYln, "to explain", could also be translated as "to prove".

1.1

In 7.2.1 I have discussed the parts of the solution of a problem in

the classical Greek style, such as npo"Camc;, etc. using propositions 1
and 2 as an example.

314

1.2

Notes 1.2-3.3

Data 43: if in a right-angled triangle the hypotenuse and one of the

other sides have a given ratio, the triangle is given in shape (tr.
Thaer, 31).

1.3

Conics II :56 in the Arabic version is part of Conics II :50 in the Greek.

See p. 403.
2.1

Ibn al-Haytham first constructs an angle T (equal to angle E in the

analysis) in an auxiliary construction, which is reminiscent of Data
43. The auxiliary construction is possible because KO = 2KL is
implicitly assumed to be less than HT (diorismos in 1e).

2.2

Elements VI :4. Similar means having equal angles and proportional

sides about the corresponding angles (Elements VI, def. 1, cf. 7.2.2).

2.3

The reference to Conics 11:56 is unnecessary. Since BM/MA =

NH/!NT, LMAB can directly be constructed in the auxiliary figure,
so B can easily be found. The problem can be solved in a similar way
if AD is assumed to be an arbitrary diameter of the parabola. The
only difference is that the semicircle becomes a segment of a circle,
"admitting" the angle of ordinates of the diameter (i.e. such that
LHPT = LBME for all P on the segment).

3.1

Conics 1:47.

3.2

Conics I :32, to the effect that the straight line through B parallel to
the ordinates of diameter EB is the unique tangent to the conic at B.

3.3

By Conics 1:37, FE EK = AE2 (or

~~ =

:;)

because BK is

tangent and BF is an ordinate with respect to AE. Therefore

FA
AK

IFE

IFE - AEI
AE
SA
=
=
lEA - EKI
EK
BK'

- AE I stands for the absolute value of the difference. So

SA
FA

BK

= AK = H = oc.

Note that 3c is independent of the hypothesis

BK
AK

= oc.

Notes 3.4-3.7

3.4

315

The homologue is defined in Conics VII:2-3 as follows (cf. 3.3). Let

P divide the axis AD internally for the hyperbola and externally for
the ellipse, such that DP: AP = d: r, with d = AD, r the corresponding
latus rectum. Segment AP is called the homologue, in Arabic:
al-khaftu l-shablhu l-nisba, "the line corresponding in ratio " (to the
latus rectum). Halley translated "homologus" because he believed
that the lost Greek original had it 0J.10A.oyoc; (which seems plausible).
Since EA = !DA and EM:AM = d:r, AM = !AP. In the notations
of Chapter 2

rd

AP =

Id rl'

the upper sign in and =+= refers to the hyperbola. Ibn al-Haytham
does not give a figure for an ellipse ~ with minor axis AD (d - r < 0),
see below, note 3.10 and 7.2.9.
3.5

Between "ratio" and "of ME" the manuscript has a few

almost illegible words which do not appear to make sense in the
context. These words were probably interpolated by mechanical
miscopying. They could perhaps be read as "of DB and G of DN"
or they could be a corrupt trace of a reference to propositions 2 and
3 of Book VII of the Conics, compare note 3.6.

3.6

Because G is on the conic and GW is perpendicular to axis AD, we

have by Conics VII:2-3
PWWA
AG 2

PD
DA'

with P defined as in note 3.4. Since PW = 2MT, WA = 2TA,

AG = 2AS, PD = 2ME, DA = 2EA, it follows that
MTTA
AS 2

ME

EA

Id rl'

But
As 2
AF2 =

3.7

IX

so

MT TA
AF2

In 6e Ibn al-Haytham proves this identity in the following way (I use

the notations of the present proposition): We have FEjEA = AEjEK;
by similar triangles
AE
EK

SE
EB

whence TE EA = EF2.

TE
EF

FE
so EA

TE
EF'

Notes 3.8-4.3

316

3.8

Conics 1:52; the parabola is :?}J, its vertex is N(td, -td), the latus
rectum is EN = EA = td, the axis is y = -td. Points Nand 0 are
defined in two steps, compare 7.2.2.

3.9

In the summary I have defined C as a point on ST such that CT = AF,

and I have proved that C is on :?}J. Ibn al-Haytham defines C as a
point of intersection of TO and :?}J. Then CO = EF can be proved as
in 4e: by Conics I: 11 and 3f C0 2 = EN NO = EA ET= EF2.
Hence CO = EF and CT= ICO - TOI = IEF - AEI = AF.

MT TA MT TA
drx 2
TC 2 = AF2 = Id rl

3.10

(note 3.6),

so C is on the hyperbola ~(rx) with transverse axis AM =

rd/2ld rl, latus rectum r/2rx 2 (Conics 1:21). For the word
"boundary" in 3g see 7.2.7. Putting AT = =Fx, CT = y we obtain
the equation of Jf(rx) in the coordinates of Chapter 2 in the form

dr

+ x + 2(d r)
_

. ( + x) . y

drx 2

= Id

rI

or

d r (_
dr )
drx2 x x + 2(d r) .

Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes that AD is the major axis of the

ellipse Cf1 (compare 7.2.9). If AD is the minor axis, d - r < 0, so D
is between A and M and Jf(rx) is an ellipse.
3.11

The fact that TS is known in position does not yet imply that point
S is known, compare p. 85 note 8.

3.12

Because AS/SG is known, A is known, TS is known in position and

WG II TS, it follows by Data 35 that WG is known in position. Since
Cf1 is also known in position, G is known.

4.1

"We repeat" (Arabic nuCldu) means: we draw (the two conics) once
more.

4.2

Conics 1:52.

4.3

Maimonides (Chapter 10) proves in a note (f. 32a:23-32b:2) to this

passage that M A is half of the homologue. Compare note 3.4.

Notes 4.4-4.11

4.4

317

Conics 1:54. The latus rectum M I is drawn perpendicular to AM, so

AM and MI contain the "figure" of the conic (3.2). Note that
AM

ME

ME AE

ME

MI

EQ

AE EQ

AE

da 2

rd

Id rl

2Idrl'

- = - = - - = - a = - - but A M = - - -

So MI = r/2a 2 as in note 3.10. Ibn al-Haytham defines EQ in order

to avoid products of more than two line segments, compare 7.2.3.
4.5

4h-j and 5.

4.6

BK II AG.

4.7

Compare 3f (note 3.9).

MTTA

4.8

because G is on the original conic

MTTA
AF2

ME
EA
C(j

(note 3.6).

MTTA
TC 2

MA
MI

ME
EQ

by Conics 1:21, because C is on .n"(a). So

AS 2
AF2

AE
EQ

Z2
H 2'

AS/AF = BK/KA is proved in 3c, see note 3.3. So BK/KA = Z/H.

4.9

The condition Z > H (a > 1) imposed in the definition of the

problem (3a) has to be satisfied, because always BK > KA. In
4h-m Ibn al-Haytham proves the sufficiency of this condition.

4.10

That is to say: on one side of axis AD.

4.11

Since

and a > 1 (3a), AE > EQ, so AE . EQ < AE2 = EN 2. So, if X is the

Notes 4.11-4.15

318

point of intersection of Jr(oc) and EN, by Conics 1:21

MEEA
EX 2

AM ME MEEA MEEA
= =
> ----:c---MI
EQ
EQ . EA
EN 2

--=-- = -

so EX < EN. See figure in note 4.13.

4.12 After k the manuscript repeats: "and the parabola passes through
the point A". k seems to be a marginal addition by a commentator,
which was inserted in the text by a scribe. The scribe then repeated
the last part of j. The construction "because the parabola passes
through point A, because the perpendicular ., " is ugly, and the
detailed explanation why A is on f!jJ is in contrast to the conciseness
of the rest of propositions 3 and 4. These facts confirm that k is an
interpolation.
4.13

-*A(oc) intersects f!jJ in a point C between A and N because:

- -*A(oc) intersects EN in X between E and N;
- -*A(oc) and f!jJ intersect in A;
- the "concavities" of -*A(oc) and f!jJ are "opposite", so part of the
parabola between A and N is "inside" -*A(oc).
On the word concavity see Chapter 8 and 15.1, no. 87.

4.14 According to Conics IV:35 two conics with opposite concavities can
have at most two common points.
4.15 1 shall now prove that PI for the hyperbola and ellipse cannot in
general be constructed by means of ruler and compass. The solution
of the problem comes down to the construction of F( -Yl' 0).
Eliminating x from the equations of f!jJ and Jr(oc) (p. 8) and simplifying we obtain
oc 2 = 4d- 3(d

r)(y + d)2 (~ +

(1)

Notes 4.15-5.2

319

Y = Yl must satisfy this relation because C(Xl' Yl) is a point of intersection of [ljJ and J'f(o:).
(1) can be rewritten as (YJ, 0: 2 , t) = 0 with YJ = r/d, t = r/y,
(YJ,

p, t)

t 3 + t 2(5YJ

+ 4 - p) + t(8YJ2 + 8YJ) + 4YJ3 + 4YJ2.

YJ, Pand t can be treated as independent variables over ([). Let K =

([)(YJ, p), then E K[tJ. If were reducible over K, there would be
~(YJ, p) E K such that (YJ, p, ~) = 0, because the degree of over
K is 3.
Then we would have (YJ, -1, ~(YJ, -1)) = O. But application of
Eisenstein's criterion for the prime YJ + 1 shows that (YJ, -1, t) is
irreducible over ([)(YJ) (see Lang, Algebra, 128), which leads to a
contradiction.
So is an irreducible polynomial of degree 3 over K. Hence the
root t = r/Yl of (YJ, 0: 2 , t) = 0 cannot in general be constructed by
means of ruler and compass.

5.1

The manuscript does not indicate where proposition 5 begins. I have

placed the beginning here in order to obtain a subdivision similar to
that in P7 (20-23): analysis (20), synthesis and diorismos in easy
cases (21), diorismos in difficult cases (22, 23). Maimonides refers to
a passage in 5c as part of "the fifth proposition ", see note 5.9.
Z2

5.2

2AD

+ 2AM +

3JAD 2AM

->------~--2 -

ME

that is to say
0:

22

;::: 0:1

= 4

+ 6d +

'

V~(r)
d \ 1 + d)'

because

-=0:

'

AD = d,

rd
AM = 2(d

+ r)'

The diorismos resembles some of the diorismoi in On Cutting-Off a

Ratio of Apollonius (see 7.6.1); for example, in the fourth case
(wuqu C, 1t'twm<;) of the sixth "position" (warjC, 't01to<;) the problem is
possible if and only if the given ratio is not greater than
TH:(TE + EZ + J4TE. EZ), that is "the ratio of TH to the line,
compounded of TE and EZ and the line, the square of which is equal
to four times the rectangle contained by TE and EZ" (translated
from the Arabic ms. Aya Sofya 4830,14b:20-22: nisbatu TE ila

l-khagi l-murakkab min T E EZ wa-min al-khatti lladhl yaqwa cala

arbaCati amthali satlJi TEfl EZ).

320

Notes 5.3-5.9

5.3

The original hyperbola Cfj (ABG in propositions 3-4).

5.4

Meaning: we also draw the part below the axis NO. This part is not
drawn in the figures for propositions 3 and 4 (see pp. 301-302).

5.5

Elements 11,14, B = (-d[r/(r + d)J1/ 2, 0). The letter B does not

refer to the point called B in propositions 3-4.

5.6

S = (0, -d). Let A' = (0, -!d); Ibn al-Haytham means that SA
cuts off from axis NO (of PI') a segment A'N equal to the latus rectum
AE = !d of PI'. See the figure in note 5.9.

5.7

SB meets PI' because it intersects the axis (Conics I :27). The equations
of line SB and PI' can be written as Y + d = -x[(d + r)/r]1/2 and
y(y + d) = -!dx. So C = (Xl' YI) with
YI

=1 d Jr ~ d

and

Xl

2(r-~dd) -

dJr

~ d"

Compare the figure in note 5.9.

5.8

CO is an ordinate corresponding to the axis of the parabola. Of

course, T = (Xl' 0), 0 = (Xl' -!d), X = (Xl' -d).

5.9

Ibn al-Haytham leaves the proof of EN . BT = CT 2 to the reader.

Maimonides has the following note (f. 32b:2-3): "<we want) to
prove his statement in the conditions for achieving the problem in
the fifth proposition: "so the product of the latus rectum and BT
is equal to the square of CT". So we prove the truth of this".

o1---'<--'--+---1 N

However, the proof itself is mIssmg in our manuscript of

Maimonides' notes. The proof could have been as follows: Let AS
intersect ON in A'. Since TO = OX, we have by Elements 11:6,
C0 2 = T0 2 + XC TC. But (by Conics 1:11) C0 2 = EN NO,

321

Notes 5.9-5.15

T0 2 = (AA')2 = EN A'N. So XC TC = EN OA' = EN AT. By

similar triangles
ENAT
EN BT

AT
BT

SX
BT

XC
CT

XCTC
CT 2 '

CT 2 = EN . BT now follows.
The absence of a proof of CT 2 = EN . BT in the Completion is
somewhat surprising. It is conceivable that Ibn al-Haytham had
discovered and proved this theorem (or a generalization) in another
context; his lost Treatise on the Properties of the Parabola (5.4)
comes to mind.
5.10

By similar triangles CT/TB = SA/AB, so SA BT = AB CT. But

SA = 2EN, so SA . BT = 2EN . BT = 2CT 2 (by 5c). Hence AB CT
= 2CT 2, so CT = !AB, that is to say, Yl = !d[r/(r + d)Ji /2 (compare
note 5.7).

5.11

By 5d, SA . BT = AB . CT and CT = !AB, so SA BT = !AB2. But

AB2 = 2AD AM by definition (5b), so AD AM = SA BT. But
SA = AD, so BT = AM (which is equivalent to
-Xl -

dJr ; d

2(,': d)'

compare note 5.7). Since AM is half of the homologue, BT + AM

rd/(r + d).
5.12

GM = MA + AB + BT + TF + FG = MA + AB + MA + 2AD
+ 2AB = 2AD + 2AM + 3JAD 2AM, that is the segment defined
in 5a. So
GM
ME =

2
1X1 =

~(
r)

+ 6 d + 6v'd \1 + d)'

and

v'f r )

rd
(rd G = ( - 2d - 2(r + d) - 3d -;:+d' 0 = 2(r

lXi d 2 )
+ d) ,0 .

5.13

The diorismos is wrong, see Chapter 2 and notes 5.34, 5.36.

5.14

Let

5.15

By 5f we have FJ = !GF = AB and TF = 2AD. But AD = AS =

XT and AB = 2CT (5d), so JT = TF + FJ = 2XT + 2TC =
2XC, whenceJT TC = 2XC TC. But XT = 2EN and EN AT =
XC TC (note 5.9), so JT TC = 2EN AT = XT AT.

IX

1X 1 ; 1X2

= Z2/H 2 = AE/EQ by definition (4b).

322

Notes 5.16-5.18

S.16

Maimonides gives a proof of GJ . TC = XT AM (f. 32b:3-6) which

is essentially as follows: Because GJ = !GF = AB (Sf), AB = 2CT
(Sd) and AB2 = AD 2AM (Sb) we have GJ CT = !AB 2 =
ADAM = XTAM.

S.17

GT TC = GJ TC
Hence

+ JT TC

= XTAM

GM GT+ TM
so - = - - - TM
TM

GT
XT
=
TM
TC

+ XTAT=

XT TM.

XT+ TC
TC

XC
TC'

Since
GM = r:xiME =

r:x 2d2
I
,
2(r + d)

MT =

rd

-Xl

+ 2(r + d)'

xc = YI + d, and TC = YI' GM:MT = XC:CT is property (*) in

the summary (p. 10). Compare also footnote 1 on p. 77.

S.18

In Sj-m Ibn al-Haytham proves that C is on ~(r:xl) because it is a

point on f?J' which satisfies (*):
GM
TM
Since C is on f?J', we have XC . TC
So

XC
TC'

= EN T A = AE T A (note S.9).

GM

GM MT XC MT XC MTTA
AE = MT' AE = TC' AE = TC' AETA'
XC MTTA
= TC' XC TC

MTTA
TC 2 '

But
GM
ME

AE
EQ by Sh, so

GM

ME
AE = EQ

AM

= MI by4b.

Hence
MTTA
TC 2

so C is on

~(r:xl)

AM
MI'

by the converse of Conics 1:21.

Algebraically: since Cis on f?J'we have(YI + d)YI

= -!dxl.Further

Notes 5.18-5.20

323

because C satisfies (*). So

(-Xl) ( -Xl

so C is on

+ 2(r rd+ d) ) Yl-2 =

drxl(r

+ d) -1 ,

J'l'~irxl).

S.19

If rx = rx 1 the problem can also be constructed by means of ruler and

compass (but compare 7.S.3).

S.20

If CA is an ordinate corresponding to diameter A T of [ljJ, and if the

tangent to [ljJ at A intersects the axis in P, then CA II AP (Conics
1:32) and ~CTA
~AA'P. (A' is the point of intersection of AS
and the axis.) By Conics 1:3S, PN = NA', but NA' = A'A = !d, so
PA' = 2A'A, hence by similarity AT = 2TC. But 2TC = BA (Sd),
so AT = BA, hence AA = AT - AT = AT - BA = BT. By Sc,
BT = AM, so AA = AM, hence CM is tangent to [ljJ by Conics 1:33.
Maimonides refers to this proposition in a note on the last sentence
of Sn (or perhaps to "But M C is tangent to the parabola" in Sp;
the note is on f. 32b: 14-16).
<=':)

Sn shows that Ibn al-Haytham could have given a direct construction of C by drawing the tangent to [ljJ through M, as explained in
Conics 11:49. His construction of C (Sb) and the subsequent proofs
probably reflect the way in which he found the expression of the
ratio rxi (or GM:ME) in terms of AM, ME and AD. It is likely that
he argued somewhat as follows.
Suppose that MC is tangent to the parabola at C, and let rxl be
such that g(rxl) passes through C. Define G as the point of intersection of AD and the vertical asymptote of the hyperbola ~(rxl)
through c. Then GT TC = XT TM (So, Si); define J on GT
such thatJT TC = AT TX, thenJT TC = 2AT EN = 2CX TC
(note 5.9),soJT = 2CX and GJ TC = MA XT = MA AD; draw
CBS, then CT 2 = EN BT so CT = !AB as in Sc-d; draw CA, then
TB = AM as in Sn, so AB2 = 4CT 2 = 4EN BT = 2AD AM,
whence 2GJ TC = AB 2 , so GJ = AB. Since JT = 2CX = AB
+ 2AD, GM = 2AD + 2AM + 3AB.

324

5.21

Notes 5.21 - 5.25

Ibn al-Haytham proves that C is on .;tM(CX1) because it satisfies (*):

GM
MT

XC
CT

(5i).

It follows from (*) that

GM
GT

XC
XC
GM
=
=
GM-MT
XC - CT
XT

so GM MW = GM XT = CX GT = CX Xt (cf. note 1 to Chapter

7). Wand t are supposed to be on XS extended. Because XC 1/ Gt
and MG 1/ Wt it follows by the converse of Conics II :12 that C and
M are on .;tM(CX1), that is the hyperbola through M with asymptotes
Gt and Wt.
The equation of .;tM(CX1):

cxid2 - rd)
(y + d) ( x + 2(r + d)

cxid 3

= 2(r + d)

is equivalent to CX . GT = GM . XT, if C = (x, y).

Maimonides has (in f. 32b :6-13) a note on the last sentence of 50,
containing a reference to Conics II: 12.
5.22

The phraseology resembles the enunciation of Conics 1:35.

5.23

"any line " translates ai-khan. The article al- indicates the genus
(Wright 1,269B).

5.24

See the figure. The "lines drawn from point C" are line segments of
suitable smallness between MC and the tangent to .;tM(cx l ) at C. On
the meaning of inside and outside see 3.2. That A is outside .;tM(cx 1)
is essential in the proof.

5.25

If CiX2, Y2) is the second point of intersection of [!J> and .;tM(CXl) and
if the perpendicular C2 T2 X 2 to St intersects MAin T2 and St in X 2,
we have GM/MT2 = X 2 C 2 / T2 C 2 by the converse of the proof in 50.
In (*) substitute X 2 for Xl and Y2 for Yl ' It can be shown that Y = Y2
is the positive root of i + (2 + c)dy - d 2 c = 0, with c 2 = r/(r + d).

325

Notes 5.26-5.30

5.26 The manuscript has nuqat "points" instead ofnuqta "point". Clearly
the scribe did not understand what he was writing. The" other point"
is C 2
5.27

In the proof in 5j-m substitute C2 , T2 , X 2 for C, T, X (in note 5.18

write also X 2 , Yz for Xl' Y1)'

5.28

In 5r-v Ibn al-Haytham treats the case IX > 1X1' Put 1X2 = gMjME,
gM> GM.
Let I be tangent to ~(1X1) at M. I intersects the asymptotes tW
and tG of %(1X 1) in points P 1 and P 2 such that P 1M = MP 2.
Maimonides adds a reference to Conics II: 1 (f. 32b: 16-17). If g V is
perpendicular to W t, I intersects g V extended in P 3 such that M P 3 >
MP 1, because Mg > MG. See the figure in the next note.

5.29

Ibn al-Haytham must have argued as follows: If MC is extended on

both sides, it will intersect VW, tG and Vg in points Q1, Q2 and Q3'
By Conics 11:8 we have Q2C = MQ1' so Q3C > MQ1'

9 f---...."G+--+=--~..:...

But the beginning of s is in the manuscript: "Then, if tW is extended in a straight line on the side of W, the part of the extension of
line MC" etc. I have emended tW to MC, I read the wiiw (W) in the
text as wa- "and", and I have added the passage in pointed brackets,
for the following reasons: The expression: "if tW is extended in a
straight line" is superfluous, because t W has already been extended
in 5r; further, part of the argument (Q2 C = MQ1) is obviously
missing from the text.
I believe I have reconstructed the original meaning of the text,
although the original wording may have been different from my
reconstruction.
5.30 "line" (khan) is my emendation. The manuscript mechanically
repeats "part" (qism).

326

5.31

Notes 5.31 - 5.34

The conic section through M with asymptotes VW and Vg is ~(IX).

By Conics II:I0 ~(IX) intersects 1 and MX in P4 and Q4 such that
P 3P4 = MP 1 and Q3Q4 = MQ1 (see figure in note 5.29). Since
P 3M > MP = P 3P4 and Q3C > MQ1 = Q3Q4' ~(IX) intersects 1
and the extension of M C " on the side of g" and" beyond" C, respectively.
Ibn al-Haytham says that 1 intersects the parabola, and he concludes that ~(IX) intersects the parabola in two points. The
conclusion is correct, but it does not directly follow from the preceding statements, because P 4 and Q4 may be outside f!l>.
~(IX) intersects f!l> in two points since it intersects TC between
C and T.

5.32 If C 3(X3' Y3) and C4(X 4 , Y4) are the points of intersection, define T3 ,
X 3, T4 , X 4 in the same way as T2 and X 2 in note 5.25. Then substitute C j , 7;, Xi' g for C, T, X, G in the converse of 50 and in 5j-m.
Algebraically: substitute Xi' Yi' IX for Xl' Y1' 1X 1(i = 3,4).
5.33

In 5v- y Ibn al-Haytham treats the case IX < 1X1' Put 1X2 = hMjME,
hM < GM and drop perpendicular h Y onto SX. Tangent 1intersects
hY extended in P s such that PsM < MP 2 = MP 1 (see the figure in
note 34).

5.34

According to Conics II :8 ~(IX) intersects 1 in P 6 such that P 5 M =

P 6 Pl' Hence P6 P 1 < M P l' so ~(IX) intersects I, that is, the" tangent
mentioned above" between M and YW extended. Apparently Ibn
al-Haytham now confused the tangent I at M to the hyperbola
MC (~(1X1 with the tangent MC to the parabola f!l>.

"

--- .-- riP

'.

Gr-~h--------~~-=~~

Q,

Notes 5.34-5.36

327

Note that neither the hyperbolas ~(oc) nor the tangents I and
MC are drawn in the figure to the text (see p. 302). Ibn al-Haytham
concluded that ~(oc) does not meet 9, which is true if ~(oc) intersects tangent MC between M and YW. However, there is an OCo < oc 1
such that ~(oco) and 9 are tangent (see Chapter 2 and note 5.36).
Foroco < oc < OC1 %M(OC) intersects I between Mand YW,MCbetween
M and C and 9 in two points between A and C. So Ibn al-Haytham
was wrong.
5.35

By the converse of a proof such as 5j-m.

5.36 To find out whether Ibn al-Haytham could have found the correct
diorismos, I shall now determine the limiting case oc = OCo, in
which 9 and ~(oc) are tangent at a point Co(xo, Yo) with Yo > o.
Put
d2OC~

- dr

= 2(d + r) .

Co is on 9, so
(1)

Co is on

~(oco),

so
(xo

+ v)(Yo + d) =

OC~d3

2(d

+ r)

(2)

9 and %(oco) have a common tangent at Co, hence by (1) and (2)
d

+ Yo

+ Xo

(3)

--=...,------....,---"

4yo

+ 2d

By (1) and (3) it is easily proven that 2yo - 3xo = v - 2d. Next we
eliminate Xo and Yo from (1) and (2), to obtain after substitution of v
and simplification:

cfJ(~, oc~) = 0
cfJ('1, z) =

Z3

+ Z2( -8

- 11'1)

with

+ z(16 +

12'1 - '12)

+ '12.

Suppose '1 and z to be independent variables. The degree of cfJ in z is

3, so if cfJ is reducible over 0('1), there is a E 0('1) such that cfJ('1, = o.
By Gauss's lemma we may assume E 2l'1J. So must divide the last
coefficient + '1 2, whence = '1i for i = 0, 1 or 2. These possibilities
all lt~ad to a contradiction.
We conclude that two segments in the ratio oc~: 1 can, in general,
only be constructed by means of conic sections, not by a ruler-andcompass construction. So the" limiting case" could theoretically be

e)

Notes 5.36-6.2

328

determined by ancient techniques, but because of the rather complicated form of cjJ a treatment of the diorismos does not seem to be
feasible in the ancient language of proportions and geometrical
algebra.
The estimates of 0(0 in Chapter 2 are easily proved using
. 4(r + d)
IX~ = mf
d3
(y

+ d)2 + - + -d

(see note 4.15),

y>O

and the inequalities y2 > 0 and

positive real Cl , C2' y.

ClY

+ c2 y- l

~ 2(C l C2)l/2, valid for

6.1

T is supposed to be the common point of AG and EB extended. Ibn

al-Haytham had the hyperbola ABG in mind, because EB does not
have to be extended if the given conic is an ellipse. Compare 7.2.4.

6.2

Since G and B are on the given conic,

DOOA

DKKA

by Conics 1:21. But AT= !AG and AE

FT = !OG and EF = !DO. Hence
EFFA
FT2

= !AD,

so FA

= !OA,

d
r

Because "those lines" refers to DO, OA, OG rather than DK, KA,
KB, the passage "the same is the ratio ... the first book" must be
an interpolation. 6c is unnecessary in the further discussion, so one
might also argue that 6c was interpolated in its entirety. Because other
passages in the Completion are also mathematically superfluous, but
probably genuine (note 13.27), I prefer to consider most of 6c as a
genuine passage, which is in all probability a trace ofIbn al-Haytham's
early work on the problem. It should be noted that a similar trace
can be found in 6h, and that the proof in 6c resembles proofs of
MFFA
AT2

ME
EA

(6d) and

MTTA
AS2

ME
EA

(3e),

which Ibn al-Haytham did not give in full detail (notes 6.3, 3.6). 6c
is also closely related to 30d and 31i.
Maimonides comments on the statement "these lines are halves
of those lines" in 6c (the note is on f. 32b:18-20). His note cannot be
taken as sufficient proof that 6c is genuine (see Chapter 9 and note
7.13).

329

Notes 6.3-6.5

6.3

Choose M on AE (for the hyperbola) or AE extended (for the ellipse)

such that ME/AM = d/r. Then AM is half of the homologue AP in
note 3.4, and M = ( rd/2(d r in the notations of the summary
(p. 15), which refer to the figures for proposition 7. So (MF . F A)/AT2
= ME/EA as in note 3.6. The fact that Ibn al-Haytham omitted a
reference to Conics VII:3 (for the ellipse) shows again that he had
the hyperbola in mind.

6.4

By Conics 1:37, KA/AE = AS/SE, but by similar triangles

AS TB FK
KA FK
SE = BE = KE so AE = KE
and

FE EK FK AE KA
=
=
EK
EK
AE
Hence FE AE
summary p. 15.
6.5

= EK2, or

(-Xl

KE
AE'

+ !d)td = (Yl + !d)2 as in the

In 6f-g Ibn al-Haytham proves that T A/DK is known (in fact,

T A/DK = BS/SA = (X).
T A/AK = BS/SA is proven as in 3c (Maimonides has a note on
the proof, in f. 32b:20-33a:l). Since

BS
SD

= W = (X

by assumption, we have DS/SA = BS/I for a segment I such that

I/SA is known ( = (X). Since BS/SA = T A/AK, it follows that DS/SA =
T A/m for a segment m such that m/AK is known (=(X). By Conics
1:36,

DS
SA

DK
DK
KA so KA

TA
m

whence

DK

TA =

AK

m'

which is a known ratio (l/(X). So (MF FA)/DK2 is known

(= (ME/EA) (X2) by 6d, that is to say

( +Xl

d)~2
+ 2(drd)
r) . (-)(
+Xl Y +

with

EA
ME

C=-(X

as in Chapter 2.

-2

dr
=-2d(X

-1

Notes 6.5-7.2

330

Ibn al-Haytham could have avoided 1and m, by using compounded

ratios:
T A T A AK
DK = AK'DK

BS AS

BS

= AS'DS = DS = "'.

Unnecessary auxiliary segments also occur in 7j-m.

6.6

See 6e.

6.7

See 7a-e. In 6h, Ibn al-Haytham says that EA/AF is known, but he
does not mention this ratio in the synthesis in proposition 7. This
intermediate step in the analysis is clarified by 7.4.3.
When searching for the solution Ibn al-Haytham must have
realized that AF can be found if one can find a line segment
D'E'M'A'K'F' such that
D'E' = E'A',

E'M' d
M'A'=~'

F'E' E'A'

= E'K'2

and such that (M'F' F'A')/(K'D')2 is a given ratio. This problem

only involves ratios of segments. He must then have found a solution
of this auxiliary problem by means of the equivalents of &' and J('.
This solution must have been based on the assumption that D'E' is
known. He did not give this solution in the analysis, but only remarked that EA/AF is known (because EA/AF = E'A'/A'F').
When writing the synthesis he must have realized that it was
unnecessary to introduce an auxiliary figure for the construction of
D'E'M'A'K'F', because DE =!d was already known in the original
figure.
6.8

6i resembles 3h.

7.1

"as we have described": kama wa~afna. One would rather expect

here the imperfect kama na~ifu "as we (shall) describe".

7.2

In the notations of the summary (p. 15)

A = (0,0),

E = (!d,O),

N = (!d, -!d),
H

"'=W'

D = (d,O),

= (0, -d),

d
EQ = 2",2'

+rd
)
C = ( 2(d r)' -d ,

XA.

= 2",2'

Notes 7.2-7.6

the transverse axis CX has length Ird/2(d

:Yf' is
(y

+ d)

331

r)l, and the equation of

r ( _ rd )
+ 2(d r) .

= ~x x

If the given conic f{I is a circle or an ellipse with minor axis AD, :Yf'
is a parabola or an ellipse in the same way as :Yf(tX) in Pl(3-4) (note
3.10). The equation of &' is (y + !d)2 = !d(!d - x).
If f{I is an ellipse, tX < 1, so EQ > EA. The position of Q in the
figure in the manuscript (between 0 and F, see p. 303) is impossible.
7.3

Strictly speaking, the latus rectum is always perpendicular to the

diameter to which it corresponds. So EN is the latus rectum of &',
and EA is equal (in length) to the latus rectum. Ibn al-Haytham does
not always adhere to this convention, for in 5b, 7b and 7g AE is
called the latus rectum of &'.

7.4

"If the parabola is completed" means (as in 5b): if the part on the
other side of the axis is drawn.

7.5

Ibn al-Haytham means that the part of &' above its axis NR intersects
the part of :Yf' above its axis ex in one point. The statement will be
proven in 70-p. The meaning of the term "on one side" is not clear,
because &' and :Yf' do not have a common axis of symmetry.

7.6

See the figure (below); note that CX = AM < AE.

In the Treatise on the Construction of the Heptagon Ibn al-Haytham
proves that a parabola (as &') moves away from any straight line
(such as l) which it intersects, by drawing the tangent to &' at the
point of intersection. (Arabic text and French translation in Rashed,
Heptagone 366:24-364:5, 350:38-352:6).

332

Notes 7.7-7.12

7.7

The manuscript reads: "We draw from points SE and RI".

7.S

The reference to Conics 1:17 is inappropriate. According to Conics

1:17 the line through B parallel to the ordinates with respect to EBT
is tangent at B; but in order to prove that AT and TG are ordinates
one has to prove that there cannot be other chords A'TG' of the
given conic rc such that A'T = TG'. Ibn al-Haytham should have
referred to Conics II:5 according to which the tangent at B is parallel
to ATG because AT = TG.

7.9

FE EA = EK2 by 6e. Since J is on fJJ, NR EA = R]2 by Conics

1:11. So EK = RJ and IJ = IR + RJ = DE + EK = DK.

7.10 Because J is on ,Yf', by Conics 1:21

CI IX

CX

1]2

Xl'

But
CX

ME

ME AE

Xl = EQ = EA . EQ =

MFFA H2
AT2 . W 2

by 7b, 6d and 7a. Further MF = CI and FA = IX, whence

MFFA
IJ2

7.11

MFFA
IJ2

MFFA H2
AT2 'W2 '

MFFA AT2
AT2 . IJ2

so by 7h

By 7g IJ = KD, so AT/KD = H/W =

0(

AT2
IJ2

as in the text.

7.12 In 7j, I, m Ibn al-Haytham argues as follows: Since

AT
H.
KD = W = 0( (71)

DK
we have KA

TA

for a segment m such that

Maimonides has a note on this statement in f. 33a:2-S.

Because

TA = BS ( f)
AK SA 6

H2
W 2'

333

Notes 7.12-7.13

. a SImI
"1ar way -BS = T1
A 'f Y IS
. suc h t hat
we h ave In
Y
m

SA

= AK = W

(so T A:m:AK

= BS: Y:SA).

Since DK/KA = DS/SA (Conics 1:36, 6g) it follows that

BS

TA

DK
KA

DS
SA'

whence
BS
DS

= SA = W = ex

as required. 7j, I, m form the converse of the first part of 6g; the
segment Y in 7j, I is equal to the segment I in note 6.5. Again Ibn
al-Haytham could have avoided m and Y by means of compounded
ratios, as explained in note 6.5.
7.13

7k must be an interpolation for the following two reasons. First,

Ibn al-Haytham always designates the rectangle contained by two
segments PQ and RS as qarb PQ fi RS (the product of PQ and RS).
In the present text of the Completion, the word 4arb (product) is
missing on eight occasions: once in 27d, once in 27k and six times in
7k. The isolated omissions of qarb in 27d and 27k are surely due to
scribal error. However, in 7k the word is consistently omitted.
Secondly, the word kadhalika (similarly) at the beginning of 71
refers to the resemblance between
BS

TA

m
AK

H. I
d
WIn 7 an

DK
KA

TAm
AK

= m'

H.

= WIn 7J.

So 7k is clearly an interpolation. 7k supplies the following partial

proof of BS/Y = T A/m:
By definition

Y
SA

W
so

SA

=Y =

SAAT
AT Y

BSAK
AT. Y .

Maimonides shows in a note to the beginning of 71 how the proof

in 7k can be completed. I quote the first part of his note (f. 33a :8-12)
because it is of interest for the history of the text of the Completion.
" As to his statement, which he also made in it (in proposition 7):
"Similarly, the ratio of BS to Y is equal to the ratio of T A to
the line, the ratio of which to AK is equal to the ratio of H to

334

Notes 7.13-7.17

W": Its proof is that we make line E the line, the ratio of which
to AK is (equal to) the ratio of H to W. Then the ratio of W to H
is equal to the ratio of AK to E. But the ratio of W to H was
equal to the ratio of BS by AK to AT by Y. So he said that the
ratio of BS to Y is equal to the ratio of AT to E. That is clear,
because . .. ".

In my notations E = m. In the rest of the note Maimonides shows

that AT/m = BS/Y because
AK AT AK
W
AT---;-=m= H

BSAK
ATY

AK BS

= ATY

Because Maimonides (t1204) says in the quoted passage that

W/H = (BS AK)/(AT Y), using the terminology of7k (BSff AK,
AT ff Y) he must have had a text of the Completion containing 7k.
Maimonides does not make any distinction between the authors
of 7k and 71, so 7k had already become an integral part of the text
in the twelfth century. See further Chapter 9, p. 122. The fact that the
proof in 7k is incomplete suggests that initially the interpolated
proof was longer, see 9.2.
7.14 The problem has one solution on one side of axis AD of the given
conic, because &' and Jf' intersect in exactly one point on one side
of the axis of &', that is in the area y ~ -td.
7.15

In the case of the ellipse &' and Jf' have "opposite concavities", so
they cannot intersect in more than two points (Conics IV: 35). X is a
common point, so there cannot be more than one other point of
intersection.

7.16 "If" translates idha. One would expect lau, because Ibn al-Haytham
makes a hypothetical assumption.
7.17 The argument for the hyperbola ~ seems to be as follows. Assume
that &' and Jf' intersect in two points J 1 and J 2 above the axis of
&'. Let H be the centre of Jf' and draw the asymptotes I and m
(see the figures). In the way of Conics 11:1-14 the asymptotes are
viewed as rays issuing from the centre H.
Since J 1 and J 2 are on Jf', J 1 J 2 extended intersects 1 and m
(Conics 11:8, right figure).
Since J 1 and J 2 are on &', J 1J 2 obviously meets ray I in a point Q
above &' (left figure). So it does not meet ray m. This is absurd. We
conclude that &' and Jf' intersect in one point above the axis of &'.

Notes 7.17-8.3

335

The wording of 7p is not too clear, and the passage contains at least
one lacuna and several corruptions. Thus the manuscript has twice
"the two poles" (al-qutbayn) for "the two points" (al-nuqtatayn) and
once "the exceeding line" (ai-khat( al-za'id) for "the hyperbola"
(al-qi( al-za'id), literally: the exceeding section. Compare with the
other corruptions mentioned in 12.1.
7.18

6h.

8.1

T is the common point of EB and AG. AT = TG because AT is an

ordinate to diameter EB. By Conics 1:32 BK II AT so ET /T A =
EB/BK = 1/a, by similar triangles.

8.2

F is supposed to be on EA extended such that LETF = L T AF

(the complement of L T AE). Note that L TAF > LETA by
Elements 1:16, so F is "inside" the hyperbola; TF and AF intersect
inside the hyperbola because LATF + LT AF < 2LT AF < 180.
Ibn al-Haytham says that the triangles ATF and ETF are similar,
but he does not take the order of the angles into account (see 7.2.2),
in modern notations b..ATF = b..TEF. We have
EF
FT
ET
1
T F = FA = T A = ~ so

EF
EFFT
1
FA = FT FA = a,l'

but EA is known, so AF is known (Data 5, 7, 8); in fact if EA = !d,

AF = da,1/2(1 - a,l). Since EF/TF = FT/FA, we have FTl =
EF . FA, so FT is known (Data 24), in fact FT = da,/2(l - a,2).
8.3

FT> FA (8c), GS> SA (8e) and M (in 8e) are irrelevant in the
analysis. In the synthesis (9b) MS > SA is necessary to prove the

336

Notes 8.3-8.4

existence of a point of intersection G of the hyperbola and the circle

with centre S and radius SM. In the analysis G exists because BK
is supposed to exist. Compare 7.4.2.
8.4

Propositions 8 and 9 are closely related to two theorems in Book I of

On Known Things (Pi l-maCliimat), a treatise which Ibn al-Haytham
wrote at a later date than the Completion (Chapter 8). In notations

adapted to the present propositions and the summary (pp. 16-17) the
theorems are as follows:
(1) If A and E are given points and X is another point such that
XA/XE = a for given a =F 1, then X is on a known circle %.
(On Known Things 1,9; tr. Sedillot, Materiaux 1,387-388). In
other words: the locus of all % such that X A = aXE is a known

circle.
(2) If A is inside a known circle % but does not coincide with the
centre, if X is on % and if Y is on AX extended such that
Y X: X A is a known ratio, then Y is on another known circle.
(On Known Things 1,3; Sedillot, Materiaux 1,386). In other
words: if (1 is a known dilatation with centre A, (1(%) is a known
circle.
Ibn al-Haytham claims that the contents of On Known Things I
are original (Sedillot, Materiaux 1,380). We may take this as a
reference to the presentation, because no ancient treatise on loci
seems to have been available to him (compare 7.2.8). However, it
is improbable that he discovered the substance of the first theorem
independently. The theorem may be phrased in different forms, for
example: if P is on EA and Q is on EA extended such that AP:PE =
AQ: QE, then AX: X E = AP: P E for any point X on the circle with
diameter PQ.
The name Apollonius is usually associated with the theorem, but
the attribution is incorrect, because the idea is already found in
Aristotle's Meteorology III,S (Heath, Mathematics in Aristotle, 181).
The theorem is also mentioned (in various forms) in the following
treatises:
(i) Apollonius, Plane Loci II: 1 (this work is lost but its contents
are listed by Pappus, Collection VII, ed. Hultsch, see especially
666:18-19).
(ii) Eutocius' commentary on Conics I (Conics ed. Heiberg
II,180:11-184:2, theorem attributed to Apollonius).
(iii) Ptolemy, Almagest XII: 1 tr. Toomer, 557 (AZ:Ze = BK:Ke,
note that BK = AK). Apollonius is mentioned on p. 555.
(iv) Ibrahim ibn Sinan (fl. A.D. 930), Al-masa'il al-mukhtara
(Exquisite Problems); ms. Bankipore 2468, printed in
AI-Biriini, Rasa'il no. 1, ]stikhraj al-Awtar 148:6-153:9, con-

Notes 8.4-9.2

(v)

337

tinued in IbrahIm ibn Sin an, Rasa'il, no. 6, AI-Handasa wa-'ilm

al-nujum, 5:7-14; (for the disorganized state of the manuscript
and the way in which the different parts were printed by the
Osmania Oriental Publications Bureau see Hogendijk, Rearranging, especially pp. 148-149, 152-157) Ibrahim ibn
Sin an gives an analysis by Apollonius, a synthesis of his own
and a synthesis by his grandfather Thabit ibn Qurra.
AI-Sijzi (fl. A.D. 970) Kitab Ii l-masa'ili l-mukhfara (Book on
the exquisite problems, see GAS V,333,23). In ms. Istanbul,
Re~it 1191,31b:16-32a:2 AI-Sijzi renders the synthesis by
Thabit ibn Qurra mentioned above (in (iv.

So we can be fairly certain that the theorem was well known in

Greek and Arabic geometry, and that when Ibn al-Haytham wrote
propositions 8-9 of the Completion, he was inspired by an unidentified
source containing the theorem.
8.5

For the ellipse the problem can be solved in exactly the same way
as for the hyperbola. Thus the endpoint G of the chord AG parallel
to the required tangent can be found as a point of intersection of the
ellipse and a circle (if (X #= 1). To make the solution general, one needs
only change the first sentence of 8a into" ABG is a known hyperbola
or ellipse", remark that Z need not be less that H if the conic is an
ellipse, and add a separate discussion of the case (X = 1, in which the
locus is the perpendicular to AD through E. For every (X > 0 the
problem has exactly one solution for each quadrant of the ellipse.
See 6.5.

9.1

The (conic) section is the hyperbola of proposition 8. To make the

solution general (for any central conic) one need only change the
word al-qW (the (conic) section) into al-qWayn (the (two) conic
sections), add a figure for the ellipse and add a construction for the
trivial case (X = 1.

9.2

Since H > Z, also H> W, so FE> FA. But FEFA = FL2, so

FL > FA, whence MS = 2F L > SA. So the circle and the hyperbola
intersect (in G). The radius (Arabic: bued, literally "distance") is a

338

Notes 9.2-10.11

segment with one endpoint at the centre of a circle. So the radius

and 2FL are equal in length, but not identica1.
9.3

BK II AG by Conics II:5.

9.4

EF FA = FT2 because EF FA = FL2 and FL = !MS = !GS =

FT. Maimonides has two notes, on EF . FA = FT2 and EF: FA =
EF2: FT2, respectively (f. 33a: 20-33b: 2). The first note refers to the
"ninth proposition ", in accordance with the numbering of our text
of the Completion.

10.1

Conics II:29.

10.2

Conics 1:35. The identity DB = BH is irrelevant in the analysis, but

necessary in the synthesis (11b).

10.3

The synthesis in proposition 11 does not give a separate construction

for the case E = Z (ae = 1). However, at the end of proposition 13
the text gives a construction of the problem for the case ae = 1,
which is valid for a parabola, hyperbola and ellipse. (lOd is also true
for an arbitrary conic.)

10.4

flADH

10.5

Conics II:46. DH is the axis because AG is an ordinate (We).

10.6

A can easily be found by drawing the perpendicular GHA through G

to the axis of the parabola.

10.7

Compare Conics I: 46.

10.8

Because AH = HG (lOb) and AT II HD.

10.9

Data 44; two different shapes are possible in some cases (cf. note 11.7).

= flGDH by Elements 1:8.

10.1 0 Data 41.

10.11

Ibn al-Haytham has in fact reduced the original problem to the

problem of constructing a figure ATDGH such that AH = HG,
AT II HD, ADIDG = EIZ = ae. In the synthesis he will construct a
figure KTGLM similar to ATDGH in the analysis (T has different
meanings in the analysis and synthesis). In the synthesis GL is a
known segment, but the corresponding segment DG in the analysis
is unknown. So Ibn al-Haytham's procedure in propositions 10-11
resembles that in propositions 12-13, see 7.4.3.

Notes 11.1-12.1

339

11.1

Conics II :46.

11.2

K is a common point of the circle with centre G and radius 1 = IX' GT

(IX = E/Z) and the axis of the parabola. If a common point exists, one
can choose K inside the parabola and such that LLKT =:;; 90.
If G is the vertex (in the modern sense) of the parabola, we can
construct the desired tangent by drawing a diameter T K which is

not the axis, and by carrying out the rest of the construction in
exactly the same way.
11.3

If K is inside the parabola and L LKT =:;; 90 (as in the figure in the
edited text), GA intersects a diameter of the parabola (namely the
axis) inside the parabola. So it intersects the parabola in a point A by
Conics 1:27.
The remark that GA intersects all diameters is completely irrelevant. It was probably inserted by somebody who thought that
any straight line intersecting a diameter of the parabola either inside
or outside the parabola must also intersect the parabola itself. We
shall encounter a similar misunderstanding in 29b (note 29.3).
If K is inside the parabola such that LLKT is acute, there is a
second point K' on the axis such that GK' = 1. The corresponding
parallel GA' II LK' does not necessarily intersect the part of the axis
inside the parabola, but if K' =1= T (IX =1= 1), GA' intersects the parabola
in A' =1= G, so the problem has two solutions. It seems that Ibn
al-Haytham did not notice K' and the second solution A'D'.

11.4

Conics 1:35.

11.5

Conics 1:33.

11.6

Ibn al-Haytham has in fact proved GKML =DAHG.

11. 7

Let c be the distance between G and the axis, IX and 1as in note 11.2.
The number of solutions is 0 if 1 < c, IX =1= 1; 1 if 1 = C, IX =1= 1; 2 if
1 > c, IX =1= 1. For IX = 1, see 13x-y.

11.8

The last part of I1f (the passage "the reason is ... prove") mayor
may not be an interpolation. The magnitude of LKTG is irrelevant
in the argument. For IX > 1 there are solutions of the problem such
that A and G are on the same side of the axis; then LGTK is obtuse.
Cf. the end of note 11.3.

12.1

In the general enunciation of the prC'blem (in lOa) the given tangent
is called GD instead of BD.

340

Notes 12.2-12.8

12.2

If~ is an ellipse, AD and HB do not always meet. If AH and BH are

conjugate diameters, we have AD II BH and a. = EIZ = ADIBD =
Jdfr; a., d and r being notations ofthe summary, pp.17-18.

12.3

TH HF = HB2 because AF is tangent and AT is an ordinate to

diameter FTH (Conics 1:37).

12.4

It is not clear whether Ibn al-Haytham had the hyperbola or the

ellipse in mind in the definition of HN. For the hyperbola, KHN is
parallel to the ordinates, for the ellipse, H KN is an ordinate. In both
cases H N need only be extended on the side of H (for the definition
of 0 in 12p, if a. > 1).

12.5

(HT TF)IAT 2 = dlr is another identity proved in Conics 1:37.

12.6

In 12e, f, h Ibn al-Haytham proves that (NK . KH)IAK 2 is a known

ratio (in fact rid).
The simplified proof in Chapter 2 shows that HT HF = HB2 is
inessential. Ibn al-Haytham's proof begins as follows: Because
HT TF
AT2 =

(d)-;:

and HTHF=HB 2,

HF = HTHF = HB2
FT
HT T F
S2

'f ~ = (~)
AT2
r'

I put the actual values of "known" ratios etc. in parentheses.

The explanatory addition" since ... known" in 12e mayor may not
be an interpolation. Note that it contains the word darb (cf. 9.2).
12.7

Maimonides gives a proof of the statements: "So the ratio of NH

to AT . .. the ratio of a known square to the square of AT" (f. 33b: 2-9).
The note refers to "proposition 12," in accordance with our numbering of the propositions.

12.8

By similar triangles
HF
FT

NH
AT

so

AT

=7

= AT2'

with t 2 = (ird), because

HB

= !d.

Notes 12.8-12.10

341

But AT = HK, so

(!..)
d'

=~=

NHHK
HB2

HB2

Note that t is equal to half of the conjugate diameter

12.9

a(3.3).

12g can be summarized as follows:

NH
AT

AT2

for a "certain rectangle" p( =NH AT = t 2 ), so

HB2

NH
AT

AT 2'

Hence by permutation
HB2 _

(d)

p- AT2 - r'
S2

So p/HB 2 is known. 12g proves the same as 12f, and the "square"
in 12f (t 2 in note 12.8) is in fact equal to the" certain rectangle" (p)
in 12g. So 12g and p are completely superfluous. We further note
that the terms" a certain rectangle" (satbun rna) and" permutation"
(ibdal) are not used elsewhere in the Completion. So 12g must be an
interpolation. It is probable that a commentator, who did not
understand 12f, wrote a marginal remark on the passage. "So the
product of NH and AT is equal to the square of a known line, the
ratio of which to HB is known" in 12f. A scribe must have inserted
the remark as 12g in the main text (cf. Chapter 9).
12.10 Since
NH HK
HB2 =

(r)d

an

HB2

we have
NHHK =
THHF

(!..).
d

So if
KH

FH

HN

By similar triangles
FH
AK
HN = KN'

TH HF

=',

Notes 12.10-12.14

342

further HT = AK, so

KH

AK

U = KN

u
and AK

(r)

= d'

Hence

NKKH =~.KH = (~).

AK2
AK AK
d
12.11

In i Ibn al-Haytham defines an auxiliary segment, which will be called

(j in the subsequent notes (to avoid confusion with the latus transversum d). Ibn al-Haytham states two identities for later use (12k, n).
(j . KN = KA 2 is a direct consequence of the definition

KH
(j

KN . KH
KA2

(~)

d .

(j . HN = HB2 is proved in the synthesis (131) by the following

remark:
(j. KN KN AK TH
TH2
TH2 KA2
(jHN - HN - HF = HF = TH HF = HB2 = HB 2'
12.12 Since (KN KH)/KA 2 = KH/(j = (r/d), A is on a hyperbola or
ellipse f with latus transversum d l = HN, latus rectum segment
rl such that rdHN = (j/KH = (d/r) and angle of arrangement
LAKN = Q) = LBHN (Conics 1:21). The text does not mention
the angle of arrangement of f. The ellipse f is not drawn in the
figure in the manuscript (see p. 304). For the conjugate diameters,
= Jrddl = addl;aandd l are part of one
l we haved/a =
straight line, and d II al'
So the ellipse f is similar and similarly situated to the ellipse ~,
and the hyperbola f is similar and similarly situated to (a branch
of) the hyperbola conjugate to ~ (Conics VI: 12-13, 1:15-16, 60,
II:20).

a,a

JdTr

12.13 In 12k Ibn al-Haytham defines W such that W NK = NA2. He

proves W/NH = (X2 (120). Then 0 is defined as the point on NH
(extended, if (X> 1) such that NO = W, and it is proved that A is on
fi1 (see Chapter 2).
Ibn al-Haytham's extremely lengthy reasoning in k-o will be
paraphrased in the subsequent notes. For a much simpler proof see
Chapter 2.
W/(j = NA2/AK2 is a consequence of the definitions of Wand (j.
12.14 Because TH HF = HB2 (12b), BD II TAil NH and FH II DS II AK,
also AN NF = ND2 and KN NH = NS 2.

Notes 12.14-12.17

343

Ibn al-Haytham seems to have had a rudimentary idea of the

in variance of certain properties of collinear points under parallel
projection.
Since

ND
NF

AN
ND'

we have

AD
DF

IAN
IND

NDI
NFl

AN
ND'

therefore AN . DF = AD ND.
12.15

Because W NK = AN2 (l2k),

W
AN

AN
NK

DN
NS

FN
NH

W
AN

DF
SH'

By similar triangles
AN
NK

DF
SH

So

whence AN . DF = W SH. So by 121 AD . DN = W SH = W DB,

hence
AD
W
(oc) - DB - DN'

12.16

By 12k and similar triangles

W

NA2
AK2

ND2
DS 2 '

By 12i c5. HN = HB2 = DS 2, so W HN = ND2. Hence by 12m

ND
W
AD
HN = ND = BD = (oc).

It is curious that Ibn al-Haytham does not draw the inference

W/HN = oc 2 here.
12.17

The beginning of the text of 120 is defective, so I have conjecturally

restored the argument: Since AN . NF = ND2 (121),
DN
AN

NF
DN

344

Notes 12.17-12.20

By similar triangles
NF
HN
DN=NS' sO

DN
AN

HN
NS

DN

or HN

AN
NS'

Therefore
AN AD
NS = DB = (X).

By 121 KN NH

= NS 2, and by 12k KN W = NA 2, so
NH = KNNH = NS 2 =
W
KNW
NA2

(~)

(X2'

120 is a "detour" in the reasoning, because NH/W = 1/(X2 follows

immediately from 12n. But compare the synthesis 13n-p.
12.18 If 0 is defined as the point on NH such that NO = W, we have
KN NO = NA2 by the definition of W (12k). Therefore KN/NA =
NA/NO, so D.KNA ex> D.ANO, because the triangles have angle
N in common. Consequently OJ = LAKN = LNAO.
12.19 The assumption that NH is known in size is formally incorrect,
because the size of N H depends on the result of the construction,
that is tangent AD.
The properties LNAO = LAKN = OJ, NH/NO = NH/W =
(1/(X2), and (NK KH)/AK2 = (r/d) (12h) determine the shape of
figure ANKHOF but not its size. In the synthesis (13a-e) Ibn
al-Haytham constructs an auxiliary figure RMXLJI similar to
ANKH0 F, starting with a given segment M L (corresponding to N H).
If one wishes, one can take 12q as referring to an auxiliary figure
A'N'K'H'O'F' similar to ANKHOF but such that N'H' is known.
See 7.4.3.
12.20

Elements III:21. Ibn al-Haytham means a segment of a circle 2

through Nand 0; this segment "admits" an angle equal to LBHN
(compare 13c-d), that is to say that LNXO = LBHN for all X on
the segment (see Elements III:26-27). I have drawn 2 as a dotted
curve, because it is not drawn in the manuscript (see p. 304). If the
given conic C(I is an ellipse and A is between NH and G, we have
LNAO = LAKN = LGHN, so A is not on the segment itself,
though A is on 2. See the figure.

Notes 12.20-13.7

345

12.21

12r refers to the original figure with all original assumptions. Because
LHFN is known (from the auxiliary figure, note 12.19), AF is a
tangent making a known angle with diameter HB, so AF can be
found, as will be explained in 13e.

13.1

In 13a-e Ibn al-Haytham constructs two figures RMXLJI similar

to the two figures ANKHOF in the analysis (the figure for the hyperbola and the figure for the ellipse). Therefore he begins with "two
known lines LM". His procedure was misunderstood by an interpolator, who added "and Lt".

13.2

Lt .1 LM according to the conventions of the Conics.

13.3

LM/Lt = r/d = 1;r/HB. The ratio 1;r/HB occurs in 13b, d, h, i, k, but

the text always omits the words "half of" in the expression" (half of)
the latus rectum" (1;r). This consistent omission must be due to
somebody who deliberately "corrected" proposition 13, not to Ibn
al-Haytham, because the correct expression 1;r/HB is given in 12d.
Apparently the interpolator confused segment "HB" with the
"diameter" (i.e. the latus transversum, cf. 3.3) 2HB.

13.4

Conics 1:55, the hyperbola is $".

13.5

Conics I :57, the ellipse is $".

13.6

Elements III :33, compare note 12.20. The segment is part of !l".
MJ = (1.2 ML. See also p. 384.

13.7

This assertion is incorrect, see the appendix, p. 383. Ibn al-Haytham

may have been misled by the case where C(j is a hyperbola and (I. > 1,
compare the figure in the text and 7.2.4.

346

Notes 13.8-13.12

13.8

LMRJ is the angle "admitted" by the segment of 'p', and LRXM

is the angle of arrangement of J("'. Both angles are equal to the angle
of arrangement ill corresponding to diameter HB in ~.

13.9

The (restored) argument in 13d is as follows: Because LMRJ =

LRXM and LM is common, D,MRJ C\"J D,.MXR, so

MR
MJ

MX

= MR'

hence

MX MJ

= MR2.

(1)

So

MXML
MR2
Because R is on

J("',

ML

= MJ =

1
(1.2'

(2)

by Conics 1:21

MXXL
XR 2

ML
Lt

!r

= HB'

(3)

(2) is irrelevant, but it is the analogue of

KNNH =
NA2

(~)
(1.2

in 120. See note 13.27 for a further discussion.

13.10 The word "ordinate" is used here in an unusual way because LT is
in fact tangent to J("'. Compare 7.2.5.

13.11

Conics II:57 (hyperbola) and 59 (ellipse) in the Arabic version of the

Conics correspond to part of Conics II :51 in the Greek text, see
p.403.
The reference to the constructions in the Conics is absolutely
unnecessary. A is found in a more natural way by drawing HA such
that LNHA = LMLR. See also 7.5.1.

13.12

To prove that the construction of AF is possible, it has to be shown

that in the case of the hyperbola L LIM is greater than the angle
between BH and the nearest asymptote of~. This can be done by
drawing the conjugate diameter PP' and by completing parallelogram
VWZY as in the figure.

Notes 13.12-13.17

347

Then WYand VZ are the asymptotes of:/{"' but also of a hyperbola

If C is the centre of:/{"' we have LLIM = LIMY>
L VCP, which is equal to the angle between BH and one of the
asymptotes of~. Compare note 12.12 and Conics II:17.
~'similar to~.

13.13 See note 12.4.

13.14 "by subtraction" translates tabqa, literally: to remain. ("So angle N
remains equal to angle M".)
13.15 In 13g, h,j Ibn al-Haytham proves the similarity of ANKHOF and
RMXLJI. According to Elements VI:4 two triangles have proportional sides if the three corresponding angles are equal (equality of
two angles would already have been sufficient). This explains why
Ibn al-Haytham draws the inference LN = LM before he concludes
t::.N AK = t::.MRX and t::.NF H = t::.MI L.
13.16 "by division" translates tabqa "to remain" (LX:XR "remains
equal to" AT: TH).
13.17 Since R is on :/{" we have
MX XL

ir
HB

as already remarked in 13d (note 13.9). By Conics 1:37

ir
HB

AT2
HT TF'

=-=---

since AF is tangent and A T is an ordinate corresponding to diameter

HB. Hence
MX LX
AT AT
XR 'XR = TH'TF'

Notes 13.17-13.19

348

By similar triangles (13g)

MX
XR

ML
LI

NH
HF

LX
XR

AT
TH

AT
TF

Hence

Since AT = HK and HT = AK we have

HK
KA

13.18

LX
XR

13i is useless. But

NK KH
KA2

-!r
HE

is analogous to
NKKH
KA2

KH
(j

in 12i.
13.19 The argument in 13j continues that in 13h. Because 6.N AK
6.MRX (13g),
AK
KN

RX
XM

But
HK = LX (13h)
AK
RX
,so

HK
KN

LX
XM'

whence
KN
NH

KN

KN
HK

XM
XM LX

XM
ML'

KN
NO

XM
MJ

By definition

Ibn al-Haytham has now proved the similarity of ANKHOF and

RMXLJI.

349

Notes 13.20-13.26

13.20 Ibn al-Haytham now uses the auxiliary figure RMXLJI for the last
time. Because XM MJ = MR2 (13d) we have XM/MJ =
XM2/MR2. But

XMM
R = KNNA (13g) so KN
NO

XM
MJ

KN 2

= NA 2 '

whence KN NO = NA2.
13.21

13k is superfluous. First one defines a segment C such that HK/C =

!r/HB. Then (NK KH)/(NK C) = !r/HB, but by 13i also
(NK . KH)/AK 2 = !r/HB, so NK C = AK2. Since NK NO =
NA2 (13j) it follows that NA2/AK2 = NO/C. C (Arabic: ~ad)
corresponds to b (Arabic:4ii4) in the analysis (12i); the Arabic letters
~ad and 400 differ only by one diacritical mark.

13.22

131 is also superfluous. By similar triangles and since TH . HF = HB2

(Conics 1:37)

KN AK TH
TH2 AK2
(NK C) AK2
NH = FH = HF = HB2 = BH2 so (NH.C) = HB 2'
By 13k NK . C = AK 2, so NH C = HB2.
The result is not used elsewhere in the synthesis, but in the analysis
(12i) Ibn al-Haytham assumes the corresponding equality NH b =
BH2 without detailed proof (note 12.11). Compare note 13.27.
13.23 Compare 121.
13.24 Since

ON JM E2
NH = ML = Z2 =

2
(X

(13f),

by 13m and 13j. So AN/NS =

1
(X2

HN

HN NK

NS 2

= NO = NONK = NA2

(x.

13.25 Because ON NK = NA2 (13j), ON/NA = AN/NK = FN/NH by

similar triangles. Hence ON NH = AN NF = ND2 by 13m. So
(X2 = ON/NH = ND2/NH2.
13.26 Since

AN2
NS 2 -

ND2
- NH 2'

(X2 -

(X

AN ND
IAN NDI AD AD
= NS = NH = INS NHI = HS = BD'

as required.
If ~ is an ellipse and A is on the quadrant between HN and HG,
AD = AN + ND (see figure in note 12.20), so the term remainder
(al-baqi) is inappropriate in this case.

350

Note 13.27

13.27 The remark "God knows best", which does not occur elsewhere in
the Completion, could be taken as an indication that Ibn al-Haytham
felt uncertain about the preceding propositions 12 and 13. These
propositions are indeed peculiar in a number of respects.
The synthesis contains a superfluous reasoning in 13d, 13i, 13k, 131.
(see notes 13.9, 13.18, 13.21 and 13.22) These parts are probably not
interpolations, because of their relations with the analysis and
because they are in the style of Ibn al-Haytham (especially 131).
Apart from the superfluous parts, the synthesis is much clearer
and much more direct than the analysis. The analysis and the
synthesis are in fact based on two theorems:
(i) (NK KH)/AK2 = AT 2/(FT. TH) = rid; the easy proof in
13h, j is in contrast to the extremely intricate argument in
12d-h, leading to the conclusion that (NK KH)/AK2 is
known.
(ii) If NA2 = NO NK, then [NO/NH = 0(2 <=> AD/ED = O(].

Here the structure of the easy proof of "=>" in 13m-p bears little
resemblance to that of the much more difficult proof of "~" in
12k-p, although the same ratios and identities occur in both proofs.
In Chapter 2 I have shown that the proofs in Proposition 12 are
really much more complicated than necessary.
The intricacy of the analysis and the superfluous parts in the
synthesis are to be explained by the preliminary character of the
extant version of the Completion (see 6.5). Clearly the text was written
in some haste. Ibn al-Haytham had not yet taken the time to work
out all different cases (notes 12.2, 12.20, 13.26) nor had he made a
serious study of the diorismos (notes 13.7, 13.12, and the appendix,
pp.385-390).
It is likely that Ibn al-Haytham planned to write the final version
of his reconstruction of Conics VIII entirely in the style of 13n-p.
He elaborated this part of the proof in full detail, in the style of the
Elements of Euclid. To mention two examples.
In 130 Ibn al-Haytham says that since ON NH = AN NF =
ND 2, ON NH = ND2. This inference recalls Common Notion 1:
"Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one
another" (tr. Heath, Elements vol. 1,150).
In 13n Ibn al-Haytham argues that ON/NH = E 2/Z 2 because
ON/NH = JM/ML = E2/Z2. Compare Elements V:ll: "Ratios
which are the same with the same ratio are also the same with one
another" (tr. Heath, Elements 11,158).
The special attention for transitivity of relations in 13n-p (as well
as in other passages) is in contrast to the conciseness of passages
such as 13m, 12i, 12q-r.

Notes 13.28-13.30

351

13.28

Apparently 13q-s are intended to be part of the diorismos. In the

diorismos one should study for each value of IX = EIZ the number of
intersections of .7("' and 2'. However, 13q-s contain instructions
about how the construction should be changed in order to make sure
that the curves intersect. Thus if IX < 1 we are told to make J M the
diameter of .7("', which is in contradiction to 13b.
Ibn al-Haytham sometimes made mistakes in his investigation of
the number of intersections of curves, but he realized what the function of a diorismos is. So he is certainly not the author of 13q-s. One
wonders whether the passage was written by somebody who wrongly
interpreted the Arabic ta/J,dld (diorismos) as tajdld (reorganization,
restoration) in the same way as the scribe of the present manuscript
(cf. 12.1).

13.29

The meaning of the text seems to be as follows.

First one should make the shorter of the two lines JM, LM the
diameter of .7("'. Then LJL1 (or LLJ1) should be made an acute
angle. The" diameter which is the line from which the tangent to the
(conic) section is drawn" seems to refer to both IL and HB at the
same time, so the interpolator apparently equated RMXLJ1 with
ANKHOF.
Then LMLI (or LMJI) is obtuse, so the angle "contained" by
segment 2' is obtuse. So if PM is the tangent to 2' at M, L PML is
acute.
J

~ ~

The last statement in 13r is false. For the hyperbola as well as the
ellipse f{J, the segment of 2' may admit an obtuse angle or an acute
angle, depending on whether OJ = LNHB is obtuse or acute. In 13r
the angle" admitted" by the segment is obtuse as a consequence of
the instruction that L LJI or L J LI should be acute.
13.30 In the figure to note 29 let MQ be tangent to .7("' at M. The interpolator thought that LQML > 90. Since LPML < 90 it would
follow that part of the segment of 2' adjacent to M is inside .7("'.
But the other end of the segment is outside .7("', so.7("' and the segment
would intersect.
In fact PM I L1 (or PM II JI) because LML1 (or LMJ1) is the
angle "admitted" by the segment, and QM II LI (or QM II J I)
because L1 (or J1) is tangent to .7("'. So PM and QM coincide.

352

13.31

Notes 13.31-13.33

t-w in their present form were interpolated or at least rewritten by

the person who interpolated q-s. However, t-w may be a revision
of an argument for the case that C(j is an ellipse and (X > 1 (J M > LM),
an argument which somehow goes back to Ibn al-Haytham. After
finishing proposition 13, Ibn al-Haytham may have realized that the
ellipse requires a diorismos, and he may have added a draft diorismos
for the case (l) = 90 and (X > 1 on a separate sheet. The interpolator
must have revised this diorismos before including it in the text.
My reason for suggesting this hypothesis is the resemblance
between the mistakes in 13t-wand propositions 22 and 23. The
argument in t-v may be clarified by the following figures. P1Ql and
ML (or MJ) are the major and minor axis of the ellipse f', and
P2 Q2 is a chord of the circle !l" of which the segment forms part, such
that LQ1MPl = LQ2MP2'

131

13u

r-==-----=L.:...::/J~-+~M

13v

13'!Y

13.32 The writer compares the "first circle" (!l" in the figure for u) with
other circles, such as the dotted circle in the figure for u.
13.33 This is wrong. f ' may intersect !l" in two points; one between P 1
and M and one between Ql and M. Compare the appendix p. 389.

Notes 13.34-15.1

353

13.34

This solution for rx = 1 is also valid for the parabola. It corresponds

to the analysis in lOd.
Ibn al-Haytham should have referred either to Conics III: 30
or to the converse of Conics III: 29. The reference to the converse
of Conics III: 30 is inappropriate.

14.1

Let r be the latus rectum of the parabola, corresponding to

the axis, and let s be the subnormal DT. Then by Conics I: 11 BT2 =
r . A T, but also BT2 = s . T H = 2s . A T, so s = tr. s = tr is also a
direct consequence of Conics V:8.
s = tr was already used before Apollonius by Archimedes in On
Floating Bodies II: 2,4 (see tr. Ver Eecke 11,424, note 4, 428, note 4) and
by Diocles in On Burning Mirrors (ed. Toomer, p. 46, 41 and pp.
150-151 , note). Archimedes and Diocles refer to s = tr without
proof, so it is likely th~t s = tr was already proved in earlier treatises
on conics by Euclid and Aristaeus, now lost (Heath HGM 11,116-117,
124).

14.2

Data 59. x = HT is the positive root of the equation x(x

HB2.

14.3

Conics 11:51 in the Arabic version is the part of Conics 11:49 in the
Greek in which it is shown how to draw a tangent through a given
point to a given parabola. The reference in 14c is not really necessary
because B can be found as a point of intersection of the parabola
and the perpendicular through the known point T to the axis.
Compare p. 82 and 7.5.1.

15.1

In Elements VI:28-29 Euclid shows how one can "apply" to a given

straight line PQ a parallelogram (P RST) of given area c, "exceeding"
or "deficient" by a parallelogram (RQUS) similar to a given
parallelogram (K).

I II

u
K

Q.

II

[]

+ DT) =

Notes 15.1-16.5

354

In these propositions Euclid gives in fact a geometrical construction

of the quadratic equation yax yx2 = c, with x = QR, a = PQ, Y
the ratio between altitude and base of K. In the Completion Ibn
al-Haytham only applied Elements VI:28-29 in the case where K
is a square (y = 1, x = QR = QU). In 15a x = NK, PQ = MK.
15.2

See note 14.3.

15.3

Conics 1:35.

15.4

Conics 1:11; DT = MK = tKL =

15.5

15c-d resembles Conics V:27. There Apollonius proves that if

BT .1 DH, DT = tr and BH is tangent, then DB .1 BH.

16.1

Compare 3e. In the notations of the summary (pp. 21-23) M

(rd/2(d r),O).

16.2

Ibn al-Haytham seems to refer to 3c or 6e, but TE/EA = AE/EH is

proved in Conics 1:37.

16.3

By similar triangles KA/BH = AE/EH, so KA EH = AE BH =

tdw. TE EH = AE2 = !d 2 , so KA/TE = (KA EH)/(TE EH) =
2w/d.

16.4

By Conics VII:2-3, (ML LA)/KA 2 = ME/EA (note 3.6), hence

(ML LA)/TE 2 = ME/I for I such that

tr.

I
TE2
d2
EA = KA2 = 4w 2 '

So
MLLA
4w 2
d
TE2 =(j2'd

or, if T = (YI

+ td, 0), L

= (Xl'

r'

0) as in Chapter 2, p. 23,

(+XI + 2(dr~ r)(+X

I)

d(;~ r)' YI

Substituting Y for YI and X for Xl one obtains the equation of Jf.

If C(j is an ellipse and d < r, Jft' is also an ellipse.
16.5

The reference is to 6e. LE EA = ET2 is (td - xl)td = YI in the

notations of Chapter 2. Substituting x, Y for Xl' YI we obtain the
equation of &J.

Notes 16.6-17.6

16.6

355

16e is superfluous. In fact

ML.LA
LE . EA

---=

4w 2
=c
d(d r)

or

rd)
I
I
( Xl +
2(d r) Xl = c(z;d - xI)td.

So Xl appears to be the root of a quadratic equation. Hence the

problem can be constructed by means of ruler and compass. However, some further manipulation of rectangles and proportions is
necessary to show that L can be found by Elements VI:2S-29 (note
15.1). There is no evidence that Ibn al-Haytham was aware of the
relation between 16e and a ruler-and-compass construction.
Apollonius would have solved the problem by means of 16e, compare
note 21.13.
16.7

One would expect 16f to be as follows: Erect a perpendicular LN =

ET. Then LN 2 = ET2 = LE EA, so N is on &> (Conics 1:11); since
(ML LA)/LN2 is known (16d), N is on a hyperbola .Tf with vertex
A, transverse axis AM and known latus rectum. However, 16f is
phrased as if it belonged to the synthesis. See 7.4.2 for a discussion
of possible reasons and a similar passage in Ibn al-Haytham's On
the Construction of the Heptagon. The latus rectum rd 2/Sw 2 of .Tf is
correctly specified in 16f.

16.S

The explanatory remark "For we cut off ... position" in 16g may
or may not be an interpolation. Compare the similar passages
3h, 6i, which do not contain a corresponding explanatory remark.

16.9

Conics II:49.

17.1

The manuscript has axis (sahm), which I have emended to line (khaft).

17.2

Conics 1:54. 0 = rd 2/Sw 2 .Tf is not drawn in the figure for the ellipse
CfJ

(compare p. 306).

17.3

Conics I :52. "What is adjacent to it (EA) " is the rectilinear extension

of EA. Compare the similar terminology in Ibn al-Haytham's
Sharh al-Mu~addarat (Sude, p. 51, line 4 of the Arabic text).

17.4

F is inside the ellipse because L is between A and E. So we can draw

an ordinate FG meeting the given conic CfJ in G.

17.5

By Conics II :49, or by drawing BH parallel to AG.

17.6

By Conics I: 11, LE EA = N 13. LE EA = ET2 can be proven as

in 6e, using BHIIAG (compare notes 6.4, 7.S). So NL = ET.

356

17.7

Notes 17.7-18.1

Because N is on Yt' and ET

= LN,

MLLA
ET2

MA

=0

ME w2
EA 'EA 2'

(Conics 1:21). By Conics VII:2-3 (as in note 3.6)

MLLA
AK2

ME
EA

so

MLLA
ME AK2
ET2 = EA' ET 2 '

Thus by division of ratios

w2
AK2
EA2 = ET2
17.8

w
so EA

AK
ET

By 17g,
AKEH
TEEH

AK
ET

w
H'

AK EH = BH AE can be proven as in 16c. By Conics 1:37

TEEH = EA2. So

w
AE

AKEH
TEEH

BHAE
BH
=
AE2
AE'

whence w = BH, as required.

17.9

On the meaning of diorismos here see 7.6.1.

17.10 The remark "before it approaches its asymptote" is meaningless

because the hyperbola approaches its asymptote continuously. I
have not found a similar expression anywhere else in the Completion
or in the other works of Ibn al-Haytham which I have seen. So the
remark is probably an interpolation.
17.11

On one side of the axis common to

f!jJ

and .Yt.

17.12 On one side of the axis of rtl. For the ellipse rtl there are in fact four
solutions (one tangent to each quadrant).

18.1

H is understood to be on the axis, not between D and E. Ibn

al-Haytham assumes T i= K; if T = K, H is undefined. The text
does not contain a construction for T = K, but 19j is a diorismos for
this case.

Notes 18.2-19.4

357

18.2

Compare 8c-d and the corresponding notes. The assumption in 18a

that D and E are on the axis of ((j simplifies the diorismos, but is
inessential in the construction itself.
The manuscript has a set of five figures for proposition 18 and
repeats the same set for proposition 19. The five figures correspond
to different positions for E and D to be discussed in the diorismos
19d-j. I render the five figures only once. Compare the photographic
reproductions on p. 307.

19.1

If T # K there are always two points H such that DH:HE = T2:K2.

Ibn al-Haytham chooses the point which is not between D and E.
The text does not contain a construction for the trivial case T = K,
but the diorismos for this case is discussed in 19j (see note 19.16).

19.2

The circle and the conic do not always intersect, see 19d-i.

19.3

Compare 9d-f.

19.4

19d-i contains a diorismos of the problem for T # K. The texts

distinguishes the following five cases:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)

E is vertex, D is outside the conic (19d);

E is vertex, D is inside the conic (1ge);
D and E are both outside the conic, on the same side (19f-g);
D and E are both inside the conic (19h);
D is outside the conic, E is inside the conic (19i).

(For the sake of completeness one would have to add two more
cases:
(vi) D and E are the vertices of the ellipse;
(vii) D and E are outside the ellipse, on different sides.)
The text discusses in the cases 3-5 the situation for T > K (BD > BE,
E inside the circle) and for T < K (D inside the circle). In the first two
cases only T > K is treated. Deviations in the terminology (see notes
19.5, 19.6, 19.11) show that 19d-i in the present form cannot be due
to Ibn al-Haytham. However; the writer of 19d-i probably did not
invent all the arguments himself, but rather remodelled an already
existing diorismos; for example in case (v) he interchanged the
diorismoi for T> K and T < K (note 19.15). Ibn al-Haytham
probably wrote a schematic and preliminary diorismos to proposition 19; this diorismos was then rewritten and "corrected" by the
above-mentioned writer.
It is likely that the preliminary diorismos written by Ibn
al-Haytham already contained the division into five cases, because
a similar division is made in the diorismos in 21d-f, which is not an

358

Notes 19.4-19.10

interpolation, and in Book V of the Optics (in V:86 in the Risner

edition, p. 180).
The diorismos in the most general form is that HM should not
be less than the" shortest line" drawn from H to the conic. This line
can be constructed by Conics V for any position of H.
19.5

"Antecedent" translates al-muqaddam. AI-muqaddam and aI-tall are

the standard terms for the antecedent a and the consequent b of a
ratio a:b (See for example AI-Birunl, the Book of Instruction in the
Elements of the Art of Astrology, tf. R. Ramsay Wright, p. 12, no. 42).
Here the antecedent is BD in the ratio BD:BE. In the Completion the
word antecedent occurs only in 19d-i.

19.6

"is adjacent to the exterior of the (conic) section" translates yall

kharija l-qi( The text says in an awkward way that BD is outside the
conic; Ibn al-Haytham would probably have used (fl) khariji l-qi('
"outside the (conic) section".
It seems that the person who wrote 16d-i conceived a conic section
as a curve having two sides, the exterior side (which he called "the
exterior") and the interior side (which he called "interior"). Thus
what Ibn al-Haytham would call the interior of a conic this person
would call the part of the plane" adjacent to the interior of the conic".
I do not know other instances of this conception of a conic in Arabic
geometry.

19.7

The writer does not mention that the problem has no solution if
T<K.

19.8

The writer assumes T> K. For T < K see the general diorismos in
note 19.4.

19.9

The writer assumes T> K.

His condition DE/EA ~ T/K is sufficient but not necessary. The
circle intersects the axis in J such that DJ/EJ = T/K, so the circle
and the conic meet if and only if T/K ~ DA/EA. If T/K < DA/EA,
the problem has two solutions symmetrical with respect to axis EA.
If T /K = DA/EA, the circle is tangent to the conic at A, but Ibn
al-Haytham would not consider DA, EA to be solutions to his
problem, since these segments have more than one common point
(compare note 21.10).
It is likely that Ibn al-Haytham in his preliminary diorismos stated
the condition DA/EA > T/K without proof. The condition must
have been changed by the "corrector" who was only able to prove
that the stronger condition DE/EA ~ T/K is sufficient.

19.10 H may also be inside or on the conic if DE/EA < T/K.

359

Notes 19.11-20.1

19.11

The text erroneously uses the term antecedent (in a ratio) in the
sense of the greater term (in that ratio). "If the antecedent in the
ratio is adjacent to point D" means if BD > BE, that is to say, if
T> K. "If the antecedent ... is adjacent to point E" means if
BE > BD, that is to say, if K > T. These mistakes in the terminology
show once more that Ibn al-Haytham cannot be the author of the
present text of 19d-i.

19.12 IfDE/EA ~ T/K,DH/HA > T/KbecauseDH > DE and HA <EA.

DH/HM = T/K because
DH2
DH2
DH T2
HM2 = DH .HE = HE = K2

by 19a.

19.13 This should be: HM is not less than the shortest line drawn from H
to the conic.
19.14 This remark is meaningless, because the antecedent BD as well as the
consequent BE are inside the conic.
19.15 The writer used "antecedent" in the sense of "greater term", in the
way of 199. The meaning of the text seems to be as follows.
If BD > BE (that is, T> K), the diorismos is HA < HM.
If BD < BE (T < K), the diorismos is: HM is not less than the
shortest line drawn from H to the conic.

".

E
T< K

The writer interchanged the diorismos for T > K and T < K (see
the figures), so it is likely that he found the correct diorismoi in the
original text of Ibn al-Haytham.
If H is inside the conic, the shortest line from H to the conic can
be constructed by means of Conics V:4-11.

19.16 B is on the perpendicular to the axis through the midpoint of DE.

20.1

I have emended aqallu (less) in the manuscript to mithla (equal).

360

Notes 20.2-21.7

20.2

K is found by Elements 1:45. T K is supposed to be perpendicular to

KH, because TK and KH are the latus transversum and the corresponding latus rectum of the ellipse.

20.3

Conics III:52 proves XD + XE = Z for every point X on the ellipse,

so Ibn al-Haytham uses the converse of this proposition.
D and E are the foci of the ellipse 8. Apollonius and Ibn
al-Haytham did not use the term focus, which was introduced by
Kepler in 1604 (Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena IV,4 = Werke II,91).
Many focal properties of conics were already known in antiquity
(compare Heath HGM II,119-121, 156-157).

20.4

The assumption (in 20a) that D and E are on the axis of the given
conic is inessential in the analysis and synthesis, but simplifies the
diorismos. If D and E are on the axis the problem can be constructed
by means of ruler and compass (note 21.13), but there is no evidence
that Ibn al-Haytham knew a solution by means of ruler and compass
or was looking for such a solution (cf. 7.5.3).

21.1

Ibn al-Haytham attaches two segments DT and EH at D and E;

DT = EH = i(Z - DE).

21.2

The other endpoints of the halves.

21.3

Conics 1:56.

21.4

The diorismos consists of 21d-f, 22 and 23. In 21d-f the text distinguishes between five different positions of the points D and E with
respect to the given conic. These five cases are the same as the five
cases in 19d-i, but they are given in another order (my remarks in
note 19.4 on two additional cases are also relevant here).
The manuscript contains two identical sets of five figures corresponding to the five cases. Apparently the two sets are figures for
proposition 20 and for proposition 21. I have rendered them only
once.
The first four cases are quickly dealt with in 21d-e. The fifth case
is divided into an easy subcase, to be investigated in 21f and a more
difficult subcase, to be treated in the separate propositions 22 and 23.

21.5

Z = DB

21.6

First figure (p. 238).

21.7

Second figure (p. 238).

+ BE > DE by Elements 1:20.

361

Notes 21.8-21.13

21.8

Third figure (p. 240).

21.9

Fourth figure (p. 240).

21.10 If EG = !(Z - DE), the given conic re and the ellipse G are tangent
at G. Then GE + GD = Z, but GE and GD have more than one
common point, so they are not a solution of the problem. Ibn
al-Haytham says that G is entirely outside re, because he believed
that two tangent conics do not have a common point (see 7.6.2).
21.11

Fifth figure (p. 240). The case DG, EG ~ !(Z - DE) will be treated
in propositions 22, 23.

21.12 Ibn al-Haytham had the parabola and the hyperbola in mind. If re
is an ellipse, Hand T may be outside re; then re and G mayor may
not have common points.
21.13 Apollonius would probably have solved the problem somehow as
follows.
In the figure to proposition 21 draw a perpendicular BP onto the
axis. Let tJ be the major axis of G, p the corresponding latus rectum;
let r be the latus rectum of re corresponding to axis DE. Then, since
B is on G,
Bp 2
HpPT

If

b'

re is a parabola,
Bp 2 = rPA

so

rPA
p
HP.PT = b'

If re is a hyperbola or ellipse with latus transversum d = AA',

Bp 2
r
PA . PA' = d so

P A . PA'
dp
HP . PT = tJr'

(Thus the construction of P is seen to be equivalent to the solution

of a quadratic equation.)
According to Pappus (Collection VII, ed. Hultsch 642-644)
Apollonius wrote On Determinate Section, now lost, on problems as
follows:
Given: Three collinear points A, B, C on a line 1, a segment sand
a ratio A. To construct P on 1 such that (AP . s)/(BP . CP) = A.
Given: Four collinear points A, B, C, D on a line 1, and a ratio A.
To construct P on 1such that (AP PB)/(CP PD) = A.

Notes 21.13-22.6

362

From the information given by Pappus we gather that Apollonius

constructed P by means of ruler and compass, and that he discussed
the diorismos at length.
In the Conics, Apollonius did not introduce conics as a means of
construction unless absolutely necessary (compare Conics V:44,52).
So it seems to me that he would have treated the problem in propositions 20-21 in the way of his On Determinate Section.
22.1

In the notations of Chapter 2 (p. 24) and note 21.13, (-!-b) 2 j(M A . r) ~
bjp.

22.2

The vertex of the given conic rtJ is called G in propositions 20, 21,
but A in propositions 22, 23.

22.3

M is the centre of $.15 = HT, p = TK, N is supposed to be on HK.

The condition in b is HM 2j(MA W) ~ HTjKT.

22.4

If
HM2

HT
KT'

MAW

then
HM2
MAW

HT
KT

HM

HMMT

HM2

MN

MNMT

MNMT'

--

so MA W = MN MT. The manuscript has only one figure for

proposition 22, apparently for the case HM 2j(MA. W) > HTjKT.
I add a figure for HM2j(MA . W) = HTjKT. See 7.5.1.
22.5

If M M 1 is the ordinate through M to the ellipse, by Conics I: 13

(MM 1 )2 = MN MT. In Greek terminology MN MT is the rectangle" applied" to the latus rectum T K, with width abscissa MT,
and "falling short" by a rectangle similar to the rectangle HTK
contained by the latus transversum HT and the latus rectum TK
(compare p. 34 and Fig. 26). If MM2 is the ordinate in the parabola
rtJ, by Conics 1:11 MM~ = MA W. So by 22d, MMl = MM2 or
Ml = M2 = M' in Chapter 2, p. 24.

22.6

If
HM2
HT
MA W > TK

and

A
MA W

HT
TK'

then A < HM2, so we can construct 0 between Hand T such that

H 0 . 0 T = A (Elements VI :28). A should be considered as a rectangle.
See the end of note 22.10.

363

Notes 22.7-22.12

22.7

F is on HK.

22.8

The product FOT (4arb FOT) instead of the product of FO and OT

(4arb FO fi OT) is very unusual in Arabic, but the first expression
resembles the Greek way of designating rectangles. For example,
Apollonius renders the product of two segments ZA and AH as 'to
uno ZAH, the (rectangle contained) by ZA and AH. (Example taken
from Conics 1:20, ed. Heiberg 1,72 :22; the Arabic version translates
this as sat/.! ZAfi AH, the rectangle ZA by AH, compare also note 1
to Chapter 7).
Various explanations are possible: the two instances of the product
FOT in 22g could be scribal errors; Ibn al-Haytham, who knew
Greek (Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham's Weg zur Physik, 15) could have
been engaged in reading mathematical works in Greek at the time
that he wrote 22g; etcetera.

22.9

Since
HOOT
HT
HO
HOOT
MA. W = TK = OF = FO. OT' also

MA W = FO OT.

But MA > OA, so FO . OT > OA W.

22.10 If 00 1, OOz are the ordinates through 0 to 8 and C(j, respectively, by
Conics 1:13 OOr = FO OT (see note 22.5) and by Conics 1:11
OO~ = OA W. So by 22g OOz < 00 1, So C(j passes through Oz,
which is inside tI.
o is in fact unnecessary in the proof that C(j and 8 intersect. If
HMz/(MA W) > HT/TK, one can prove MN MT > MA W by
the method of 22d. MM z < MM1 then follows. Ibn al-Haytham
probably introduced 0 because 00 1 = MM z (which is easily
proved).
22.11

This point 0 is not the same as point 0 in 22f-h. It is the same as

o in Chapter 2, p. 24.

22.12 Since
AM MO

AM

= MT2, we have MO

so by conversion
AM
MT2
AM - MO - MT2 - MO z

MT z

= M0 2 '

Notes 22.12-23.3

364

(Elements V:14,19, cf. 7.2.6). M bisects HT, so by Elements II :5,

MT2 = M0 2 + HOOT. So
AM HMMT
=
AO
HOOT

22.13 If MM 1, 001 are ordinates to 8 and MM 2 , 00 2 are ordinates to

~, by Conics 1:20,21

MMi

HMMT
OOi = HOOT'

MM~
OO~

AM
AO'

By 22j and because M M 1 = M M 2 it follows that 01 = O2 ,

If DA = t(Z - DE) (22a) we have 0 = A = T.
22.14 The correct diorismos can be derived in various ways, for example,
by proving that in the limiting case ~ and 8 are tangent at a point
P', whose projection P on the axis satisfies (AM + AP) MP = MT2
(Conics I: 35,37, cf. p. 35; see also note 21.13). The correct diorismos
is MA ~ (j/4)(r/p + p/r) in the notations of Chapter 2, p. 24. Ibn
al-Haytham gives a condition equivalent to MA ~ (jp/4r.

23.1

H K and A Ware perpendicular to the axis. N is supposed to be on

HK. The condition in 23a is
HM2
HT WA ( SA)
MA . MR ~ T K . AR = AR

or

If this condition is satisfied, we have rid . MR ~ !p, because MA ~

!(j. So MC ~ MN. Thus it is not necessary to "extend" MN as in
the text in 23b. C is between M and N in the figure in the manuscript
(see p. 308).

23.2

Ibn al-Haytham does not attempt to prove that the problem has no
solution if
HM2
SA
AMMR < AR'

See 7.6.2.
23.3

Assume
HM2
SA
MAMR = AR'

Notes 23.3-23.5

Because HM

365

= MT we have
HM2
HMMT NMMT
MAMR = NMMT MAMR

By similar triangles
HMMT
NMMT
Hence
SA
SA NMMT
- = - . - - - - so
AR AW MAMR

HM
NM

HT
TK

NMMT
MAMR

SA
AW'
AW
AR

CM
MR

CMMA
MAMR

by similar triangles. Therefore NM MT = CM MA.

23.4

If M M 1, M M 2 are ordinates to ~ and ~, respectively,

MMi = MN .MT(ConicsI:13,seenote22.5)andMM~ = CM MA
(Conics I: 12). CM . M A is the rectangle" applied to" the latus rectum
A W, with width M A and" exceeding" by a rectangle similar to the
rectangle contained by the latus rectum A Wand the latus transversum
AR, compare p. 34 and Fig. 25.
By 23d, MM1 = MM 2 , so ~ and ~ meet at M1 = M2 = M'.

23.5

If
HM2
SA
-M-A--M-R- > -A-R'

one can construct 0 on HT such that

HOOT
AMMR

SA
AR

(note 22.6, see also note 23.9).

The manuscript has only one figure, which seems to be a mixture
of a figure for
HM2

SA

MAMR

AR

and a figure for

HM2

SA

MAMR

AR

--->(cf. p. 308). I have drawn separate figures for the two cases.

366

Notes 23.6-23.11

23.6

F is on HK.

23.7

d is the point of intersection of FO and WR. I shall not use point d

and latus transversum d in the same formula.

23.8

By similar triangles
HOOT HO HT
SA
and
FOOT - FO - TK - AW

AW dO
AR - OR'

-:=-=-----=:c= -

so
HOOT HOOT FOOT
SA FOOT
OAOR = FOOT OAOR = AWOAOR
Since
HOOT
SA
OAOR > AR'

FOOT AW
OA.OR> AR

dO

dOOA

= OR = OAOR

So FO . OT > dO OA.
23.9

If 00 1 and 00 2 are ordinates to tffand ~,respectively, OOr = FO OT

(Conics 1:13, cf. note 22.5) and OO~ = dO OA (Conics 1:12, cf. note
23.4). So by 23g 00 1 > 00 2 ,
o is again unnecessary in the proof that tff and ~ intersect, because
one can also prove MMI > MM2 by the method of 23d (compare
note 22.10). We have again MM2 = 00 1 ,

23.10

0 is not the same point as in 23g-h, but it is the same as 0 in 22j-m

and 0 in Chapter 2, p. 24. See figure on p. 250. Because
TM
MO

AM
MT'

h v AT = AM - TM _ AM
we a e TO
MT - MO - MT'

So OT/T A = MT/AM. Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes A =F T. If

A = T, 0 coincides with A and T.
23.11

Ibn al-Haytham defines I on OA such that OI/IA = SA/AR, for the

purpose of drawing ordinates I lIto tff and I I 2 to ~. Before defining
I he says
TM
TM2
SA
MA > MAMR = AR'
This apparently superfluous inequality is part of a proof which Ibn
al-Haytham did not write out completely:

367

Notes 23.11-23.16

Since
OT
TA

TM

= MA >

SA
AR

01

= lA'

we have T A < lA, so I is between 0 and T. Therefore we can draw II l'

23.12

From the definition of 0 we have OM/MT = MT/AM. So

OM
MR

OM MT
MT MR

-=-.-=

MT2
AMMR

SA
AR

by hypothesis (23i). So
01
IA

SA
AR

OM
MR

-=-=-

23.13

Ibn al-Haytham chooses t on MH such that Mt = IA. Then

1M = 01
Rt
IA

+ OM =
+ RM

1M2

SA

TM2

IMRt

AR

AMMR

SA b 23k.
AR Y

So

23.14

AMMR

= fA MR + Mf MR
= IA IR + fA MI + MI MR

= IA IR + MI(IA + MR)
+ 1M Rt.

= IA IR

23.15

By Elements 11:5, TM2 = 1M2

of HT. So by 231
HMMT
AMMR

+ HI IT, because M is the midpoint

TM2

1M2

AMMR

IMRt

TM2-IM2

HI.IT

AM MR - 1M Rt

AI IR

--------------=

The ingenious manipulation of proportions and products of segments (rectangles), the conciseness of the argument in 23j-m, the
direct representation of squares of ordinates of a conic as a rectangle
(by Conics I :12,13) in 22e, h, 23e, h, and the expression the product
FOT in 22g are reminiscent of the style of Greek geometry. Among
the propositions in the Completion propositions 22 and 23 are
perhaps the most Greek in style.
23.16

HMMT
HI IT

and

MM~

II~ -

AMMR
AI IR

by Conics 1:21,

368

Notes 23.16-24.3

so by 23m and 23e, III = Il 2 , SO rri and S meet at 11 = 12 , That

rri and S intersect in two points on each side of the axis can also be
proved by an argument involving the tangents to rri and S at the
endpoint M' of the minor axis of S. This proof is easier than the proof
in the text, because the explicit construction of I is thus avoided. See
also 7.6.2.
23.17 For the ellipse one assumes AD ~ 1(Z - DE) and ER ~ 1(Z - DE).
The discussion is the same, so it will be sufficient to add the figures
(drawn for ER ~ AD).

23.18

The correct diorismos can be found in various ways, for example by

proving that in the limiting case rc and 8 are tangent at a point P',
whose perpendicular projection P on the axis satisfies PX/PM =
dp//Jr (using Conics I :37). Here X denotes the centre of rri.
For the hyperbola the correct diorismos is

AM RM

~ !(d

+d/J(~ +~)).

The condition given by Ibn al-Haytham is equivalent to AM . RM

!(d/Jp/r).

24.1

The same problem is treated in Halley's reconstruction of Conics

VIII (in propositions 27 and 28 in Conics, ed. Halley, 163-164, see
4.3). Halley gives a simple solution suggested by Conics VII:18
(3.3).

24.2

By Elements 11:14 one can construct a square equal to a given

rectangle. EZ 2 = c in the notations of Chapter 2, p. 25.

24.3

For the conjugate diameter (O'u~uy,,~ BtaJ.1E't'po~) Apollonius also

uses the terms erect diameter (qutr qii'im op9iex BtaJ.1E't'po~) and

Notes 24.3-25.4

369

second diameter (qutr than in, OEU'tEPex OtcXJlE't'PO~) (Compare Conics

111:28; 11:37; I, third definition after proposition 16; ed. Heiberg
380:21,254:7,66:25). Strictly speaking, EZ is a segment equal to the
conjugate diameter, not the conjugate diameter itself.
24.4

Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes that ro = AT < AD = do. Constructions for ro > do and ro = do will be given in 25f-i. If ro < do,

AD DT = AD2 - AD AT = d5 - do . ro = d5 - a5
(second definition after Conics 1:16).
24.5

Since BF is the required diameter d and FN = r, we have BF FN =

c = EZ 2 by assumption. Because do > ro and a5 = do' ro, do > o,
so by Conics VII :21, d > whence d > r. So N is between B and F.

a,

BF BN = BF2 - BF FN
= d 2 - dr
= d2 _ 2

24.6

d5 - a5
= ADDT
= EL2
=

by Conics VII:13 and the definition of Lin 24c. So BF2 = BF BN

+ BF FN = EL 2 + Ez 2 = LZ 2 (Elements 1:47). It is essential
that N is between Band F.
24.7

B is a point of intersection of the hyperbola and the circle with centre

H and radius !LZ.

25.1

The circle and the hyperbola do not always intersect, see the diorismos
in 25e.

25.2

Put FB = d. FBBN = EL2 = ADDT= d5 -a5 = d2 _a 2 = d2 -dr,

but FB BN = d2 - d FN, so FN = r. do> Jo and d > J are consequences ofthe tacit assumption do > roo

25.3

If EZ = o , the circle and the hyperbola are tangent at A and

do' ro = c. Apparently Ibn al-Haytham did not consider the "axis"
do as a proper solution of the problem, because he was looking for a
"diameter". Compare 25f: "every diameter is longer than the axis".

25.4

If do < ro, then do < o because a5 = do' roo Hence by Conics

VII :22 d <
So d < r. My emendation of 25f is inspired by the
beginning of 25i.

a.

Notes 25.4-25.9

370

Since d > do, also a> ao because a 2 - d2 = a5 - d5 (Conics

VII:13). The diorismos EZ > ao (or c > doro) is also a direct consequence of Conics VII :42, a proposition in which Apollonius proves
that for a hyperbola d r > do' ro for any d =F do.
25.5

We have EZ 2 - AD DT > d5 - (d5 - d~) = d~, so by Elements

II:14 one can construct a square Z02 equal to the rectilinear area
EZ 2 - AD DT, and ZO > do.
If MZ ZO = ZE 2,
MZ EZ 2
EZ 2
ZO = Z02 = EZ 2 _ AD.DT

MZ
EZ 2
=
so MO ADDT

Therefore
EZ 2
MZZO
=
ADDT MOZO

EZ 2
MOZO

so

MOZO = ADDT.

Put ZO = d, then MO d = d5 - d5 = d 2 - d2 = d(r - d). So

ZM = MO + ZO = r. The figure in the manuscript is a mixture of a
figure for ro < do (25a-e) and ro > do (25f-g). I have drawn two
separate figures; compare with p. 309.
The difference between the discussions for ro < do and ro > do is
in the construction of dZ If ro < do, BF = d is constructed as a
hypotenuse in a right-angled triangle, and the proof is based on
d2 = (d~ - d~) + d2
If ro > do, Zo = d is constructed directly as the side ofthe square
equal in area to the rectilinear area dZ - (d~ - d5).
25.6

25h is probably an interpolation because the diorismos has already

been mentioned in 25f in the more elegant form ZE > do.

25.7

If do = ro, also do = do, so by Conics VII:23 d = d, whence d = r;

so dr = EZ 2 if and only if d = r = EZ. The diorismos is
EZ > do = do.
The passage in brackets is an interpolation made by somebody
who had the problem in propositions 2,6-27 in mind: to construct d
such that d + r is equal to a given segment.

25.8

"notion" translates macnii, compare note 0.3.

25.9

For the ellipse we have by Conics VII:12 dZ + dZ = d~ + d~. So if

dr = c, dZ = c and dZ = d~ + d~ - c.
From a modern point of view the problem concerning the ellipse
is no more easy than the problem concerning the hyperbola.

Notes 25.9-27.3

371

The diorismos in 25k seems to be an interpolation because the

text refers to a line EZ which is not mentioned in the solution in
25j. Ibn al-Haytham would have referred to the known rectangle, if
he would have mentioned the diorismos (compare 27k). The interpolated diorismos is incomplete: line EZ should also be shorter
than the major axis. The complete diorismos is an immediate
consequence of Conics VII:43.
26.1

Halley solves the same problem in his reconstruction of Conics VIII

(propositions 25, 26 in Conics, ed. Halley, 160-163). His solution is
based on Conics VII:17,38-41 (compare 3.3).

26.2

The analysis is valid for ro =F do, but the figure is drawn for the case
ro < do. Put BT = d, TK = r, then BK = d + r = c = EZ.
If L is on TB(ro < do) or TBextended (ro > do) such that TL = r,
BT T L = dr = 2, so

BTBL = IBT2 - BT TLI = Id 2 -

a21=

Id~ -

aH

Choose M on BT (ro > do) or BT extended (ro < do) such that
BM = BL. We have KM = KL LM = 2TL 2LB = 2TB=2d,
so KM BM = 2TBBL = 21d~ - a~l.
26.3

KM . BM = KB BM BM2. Since KM BM = 21d~ - a~ I and

KB = c, BM is known by Data 58,59. In the notations of Chapter 2,
p. 26, BM = Ixl.

27.1

In 27b-f Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes ro < do. Separate discussions for ro > do and ro = do follow in 27g-h. The figure in the
manuscript is a mixture of a figure for ro < do and another figure for
ro > do. I have drawn two separate figures; compare with p. 309.

27.2

Elements VI:29 (note 15.1). K is supposed to be on EZ extended.

ZK = x in the notations of Chapter 2, p. 26.

27.3

Ibn al-Haytham correctly states the diorismos EZ > do + ro in 27f,

but he does not prove that the circle intersects the hyperbola if this
condition is satisfied. The proof can be given as follows: If
EZ > do + ro = 2AD - DT and EK ;s; 2AD,
2AD DT = EK (EK - EZ) < 2AD DT,
which is a contradiction. So if EZ > 2AD - DT, also
HM = !EK > !AD = HA.

372

Notes 27.4-27.10

27.4

F is on BH extended. Ibn al-Haytham means that BF is equal to the

diameter d = 2HB plus the corresponding latus rectum r.

27.5

BN = ZK is "cut off" from HB extended (25b). Then

FN = FB

+ BN = EZ + ZK = EK.

Then HC = HB is cut off from BH extended, so BC = d. L is defined

to be the point on NB extended such that BL = BN. Ibn al-Haytham
tacitly assumes that C is between Band F and that L is between B
and C. These assumptions are true if EZ > KZ.
If do> ro and the diorismos EZ ;::: do + ro is satisfied, we have
EZ > KZ, because otherwise

2(do + ro)2 ~ 2EZ 2 ~ EK KZ

= 2(d~

- doro).

We have LC = BC - BL = !EK - !LN = !(FN - LN)= !FL, so

LC = CF. Further

d . BL = BC . BL = !F N . BN = !EK . ZK = AD DT.
27.6

By 27d
d CL =

2,

d . BL = do(d o - ro) = d~ - a~ = d 2 - a2 , whence

so CL = r. Since CL = CF, BF = d + r as required.

27.7

Ibn al-Haytham only proves that the diorismos EZ > do + ro is a

necessary condition. His proof stands in a curious relation to Conics
VII. In Conics VII :21 Apollonius proves d/r < do/ro for any diameter
d "# do of a hyperbola with r0 < do. In Conics VII :33 he remarks that
r> ro follows, because d > do. So Ibn al-Haytham repeats part of
Conics VII :33. The entire proof in 27f could have been avoided by a
simple reference to Conics VII :38; there Apollonius proves that if for
a hyperbola ro < do, then r + d > ro + do for any d "# do. Compare
7.3.

27.8

The construction for ro > do is analogous to that for ro < do.

Points d, Nand L take the place of Z, Land N, respectively. Point d
is found by Elements VI :28; it should not be confused with the
required diameter BC for which I use the letter d. In the notations of
Chapter 2 we have (for point d) Ed = -x; Ed dZ = 2AD DT is
equivalent to x(x + c) = 2(d~ - a~). Regarding the diorismos see
note 27.10.

27.9

Compare 25i and note 25.7.

27.10 The diorismos is correct for r0 ~ 3d o, but incorrect for r0 > 3d o.

The diorismos in the text mayor may not be an interpolation, but
in either case, Ibn al-Haytham's discussion is incomplete. Ibn

Note 27.10

373

al-Haytham could have discovered the inadequacy by reading only

the enunciation of Conics VII :40. I quote this enunciation from the
Arabic manuscript of the Conics, which Ibn al-Haytham wrote in
his own hand in 415 H./A.D. 1024:

If there is a hyperbola and if its transverse diameter is less than

one-third of the latus rectum (do < 1ro), there are two diameters
(d 1, d2), one on each side of the axis, such that each of them is
equal to one third of its latus rectum (d 1 = 1r1' d2 = 1r2)'

The sides which contain the figure constructed on each of them

(i.e. d 1, r 1 and d2, r2), if taken together, are less than the sides
containing the figures constructed on diameters next to them.
The sides containing the figures constructed on (diameters)
closer to them, if taken together, are less than the sides containing
the figures constructed on (diameters)further away.
(ms. Aya Sofya 2672,297a:15-21, compare the translation of the
Conics by Ver Eecke, p. 641. The Arabic text is: idha kana qWun
za'idun wa-kana qutruhu l-mujanib aqalla min thulthi q,Wihi l-qa'im,
fa-inna 'anjanabay sahmihi qutran (ms. qutrayn) kullu waJ.zidin minhima
musawin (ms. musawi) li-thulthi q,il'ihi l-qa'im. wa l-aclla'u l-muMta
bi-I-shakli l-ma'miil 'ala kulli wabidin minhima idha jumiCat aqallu min
al-a4la ci l-mu~ita bi-kulli wa~idin min al-ashkali I-macmiila cala
l-aqtari llatl fl janabihi wa-l-a4Ia cu l-mu~lta bi-l-ashkali l-macmiila
cala mii qaruba minhu idhii jumiCat aqallu min al-aclliici l-muMta
bi-l-ashkiili l-macmiila 'alii ma ba'uda. In other words: If do < 1r0,
there are two diameters d 1, d2 such that dj = 1rj (i = 1,2). r + d
increases as the distance between the endpoint of d and the closest
of the endpoints of d1 and d2 increases.
So d 1 + r1 < do + roo The correct diorismos is in fact c2 =
EZ 2 ~ 8d o(ro - do) since

(d 1 + r1)2 = 16di = 8(Ji - di) = 8(J~ - d~).

The diorismos is easily verified by noting that the number of solutions
to the problem for ro > do is twice the number of roots x < -2do
of the equation x(x + c) = 2(d~ - J~) (note 27.8). If x < -2do,
-tx = HM > HA = !d o so the corresponding circle intersects the
hyperbola in two points.

Notes 27.10-27.15

374

The question of why this diorismos in the text is incomplete is of

some importance for the history of the Completion as a whole. See
7.3.
27.11

If d + r = c, dc = d(d + r) = dZ + az = d6 + a6 (Conics VII: 12),

so d is known. The "known line" c should not only be longer than
the major axis plus its latus rectum, but it should also be shorter
than the minor axis plus its latus rectum. Compare Conics VII :41 :

In every ellipse .. the sides containing the figure constructed on

the minor axis, if taken together, are greater than the sides containing the figures constructed on other diameters
(my translation from the manuscript of the Conics in Ibn
al-Haytham's own hand, ms. Aya Sofya 2762,298b: 18,22-299a:2.)
Arabic text: kullu qit'in naqi~in ... wa-l-a4Ia cu l-mu~lta bi-l-shakli

l-macmiil 'ala l-sahmi l-a~ghar idha jumiCat a'?amu min al-a4la ci

l-mub1ta bi-l-ashkali l-macmiila cala ghayrihi min al-aqtar.
27.12

Halley deals with the same problem in his reconstruction of Conics

VIII (propositions 21 and 22 in Conics, ed. Halley, pp. 157-158). His
solution is inspired by Conics VII:7-8 (compare 3.3).

27.13

"difference" translates fMil; compare the glossary 15.l, p. 398

no. 75.

27.14

Ibn al-Haytham wants to construct for a given ratio c a diameter d

such that d/r = c. For the hyperbola he tacitly assumes c =P 1. Then
Id(d - r)1 = Id z - aZI = Id6 - a61 and

d
c
z
c
z
Id - rl = fC=lI' so d = c _ 1 (do -

a0)'z

The diorismos is trivially found by Conics VII:31, corollary:

d
ro

~ < c < 1 if ro > do,

c=1
27.15

If d/r = c for an ellipse, d(d

d

-d-

+r

c
= --1
c+

ifro=do.

+ r)
so

dZ

+ az = d6 + a6 and

C
2
a2
= --1
(do + 0)'
c+

By Conics VII:31, corollary the diorismos is roldo < c < do/ro,

do being the major axis.

Notes 28.1-28.5

28.1

375

In the preface (Og) Ibn al-Haytham says that it is "necessary to

demonstrate how we draw from an assumed point a line which
meets the (conic) section in two points such that the part of it which
falls inside the (conic) section is equal to an assumed line". So Ibn
al-Haythammust have attempted to solve P10(28-31) for an arbitrary
point D outside the conic, not necessarily on the axis.

~
'.

'. P
In Greek geometry, the problem (or its construction) would be
called a neusis, that is the insertion of a segment of given length in a
curve or between two curves or straight lines, such that a given point
is on the rectilinear extension of the segment. In Kegelschnitte,
320-329 Zeuthen argues that the general problem mentioned in Og
was solved in the lost work On Means of Eratosthenes (ca.
276 B.C.-ca. 195 B.C., see DSB IV,388-393). There is no firm basis
for his suggestion, because it is founded only on two vague allusions
in Book VII of the Collection of Pappus of Alexandria. Zeuthen then
proceeds to give the supposed solution by Eratosthenes of the
problem (Kegelschnitte, 330-331). In the case that the conic is a
hyperbola and P is on the axis, the solution happens to be identical
to that by Ibn al-Haytham in propositions 30-31 of the Completion.
See further note 31.13.

28.2

AE intersects the parabola in a point E by Conics 1:27.

28.3

Let X be the point of intersection of the tangent at N with the axis.

Since N X is tangent and N M is an ordinate corresponding to the
axis, X A = AM by Conics 1:35 (n('t 33). Because AT = T E, N X II AE
by Conics 11:5. So XA = NT.
In Conics I: 33 Apollonius proves that N X is tangent to the
parabola if X A = AM and M N is an ordinate.

28.4

In Conics VII:1 Apollonius says

AE2

= AZ2 + ZE 2 = AZ 2 + AS . AZ = SZ . AZ.

It is essential that DA is the axis, not an arbitrary diameter.

28.5

In the notations of the summary r 1 = SZ = SA + AZ = r + z.

r1 = r + z is also proved in Conics VII :5, b~t the proof of Ibn
al-Haytham is shorter. Compare 7.3.

Notes 28.6-29.2

376

28.6

28e can be paraphrased as follows: By 28d

SZ.NT= AT2 = DK2.

(1)

Since BK = KG, by Elements 11:5

DK2 = GD DB

+ BK2.

(2)

By Conics 1:11
SZ NK = BK2.

(3)

Subtracting (3) from (1) we have by (2)

SZKT= GDDB.

(4)

SZ . AH = GD . DB.

(5)

SZ.AM = DK2.

(6)

But KT = AH, so
Since NT = AM, by (1)

Subtracting (6) from (5) we have by (2)

SZMH = BK2.

(7)

End of paraphrase.
Equation (7) is however a direct consequence of (3) and
NK = NT - TK = AM - AH = MH. Thus (1) and the double
subtraction make the proof unnecessarily complicated.
28.7

SZ . ZL = BG 2 is (r + z)(z - 4AD) = w2 in the notation of Chapter

2. Z is known by Data 59.

28.8

BK =
One could also argue that B is known because it is a
common point of the parabola and line DK, which is known in
position.

28.9

If D is inside the parabola on the axis, the analysis is essentially the

same. See note 31.13 for the case where D is not on the axis.

29.1

S, L, Z are on the axis, E, N are on the parabola. Z can be constructed

by Elements VI:29 (note 15.1). TN is a diameter qy Conics 1:46.

29.2

Ibn al-Haytham omitted the proofthat the line through D parallel to

AE intersects the parabola. This can be proved as follows: As in
28c-d we have AZ = 4TN. Since AL = 4AD and AZ > AL, it
follows that TN> AD. Let the parallel through D to AE intersect
TN in K; then T K = AD, so K is inside the parabola, whence the
assertion follows. See the following note for the interpolation in 29b.

two

Notes 29.3-30.4

377

29.3

According to the enunciation of Conics I :27, every straight line

which intersects a diameter of a parabola must intersect the parabola
itself in two points. The proof shows that the word "diameter" in
the enunciation refers to the part of the diameter "inside" the
parabola; thus the enunciation is somewhat misleading. The passage
"For it (the parallel) forms with the axis an acute angle on the side
of the (conic) section" was probably interpolated by somebody who
misunderstood Conics 1:27. The interpolator may have argued that
since the angle between the parallel to AE and the axis is acute, the
parallel intersects all diameters of the parabola (cf. the interpolation
in lla, note 11.3); he then wrongly concluded by Conics 1:27 that
the parallel intersects the parabola in two points. Note that any
straight line through D which is not perpendicular to the axis and
which does not coincide with the axis "forms with the axis an acute
angle on the side of the conic section ".

29.4

More precisely: for any segment w one can construct Z on AL such

that SZ ZL = w 2

30.1

Ibn al-Haytham assumes that H is between A and E because a straight

line which intersects the upper half of the (single-branch) hyperbola
in two points can only intersect the transverse axis between A and E
(by Conics II:33).

30.2

Since BK = KG, BK is an ordinate of diameter EK (Conics

II:5, 1:32). So AO II HK is also an ordinate of EK. HenceAOextended
meets the hyperbola in N such that AO = ON.

30.3

Note that
(7.2.5).

as is called "ordinate" even though a is not on ~ or ~1

ES SA
S02

EI IH
Ji(2

because

SO AE
=
lK EH'

SA _ AE
d ES _ SA
IH - EH an
El - IH

+ AE _ AE
+ EH - EH'

That AE/EH is known is of no importance.

30.4

In the notations of Chapter 2, K =

1

('!d -

X 1)('1

-2

X 1)Yl

by Conics 1:21; (f(N)

r(A) = H.

(Xl' Yl)'

EIIH

= Ji(2 =

and

ESSA
S02

DF.l'.I1.
NF2

=-;:-

= 0, (f(F) = S, (f(D) = E, reO) = K, reS) = I,

378

Notes 30.5-30.11

30.5

Conics II :49.

30.6

In 30e Ibn al-Haytham seems to use elementary considerations of

symmetry. A more orthodox proof would be as follows: If HZ' is the
other tangent to the conic, the diameter through H (i.e. the transverse
axis) bisects ZZ' (Conics 11:30). So ZZ' is parallel to the tangent at A
(Conics 11:5). Hence ZZ' is a (double) ordinate (Conics 1:32), so T
is on ZZ'. The fact that HAT is the axis is inessential in this proof.

30.7

Conics 111:37 proves in modern words that any straight line is

divided harmonically by a point P, the two points of intersection
with a conic section and the polar of P with respect to the conic
section.

30.8

Since

ET TH
TZ 2

El IH

=-;: = [j(2'

Z and K are on CIJ 1 :

2

Y =

1
dr hd
-

X)(1] - x),

The latus transversum is -td - 1], the latus rectum is (rld)(-td - 1]).
Since ClJ 1 does not depend on the length of BG, Ibn al-Haytham has
proved that CIJ 1 contains the locus of all midpoints (such as K) of
chords of CIJ (such as BG) with rectilinear extension through H.
In 31p Ibn al-Haytham remarks that BG decreases indefinitely if
HBG approaches HZ. It is quite possible that he discovered that Z
is on CIJ 1 by noticing that K approaches Z if HBG approaches HZ.

30.9

CH is the homologue with reference to CIJ l' compare note 3.4. In the
notations of Chapter 2, C = (d('1 + tr)(d + r)-t, 0), so
(Cl IH)/HK 2 = CEIEH is equivalent to (1) in the summary of

Pll(30-3J) in Chapter 2, p. 28.

30.10 Ibn al-Haytham refers to the halves of GH, HB and GB, because the
Arabic has the plural an.~af, not the dual ni~jan.
30.11

Since
GH
HB

GL
LB'

GH+HB
HB

GL

+ LB
LB

GB
LB

Notes

But
!<GH + HB) = !(GB
HK/HB = KB/LB. Hence

HK
KB

379

30.11~31.7

+ 2HB) = HK,

HK
HK - HB

KB
KB - LB

!GB = KB,

so

KB
KL'

whence HK . KL = KB2. This proof occurs in exactly the same form

in Conics 1:37.
30.12

Since KI I BM II LT and KH KL = KB2, IH IT = 1M2. So

HK2
HI2
HI CI IH
KB2 = 1M2 = IT = CIIT'
hence

CE
EH

CI IH
HK2

CI IT
KB2'

CE/EH = CI .IT/KB2 is equivalent to the quadratic equation in

Xl obtained by combining (1) and (2) in the summary of Pll(30-31),
p.28.
30.13

Data 59.

31.1

The manuscript has a figure (on f. 25a) which does not belong to
proposition 31 but to an anonymous trisection of the angle following
the end of the Completion. I have added a figure for proposition 31
in the edited text on p. 293. Compare p. 310.

31.2

Conics 1:54.

31.3

Converse of Conics 1:21.

31.4

By Elements VI:13,12,29 one can construct A, t, I such that

EC . EH = A2, At = !W. EC, CI . IT = CT IT + IT2 = t 2.

31.5

K can also be constructed by means of ruler and compass: construct

by Elements VI: 13 f-l such that f-ld = r IH, and by Elements V: 12 K
such that IK2 = f-l' IE. K is inside C6 because IK2 = r/d IH . IE <
r/d IH ID. HK 2/(IH IC) = EH/CE can be proved directly, using
the theorem of Pythagoras. See 7.5.3.

31.6

Ibn al-Haytham tacitly assumes that C6 and C6, intersect in only one
point (Z) on one side of axis AE.

31.7

(CI IH)/HK 2 = CE/EH because K is on C6 1

380

Notes 31.8-31.13

31.8

MB is an ordinate, that is to say, a perpendicular to the axis (7.2.5).

B is supposed to be the point of intersection of this perpendicular
and HK. In 31k-1 it will be proven that B is also on~. ~ is incorrectly
called" ABG" in 31c, k.
Since HBK is a straight line by assumption, and HI IT = 1M2,
also HK KL = KB2.

31.9

In 31i it will be proven that N is on ~.

31.10 The assumption that ~ intersects HG in Q =F B enables Ibn

al-Haytham to copy the proof in 30i with Q instead of B. 31k-m is
the only reductio ad absurdum in the Completion.
31.11

"halves": the manuscript writes nisbatu l-ni~f, "the ratio ofthe half".
The scribe may have had the ratio 1:! in mind. I have emended
al-niif to the dual al-niifayn "the two halves", referring to the two
segments GH + HQ and GQ.

31.12 This phraseology is very traditional. Compare Conics III:47 01tEP

Il-t01tOV, OVK !lPCX ,; 9A Kci9Et6~ ECrttV, oMs !lA-A.i} n~ 1tA."V ti\~ 9E
"which is absurd. So TL is not a perpendicular, nor is any other
(line) except (line) TE" (Conics ed. Heiberg 1,430:1-2).
31.13

For H on an axis of an ellipse outside the ellipse the problem can be

solved in a way similar to the solution for the hyperbola. By means
of a few trivial additions and changes in 30a and 30g one can make

the analysis general. In the synthesis one should make a trivial addition in 31b. In 31c one would have to prove that if for the ellipse
W;:5; AD, then CI IT = t 2 ;:5; CE ET, so CI;:5; CEo In 31c, the
diorismos for the ellipse (W ;:5; AD) would have to be added. None

Notes 31.13-31.14

381

of the additions could have caused serious difficulty to Ibn

al-Haytham. The figure (for an ellipse with major axis AD) would be
as above.
For H on the axis of a central conic inside the conic, a slight
modification is necessary, because no tangent HZ can be drawn.
T can be defined as the point on EA such that ET EH = EA2 and
L as the point of intersection of BG and the perpendicular through T.
To find out whether Ibn al-Haytham could have solved the
problem for an arbitrary H, I shall summarize the general solution
by Zeuthen (Kegelschnitte, 330-331). My presentation differs from
that of Zeuthen in the choice of coordinates. Let C(j be an arbitrary
conic, and let H be an arbitrary point, not on C(j. Choose coordinates
such that H is the origin and the x-axis is parallel to an axis of C(j.
Then the equation of C(j is ax 2 + bx + cy2 + dy + e = 0, with
e =F O. We assume that H is not the centre of C(j.
If HBG intersects C(j in Band G such that BG = w, it can be shown
that the midpoint K of BG is a common point of C(j 1 :
ax 2 + (b/2)x + cy2 + (d/2)y = 0 and C(j2:
4(bx

+ dy + 2e)c -

a)(bx - dy) - t(b 2

+ d2 -

(b 2c + ad 2)w 2 = 0

C(j 1 contains the locus of the midpoints (K) of all chords (BG) of C(j
with rectilinear extension through H.
If H is on an axis of C(j, b = 0 or d = 0, so C(j 2 consists of two
straight lines perpendicular to this axis. In the case considered by
Ibn al-Haytham, C(j 2 contains line Kl. If H is not on an axis of re,
C(j 2 is a hyperbola whose asymptotes make equal angles with the
x-axis. In Kegelschnitte, Zeuthen argues that C(j2 could have been
found by Eratosthenes, by means of the theorem that any conic is the
"locus of three lines" with reference to two tangents and the line
joining the points of contact (see Chapter 7, note 5 for an explanation
of the terminology). However, there is no evidence that Ibn
al-Haytham was aware of this theorem (cf. 7.2.8). In order to draw
C(j2' Ibn al-Haytham would have to find as a preliminary a diameter
and the corresponding latus rectum and angle of arrangement
(or the asymptotes and a point on the conic). This is possible but not
easy in the language of rectangles (" products") and proportions. One
can also find K in other ways, for example by intersecting C(j 1 with a
curve A1 C(j1 + A2 C(j2 ; for Al = b2 + d2, A2 = 1 this curve is a circle
with a rather complicated equation. There does not seem to be a
solution which Ibn al-Haytham could easily have found; but the
possibility that he solved the general problem cannot be excluded.
31.14 See the figure. The conic section in 310-r is always the original
hyperbola C(j. The reference to Conics 11:13 is correct.

382

Notes 31.14-31.19, Appendix

31.15 The assertion is correct for the lines through H between the tangent
HZ and the parallel through H to the asymptote, but false for the
parallel itself.
31.16 infinite: hila nihayatin, meaning: indefinitely extended.
31.17 The argument is purely heuristic. Its basis is the supposed continuity
of the decrease or increase of the" parts" BG. A large number of Greek
geometers would not have considered the argument conclusive. See
7.5.2 for a further discussion.
31.18

The manuscript spells Ibn al-l;Iasan as Ibn al-l;Iusayn, see 5.5 and
note 0.1.

31.19

The beginning of 31s was obviously not written by Ibn al-Haytham.

The available evidence suggests that the present text of the Completion
is a preliminary version (6.5). Mter proposition 31 one would expect
a solution of the problem P12, mentioned in the preface (Og), but it
is conceivable that Ibn al-Haytham did not continue his work on the
reconstruction of Conics VIII.

Appendix to Chapter 14. The Diorismos of

Propositions 12-13
This appendix is devoted to the diorismos of P4(12-13), which Ibn
al-Haytham did not discuss sufficiently in the text. First I shall present a trivial
solution of P4, based on Conics 111:17,23. This solution will enable us to find
the diorismos immediately. In the rest of the appendix, which is by far the
longer part, I shall show how the diorismos could have been found by an
ancient or medieval mathematician by means of Ibn al-Haytham's solution

Appendix. Diorismos of P4(12-13)

383

of P4(12-13). The discussion in the second part of the appendix is based on

the theory of maxima and minima in Book V of the Conics (see p. 36). In
the preface to Conics V, Apollonius says that its propositions are useful in
diorismoi, but few ancient or medieval applications of Book V in diorismoi
are known to be extant (compare 7.7). I do not claim that any ancient or
medieval geometer ever discussed the situation in the second part of this
appendix, but my discussion points to possible applications of Conics V in
antiquity or the middle ages. Thus the discussion may be of some interest
as an illustration to Zeuthen, Kegelschnitte, p. 303.
First I recall the problem and the notations. P4(12-13) is as follows:
Given: A central conic C(j with centre H, a point B on C(j, a ratio IX. Required:
A point A on C(j with the property that the tangent to C(j at A intersects the
tangent to C(j at B in a point D such that AD/BD = IX. I use some of the
algebraical notations of the summary p. 19; thus d = 2HB is the length of
the diameter through B, r is the corresponding latus rectum, and (J) ( L N H B
in Figs. lOa, lla, pp. 18-19) is the corresponding angle of arrangement.
The following is a short solution of P4(12-13).
be the conjugate diameter of BH. Draw the circle vi(
Let BlB2 =
with centre H and radius
BIH. Let =F 1. First suppose that C(j is an
ellipse. If vi( meets C(j in AI' AIH extended intersects C(j in a point A2 which
is also on vI(.1f IX =F 1, AlA2 =F B I B 2.
Draw a tangent AD II AlA2 to meet the given tangent in D. Since
BlHB2 "BD and AlHA2 "AD, by Conics 111:17,

fo.

AD2
DB2

IX'

AIH . HA2

AlH2

= BIH. HB2 = BlH2

IX

= ex

so

AD
DB = ex

as required.

IXfo.
IXfo.

IXfo.

The number of solutions is zero if

< 2b or
> 2a, two if
= 2b or
= 2a, four if 2b <
< 2a, =F 1; 2a, 2b being the
major and minor axis of the ellipse. For the hyperbola C(j we consider the

IXfo.

IXfo.

IX

Appendix. Diorismos of P4(J2-13)

384

points of intersection of vii with the two branches of the conjugate hyperbola
~. If AI' A2 are two points of intersection symmetrical with respect to H,
there is exactly one tangent AD to the single-branch hyperbola C(j parallel
to AIA2' and exactly one tangent A'D' to the opposite branch parallel to
A I A 2 By Conics III:23 we have
(A'D')2
D'B2

AIH HA2

= BIH. HB2 = a

so

A'D'
D'B

= a.

Let BD' intersect AH in Q, and draw BP parallel to AD, to meet HA extended

in P. Then by Conics 1:36
A'Q
A'P
AQ = AP'

Hence by similar triangles

A'D'
AD

BD'
BD

so

AD
A'D'
BD = BD' = a.

The reason why Ibn al-Haytham overlooked this simple solution is probably
that he first solved the problem for the hyperbola C(j (compare 7.2.4). He
did not realize that the opposite branch and the conjugate hyperbolas would
be useful; thus he developed another solution for the hyperbola, and an
analogous solution for the ellipse.
For the hyperbola the number of solutions is zero if
< 2b, one if
= 2b, two if
> 2b, 2b being the vertical axis. For a = 1, see 13y.
We now proceed to the derivation of the diorismos of P4(12-13) by
means of Ibn al-Haytham's construction. To keep the discussion within a
certain limit I shall only deal with the case of the ellipse. In his synthesis of
P4 in proposition 13, Ibn al-Haytham chooses an arbitrary segment ML, and
he draws the ellipse,X'" with latus transversum ML, latus rectum (d/r) ML,
and angle of ordinates co, as in the figure. He constructs J on ML or ML
extended such that MJ = a 2 ML, and he draws a segment of a circle through
J and M, "admitting" an angle co (compare note 12.20. I call the entire
circle !!"). Ibn al-Haytham's definition involves an ambiguity because he
does not specify on which side of M J the segment should be drawn; thus for
co # 90 there are two essentially different possibilities. To find out which of
the possibilities Ibn al-Haytham had in mind we draw the tangent QM to
,X'" at M, as in the figure. Ibn al-Haytham assumes in 13d that if R is common
to ,X'" and the segment, and if RX is an ordinate of ,X'" (L RXM = co), then
LMRJ = LMXR. But this implies LQMX = LMXR = LMRJ, so QM
is tangent to !!,'. So we can remove all ambiguities by defining !!" as the circle
passing through M and J, and tangent to ,X'" at M.
Suppose that the original ellipse C(j is situated similarly to ,X'" (as in the
figure), i.e. such that the diameter conjugate to BH is parallel to LM. If R

aJNi

aJNi

a.JN1

385

Appendix. Diorismos of P4(l2-13)

is common to :.tt' and 2', we draw AHA' parallel to LR. The tangents to
at A and A' will intersect the tangent at B in points D and D' such that
AD
DB

C(j

A'D'

= D'B = (1.,.
Q

D'
So for each point R we obtain two solutions. Exceptions occur if R = L
(only possible if IX = 1); then A or A' coincides with B, so the solution degenerates; if R = M, AA' is the conjugate diameter of BH, so
AD _ A'D' _
DB - D'B' -

fd

V?

hence the case R = M only yields (two) solutions if (I., = jdfr, but no
solutions if (I., =1=
Therefore we have to determine the number of points which :.tt' has in
common with each element of the collection of circles 2' which are tangent
to:.tt' at M.
If we choose :.tt' to be of the same size as C(j and adopt the notations of the
summary p. 19, then 2a, 2b are the major and minor axis of :.tt; respectively,

Jd/r.

Jd/r,

and
and ML = =)dr. Put (1.,1 = 2b/fo, (1.,2 = 2a/fo, (1.,3 =
assume w =1= 90 0 Then b < d < a, so (1.,1 < (1.,3 < (1.,2'
The primes in :.tt' and 2' will henceforth be omitted.
The diorismos is an immediate consequence of the following results:

(1)
(2)

If (I., < (1.,1 and (I., > (1.,2, M is the only common point of:.tt and 2.
If (I., = (1.,1, 2 is internally tangent to :.tt at M l' that is the mirror image
of M on the major axis.

386

Appendix. Diorismos of P4(12-13)

(3) If r:t = r:t2, 2! is externally tangent to f at M z, the mirror image of M

on the minor axis.
(4) If r:t = r:t3' the centre C of 2! is the centre of curvature of the ellipse at
M (CM is the only minimum straight line that can be drawn from C
to the quadrant of f on which is M), so 2! and f have two common
points.
(5) If r:tt < r:t < r:t2' r:t =F r:t3' f and 2! have three points in common: M,
a point on arc M 2 LM l' and a third point which is on arc M 1 M if
r:tt < r:t < r:t3 and on arc M M 2 if r:t3 < r:t < r:t2'

Proofs: Draw a perpendicular through M to MQ, which intersects the

major axis of fin C 1 and the minor axis in C 2 Let F be the centre of f.
It is clear that for every r:t the midpoint of the corresponding circle 2! must
lie on this perpendicular MC z , and also that the distance of the midpoint
of 2! to M increases monotonically as function of r:t. So (1) is a consequence
of (2) and (3).
For i = 1, 2 let 2; be the circle through M with centre Ci Then 2; is
obviously tangent to f at Mi' In order to prove (2), we only have to show
that 2! 1 intersects ML in J 1 such that M J t = r:tf ML. Since ML = jni, the
former assertion is equivalent to ML MJ 1 = 4b 2
Let M M t intersect F C t in V, and let M C2 intersect M 1 L in Q l' Since

Appendix. Diorismos of P4(l2-13)

387

LF = FM and LM1 II FV, we have Q1C1 = C 1M, so Q1 is on 2 1, J 1, Q1'

M1 and Mare concyc1ic, so MLMJ 1 = ML2 - MLLJ 1 = ML2M 1LLQ1 (Elements III:35) = MMi + M 1LM l Q1 (Elements 1:47) =
4(MV2 + VF VC 1). MV is an ordinate corresponding to the major axis of
Jt'", so by Conics 1:21, MV 2 = (b 2/a 2). (a 2 - VF2).
SinceMC l isanormal to Jt'", we have by Conics V:32,20 VC 1: VF = b 2 :a 2,
so VF VC l = (b 2 /a 2 ). VF2. So,byaddition,MLMJ l = 4b 2 , which proves
(2). The proof of (3) is analogous (but now ML MJ 2 = ML2 + ML LJ 2 ,
etc.).
For OC1 < oc < OC2 the centre of 2 will be somewhere between C 1 and C 2 ,
so 2 will intersect arc M 1LM 2 of the ellipse in exactly one point. The
presence of the point of tangency M creates nasty complications for arc
M 1MM 2
Point M is on a quadrant XY of the ellipse, bounded by the endpoint X
of the minor axis and Y of the major axis, and CM is a normal through C
to the ellipse, that is to say, a maximal or minimal straight line (Conics
V:27-33). Two situations are possible (Conics V:52):

Exactly one other normal CC' can be drawn from C to quadrant XY.
If C' is between Y and M, and t is a variable point on the ellipse, Ct
increases as t moves from Y to C', and decreases as t moves from C'
to M (Conics V: 75). So C' is outside 2, therefore 2 intersects Jt'" in one
point on arc M t YC'. If C' is between M and X, Ct increases as t moves
from M 1 to M and decreases as t moves from M to C' (Conics V: 75). So
C' is inside 2, and 2 intersects K in a point on arc MXM 2 between C'
and M 2' 2 cannot meet arc M 1M M 2 in more than one point other
than M, because 2 already intersects arc M 1LM 2 (Conics IV:26).
(b) It is not possible to draw another normal CC' to quadrant XY. Then C
is in modern terminology the centre of curvature of Jt'" at M, and Ct
increases as t moves from X to Y (Conics V:74). So 2 only meets arc
M1MM2 in point M.
(a)

Hence the problem arises to determine the value(s) of oc for which situation

(b) occurs. It will be shown that (b) only occurs for oc = OC3' This will prove
(4) and (5).
We define U, T and S on FY by
FY
FV
FU
FV = FU = FT

(i)

and

(ii)

Appendix. Diorismos ofP4(12-13)

388

See the figure below.

We erect a perpendicular through S to FY, and we choose C on this

perpendicular in such a way that C and M are on different sides of FY, and
SC
FS TV
MV = ST' VF

(iii)

Then, by Conics V:52, CM is the only normal which can be drawn through
C to quadrant XY of the ellipse (we have in fact constructed the centre of
curvature at M). Clearly C is on segment C 1 C2' So case (b) occurs.
We now suppose that C' is another point on C 1 C 2 such that C'M is the
only normal through C' to quadrant XY. Drop perpendicular C'S' onto FY,
and define T', U' and V' on FY by

FT'
a2
S'T' = b 2

FU'
and FT'

FV'
FU'

FY
FV' .

Erect a perpendicular through V' to FY, and let this perpendicular intersect
quadrant XY of the ellipse in M'. According to Conics V:52, C' is the only
point on the perpendicular through S' to FY with the property that only one
normal can be drawn through it to quadrant XY. So, again by Conics V:52,
C'M' must be this normal. Hence M' = M, so V' = V, U' = U, T' = T,
S' = S, C' = C. So case (b) occurs exactly once, that is to say, for exactly one
ex. We now have to determine this ex.
By (iii),
CC l
SC
FSTV
ClM = MV = ST VF'

so

ex 2
MC
FS TV + ST VF FTSV
ext = -M-C-l =
ST VF
- ST VF'

389

Appendix. Diorismos ofP4(12-13)

By (ii),

Finding the value of SV/VF is not so easy. I recall the notations a = YF,
b = XF, = 2MF. Let MM2 meet FX in W. We have

SF
SF FT
FV = FT'FV'

By (ii),

further by (i),

FT
FV

MW 2

FV 2

= Fy 2 = -;;Z.

By Conics 1:21,
b 2 - FW 2

b2
a2 =

MW 2

so

So

FT
FV

MF2 - b 2
a2

b2

Therefore

SF
FV

whence

SV FV - SF a2 + b2 - MF2
=
= -----:;--FV
FV
a2

By Conics VII:12,
SV
FV
So finally,
(X2

(Xl

!d whence
= -b
2
2

(X2

= -d so
r

(X

- = (X3'
r
= 90 can be treated

On p. 385 we have assumed Q) :p. 90. The case Q)

using Conics V:53-54,76-77, and Conics V:7,9. We leave the details to the
reader.

390

Appendix. Diorismos of P4(l2-13)

The preceding discussion gives an impression of the amount of work

which Ibn al-Haytham still had to do in order to complete the diorismos by
means of his construction. The most unfortunate aspect of his construction
is the point of tangency M of the circle and the ellipse; this aspect makes it
necessary to include a complicated discussion of the special case IX = 1X3'
The simple solution presented at the beginning of this appendix shows that
this complication is totally unnecessary.

Chapter 15

Indices

15.1. Glossary of Technical Terms

The glossary includes all mathematical terms in the Completion, with the
exception of numerals. The terms have been arranged alphabetically according to Arabic roots. The transcription is according to the conventions
adopted in the Journal for the History of Arabic Science. Verbal nouns
(ma~adir) have not always been listed separately. References to the text have
been added, but not all occurrences of the more common terms have been
listed.
The medieval Arabic geometrical terminology was profoundly influenced
by the Greek. A few Greek equivalents of Arabic terms have been added for
comparison; sometimes with references to the Greek text of Conics I-IV
and to Ibn al-Haytham's autograph of the Arabic translation.
The following abbreviations have been used:
norm.
non-math.
lit.
tr.
passim

[ ]

Hb I, II
AS

normal meaning
non-mathematical meaning
literally
translation in Chapter 13
to be found in many places, not all occurrences listed
my emendation
reference to interpolated passage
vols. I, II of Heiberg's edition of Conics I-IV (Leipzig 1891)
ms. Aya Sofya 2762, Ibn al-Haytham's autograph of the
Conics (see footnote 3 to Chapter 3).

All other abbreviations and references are self-explanatory.

1. JBD

abadan (adv.) continuously 7d 17j; always [19f].

2. JKhR

akhar (non-math.) other 230 passim.

akhlr: al-faraf al-akhlr the rear side [13t] [13v]*.

392

Glossary, 'LF-JL

3. JLF

mu alla! (pass. part. II) compounded (of ratios) 4f Sj passim.

4. JMR

amr thing Id (tr. something).

S. JWL

awwal (adj.) first [13u] 13x.

awwalan (adv.) first Ib Sh lOb.

6. JYD

ayqan (non-math.) also Oe passim.

wa-ayrjan again Sd; introduces a new step in the reasoning
(according to Sesiano, Diophantus p. 434, a Syriacism or
Graecism).

7. BRHN

burhan proof 2d 4e passim (Gr. &1tOOEt~tC;), cf. bayyana.

8. BCD

bacuda (I, intrans.) to move away 7d, 17j, 31p.

bucd distance, tr. radius (of a circle) 9b 19a passim (referring
to the opening of the compass with which the circle is
drawn, Gr. OtcicrtllIlCt).
abcad (comp.) further, remoter 6a [19g] 23a.
bacda (prep.) beyond 4m St 22h.
min bacdi beyond 7dp; afterwards 4b 16f 17b.
Antonym: QRB.

9. BCl!

baCq (subst.) part (of a plane figure): 22f 23f (square) 7c

(hyperbola). cf. juz qism.

oEi ofJ).

10. BGhY

yanbaghl (VII) it is necessary Ie [13r] (Gr.

11. BQY

baqiya (I) to remain 21a;fa-yabqa so there remains, tr. by

subtraction, by division (of ratios) 3g 13gh 17g 2Sk 27d
passim.
al-baql (act. part. I) remainder 13p 23m.

12. BYN

bayyana (II) to prove 4g passim; to explain Ob d g Sq passim

(cf. Gr. odKVUllt).
tabayyana (V) to be shown, to become clear 2d Sq 7n
passim.
bayan clarity Oi.
bayyin clear 27f (Gr. <pCtVEpOV).

13. TMM

tamma (I) to be complete(d), tr. to have a solution 4h

Sg n y passim.
tammama (II) to complete Sb 7c* (a conic), Sm (the solution
of a problem).
tamam completion 0 a i 2Sg 27g 31s.

14. ThLTh

muthallath triangle 2d Sn passim.

IS. JZJ

juz part (of a straight line) Sv 28a 30a 31p, cf. baCq, qism.

16. JCL

jaCala (I) to make Oi 2b 3e 9b 27b passim.

Glossary, JM'-KhRJ

393

17. JM c

jamaCa (I), msd. jam' to bring together Oi.

majmu' (pass. part. I) in majmu' XY (5e, 21c, 27j k passim) or
majmu'X maca Y (27f i passim): X and Y taken together, the
sum of X and Y.
jaml' (adj.) a1l4h [13w] 19j 21e 27i, cf. bal.
jainl'an (adv.) all 7p; both 21e f.

18. JNB

mujiinib (act. part. III) transverse, see sahm, qutr.

19. JWZ

ajiiza (IV) to make pass (a conic) 3f.

20. lJDD

bOOd (act. part. I) acute, see ziiwiya.

baddada (II) to define [13u].
tabdzd (msd. II) definition 5f; diorismos Oi 1e 4b 7n passim,
see 7.2.1, 7.6.

21. lJDTh

abdatha (IV) to make, form (an angle, a triangle) Od e 1d

2b 5n [13t].

22. lJLL

tahlil (msd. II) analysis Oi 3b passim, cf. 7.4.

inballa (VII) to be reduced (problem) 1d.

23. lJWJ

ibtiija (VIII) to need Oc f 7n 9g [13q] passim.

biija (subst.) need Of.

24. lJWT

ahiita (IV) to contain bi-ziiwiya (an angle) 1d, passim;

bi-satb (a rectangle) 24a 25a b e.
muhlt (act. part. IV) circumference (of a circle) 18c, passim;
(of a segment of a circle) 12q; boundary (of a conic) 3g 4j
18a 22e passim, see 7.2.7.

25. KhRJ

kharaja (I) to issue (min: from) tr. to be drawn from Oe 5n

passim; to be extended (in a straight line) 1a.
akhraja (IV) to draw Oe 1a 4c 31r passim; to extend (in a
straight line) 1b 3f 70 passim.
istakhraja (X) to derive (the solution of a problem) Oi 23q.
khiirij (act. part. I) issuing from 3b 13t (tr. drawn from);
(adj.) outside Og.
khiirij min outside [19d e] 28a.
kharij 'an outside 13y.
khiirijan 'an outside 8e [13s t].
khiirij (subst.) exterior [19d i].
min khiirijihi externally [13u].
khiirija (prep.) outside [13v w] [19f-j] 21e.
min khiiriji outside 5n 28c.
Antonym DKhL
Remark: the expression khiirij min al-markaz "issuing from
the centre (of the hyperbola)" in 3b is the equivalent of the
Greek ~ EK 'tof> KV'tpO\) (~radius). Compare Conics I,

Glossary, KhRJ-RKB

394

def. 2 after proposition 16, Hb 1,66: 19-20 (ai) K 'toil

KV'tPOl) = al-khutiit al-kharija min al-markaz AS 20b :3.2
26. KhRT

al-makhriitat conics Ob.

kitab al-makhriitat the Conics Ob, 13e, 13y, see Chapter 3
and 15.2.

27.

kha~~a

Kh~~

takh~i~

property Of.
(msd. II) specialization Sa (bi-takh~i~ tr. in a special

case).
28. KhTT

khat( line (always a straight line or segment) 3f 6g passim.

khat( al-tartib ordinate 230 passim, see 3.2.
al-khatt al-shabih al-nisba see shablh
al-khatt al-aq~ar the shortest line (drawn from a point to a
conic, i.e. a normal to the conic, see 3.2 and Conics
V:27-33)[19i].
See also MSS. W~L.

29. KhLF

mukhtalif (act. part VIII) different 13q.

30. DKhL

dakhil (act. part. I; adj.) interior Og.

dakhil (subst.) in:fi dakhil inside (a conic) Og* 5p 7c [13r]
[19d e] passim.
dakhila (prep.) inside [1ge h i].
Antonym: KhRJ.

31. DWR

adara (IV) to draw (a circle) 8f 25c passim.

da'ira circle 9b passim (cf. 3.2).
ni~f da'ira semicircle 2b [13t v].
qit'atu da'iratin segment of a circle 12q 13c [13r-w]
mU~lt al-da'ira circumference of a circle; see mu~lt.

32. DWN

diina (prep.) short of 7d.

33. R'S

ra's vertex (cf. 3.2) 3a 4e passim.

34. RB'

murabba' (pass. part. II) square 3e 4g passim.

35. RTB

tartlb (msd. II):

'ala l-tartlb ordinate-wise (tr. by means of the substantive
"ordinate") 3c 5h passim, see 3.2 (Gr. 'tf;'tay~vO)~, i.e.
arranged).
khat( al-tartlb ordinate, see khat(.
zawiyat al-tartlb angle of arrangement 12p 13b.

36. RSM

rasama (I) to draw ('ala: through, on) 2b 50 7b passim.

37. RKB

rakkaba (II) to give the synthesis 2a.

tarklb (msd. II) synthesis Oi 4a passim, cf. 7.2.1.
murakkab (pass. part. II) composed of Sa.

Glossary, RKZ-ShBH

3S. RKZ

395

markaz centre (of a circle) Sf passim; (of a conic) 3b passim.

See 3.2.

39. ZWJ

muzawij li- (act. part. III) conjugate with 24b 25d 27e m.
muzdawij (act. part. VIII) conjugate to each other (two
diameters or axes) 24d 25k 26b 27k m p, see 3.2-3.3. (In
the Conics, muzawij and muzdawij translate O'u~uYrl~,
Hb I,S:l1 = As 3a:11, Hb 1,256:2-3,9 = AS 76a:1,5).

40. ZWY

zawiya angle Oe 1d passim.

zawiya /:Iadda acute angle Oe 7d 1lf [13r] [29b].
zawiya qa'ima right angle 1c 15d passim.
khatt cala zawiya qa'ima perpendicular 3f 4a.
zawiya munfarija obtuse angle [13s].
See also tart lb.

41. ZYD

zada (I) to exceed ('ala over) Oh 25b e (msd. ziyada 25e).

qi( za'id see qi(
ziyada excess [13r] 20b 21e f 22a 25g; addition (of a condition) [19f] 21d e f 23q. Antonym:

42. S'L
43.

STI:I

NQ~.

mas'ala problem Ob 1e Sa passim.

safh rectangle [12g] 24a b 25a b e (normal meaning: area,
but compare Conics I: 13 saf/:l (AS- 13b:S) = Xropiov
(Hb 1,42:13); here xropiov, norm. area, has also the meaning
rectangle).

44. SHL

mutasahhil (act. part. V) easy 25k 27j k n p.

ashal (comp.) easier 25j.
bi-suhiila easy 271.

45. SHM

sahm axis (of a conic) 1a 23a 24d (see 3.2 and 3.3).
al-sahm al-mujanib transverse axis (of a central conic) 415m
6a 27f passim, compare 3.3.

sahm qa'im erect axis (3.3) 22e i 23e i 25e f.

al-sahm al-afwal major axis (ellipse) 27k.
al-sahm al-aq~ar minor axis (ellipse) [13t].
al-sahm al-ac~am major axis (ellipse) [13t u v w].
al-sahm al-a~ghar minor axis (ellipse) [13t] 25k.
sahman muzdawijan conjugate axes, see muzdawij.
46. SWY

musawin li- (act. part. III) equal to Od 5n passim.

mutasawin (act. part. VI) equal to each other 13x passim.

47. ShBH

mutashabih (act. part. VI) similar to each other 9d 1Sb 19c

30e.
shablh bi- similar to 2d 5n Sc passim.

396

Glossary,

ShBH~'RI?

ai-khat! al-shablh al-nisba 5a f 6d 30h 31c, or

al-shablh al-nisba 3e, or
ai-khat( al-shablh 4b 5e 16b 17b: homologue (auxiliary
segment defined in Conics VII:2-3, see 3.3 or note 3.4).
48. ShRT

ishtarata (VIII) to impose a condition 17j [19d] 25e.

shart condition 4h 5a 7n [13q] [19f] passim.

49. ShRK

mushtarak (pass. part. VIII) common 17c i.

50. ShKL

shakl proposition Oh 3b passim; figure 22c 23b. Compare

~iira.

~alJlJa

to work out well (Le. to have a solution) 9g.

52.

~GhR

(VI) to decrease 31p.

a~ghar (comp.) smaller 2b 4i 5a v 11f [13u] passim.
See sahm. Antonym: cZM.

53.

~NWBR

qit ~anawbarl conic section la lOa 18a 20a. (~anawbar =

pinecone; Conics 1:17 qit ~anawbarl (AS 20b:8) = Kc.OVOU
'tOil" Hb 1,68 :1).

ta~aghara

shape 10f; figure [13q] [19d e f hi] (In the Conics, ~iira
is also used in the sense of figure (O"X:fillcx.), for example,
AS 163b: 11 = Hb II,90:26) Compare shakl.

54.

~WR

~iira

55.

~YR

~ara

(I) to turn out to be 5s 21.

56. J?RB

q,arb product 3f 4f passim; q,arb X fl Y: the product of X

and Y. Deviations: q,arb FOT: the product of FO and OT
22g (see note 22.8). XI; Y: the product of X and Y (without
q,arb) 27d, k (scribal errors) and [7k], see note 7.13 and
Chapter 9.

57. pCF

q,iJ double lc 5a passim.

58.

PL'

q,il' qa'im latus rectum Of 3e 28d passim, see 3.2. Gr:

op9icx. 1tAEUpci, for example, in the Conics Hb 1,112:26 =
AS 34a:6 al-q,il' al-qa'im). See also qa'im.

59. J?YF

arjlfa (IV) to attach 21a.

60. TRF

taraf extremity (of a line segment) 6a 21e f 23e 310 passim;

(of a segment of a circle) [13r stu].

61. TRQ

tarlq way 5q u 13x passim (cf. 12.2, no. 4).

62. TLB

matliib (pass. part. I) required 3h 10d passim.

63. TWL

al-sahm al-atwal see sahm.

64. cRP

ararja (I) to occur (Of) ; to be a consequence (min: of) 21 d 25e.

Glossary,

c~M-FRD

397

6S. C?M

taCa?ama (VI) to increase 31p.

ci?am magnitude 2Se.
aC?am (comp.) greater Ie 3a Sr passim.
al-sahm al-ac?am see sahm. Antonym: ~GhR.

66. cKS

caks converse (of a theorem) 3b 13y.

67. cLM

maclUm (pass. part. I) known lc passim; known (in the sense

of mafrueJ, assumed) la 27j passim (Gr. OOOIlEVO<;). maclUm
al-wat!, known in position 3h 10e passim, see footnote
8 to Chapter 7.
maclUm al-qadr known in size 8f passim.
maclum al-~ura known in shape lOf.

68. cMD

camud perpendicular 4c Sn passim; camudan perpendicularly

13y 24c passim.

69. cML

camila (I) to do 2d lSd 27e 2ge; to construct (a circle) [13u].

camila al-mas'ala to be a solution of the problem 6i 8f 20c
(Gr. 1tOtlV 'to 1tp6~ArH!~, for example, Conics II: 49,
Hb 1:298 :2, but the Arabic translation of the Conics renders
this by an expression involving arada to want: "this is the
solution we wanted "). camila ai-mas' ala is found in the Arabic
translation of Apollonius' On Cutting-Off a Ratio (Myou
cX1tO'tOllrl), apparently as a translation of 1tOlElV 'to
rcp6J3A1lIlCX. (The Greek text of On Cutting-Off a Ratio
is lost.)
The following examples are taken from ms. Aya Sofya
4830 (GAS V,142,2) f. 12b: 10 khatt HL yaCmalu I-mas)ala
"line HL is a solution of the problem"; f. 14b:12fa-aqUlu
inna kulla wal,zidin min HF'HQ yaCmalu l-mas'ala "I say that
each of (lines) HF and HQ is a solution of the problem".
Thus, camila al-mas'ala seems to be a Graecism. See 7.6.1.
camal construction [13q] 13x 2Sg 27g.

70. CNY

maCna notion Ob c d e g h i 2Sj 27j; state of things Oi (see

notes 0.3, 0.20, 6.2).

71. cWD

aCada (IV) to repeat (a conic; i.e. to consider it again) 4a Sb

7a 9a 13a ISa.

72. FRJ

munfarij (act. part. VII) see zawiya.

73. FRQ

faraeJa (I) to assume 3b 13a [13q] passim.

mafrueJ (act. part. I) assumed Oe g 6a passim, compare maclUm.
fareJ assumption lOd.

Glossary,

398

74.

F~L

F~L-QSM

fa:zala min (I, msdfa:zl) to cut off from 1a 5b passim.

infa:zala (VII) to be cut off 5q passim.
taf:zil (msd. II) distinction Of.
Compare the following no.

75. FI;>L

faq,l difference 24d 25d 26b 27e m n (faq,l rna bayna X wa- Y
the difference between X and Y), compare Souissi no. 1256,
1262; Diophantus ed. Sesiano p. 447.
faq,il difference 27n (faq,il bayna X wa-bayna Y) In the
Completion faq,l is only used for rectangles and faq,il only
for line segments.
Remark: faq,l and faq,il refer to a difference IX - Y I between
two homogeneous magnitudes X and Y; thus al1aq,1 and
al1aq,il are also magnitudes. They should not be confused
with al1a:zl and possibly al-Ja:zil, referring to a separation in
space.

76. FWQ

min fawqi above 7p

77. QBL

qabila (I) to admit 13c [13r tJ (a segment of a circle is said

to "admit" an angle, see note 12.20. Compare Gr. in Conics
II :51 KUKAOU 'tIlTlIlCX OEX61lEVOV yrovicxv iO'l1V 'til ... (Hb.
1,300: 7-8) = qi!catun min da'iratin taqbalu zawiyatan
musawiyatan li- ... (AS 89a :6-7.
muqabilli- (act. part. III) opposite to 41 (concavity).
taqabala (VI) to meet each other 23p (?).
mutaqabil (act. part. VII) opposite to each other 7c* 70 17i
(concavities).
qabla in front of 5t, 22i 23i.
qabla an before 22h 23h.
min qablu earlier 16c d.

78. QDR

qadr size 6i passim; see macliim.

miqdar size 31q.

79. QDM

qaddama (II) to make precede 5f q v w.

al-muqaddam (pass. part. II) antecedent (first term of a ratio)
[19d e g h iJ (Gr. /) ~yOUJd.EVO~, for example, in Conics
II:53, Hb 1,316:2 = AS 93b:l muqaddamat al-nisba, see also
notes 19.5, 19.11).
taqaddama (V) to precede 5u 25g 27g.

80. QRB

qaruba (I) to approach 7d 17j 31 p.

qarib close, near (min or ila: to) 21e f 22a.
Antonym: BCD.

81. QSM

qasama (I) to divide Ob d.

qasama bi-ni~fayni to bisect 3b 5h passim.

Glossary. QSM-Q'R

399

inqasama (VII) bi-ni~fayni to be bisected 5r passim.

qism part (of a segment) Og 5r s t; case (of a problem) 27i.
82.

Q~R

al-sahm al-aq~ar see sahm.

al-khatt al-aq~ar see khat(.

83. QQY

iqtaejli (VIII) to make necessary, to require Oc d e g.

84. QTR

qutr diameter (of undefined length) 3b passim; (with defined

length) Of 24d passim. See 3.2 and 3.3 (Gr. " ()lclI!E'tpo~).
qutr mujlinib latus transversum (see 3.2) 13b 27j passim
(Gr. 1tAlLyilL 1tAWPcl, for example, in Conics 1:37, (Hb
1,110:3) = qutr mujlinib (AS 3a:3). The translation ejil'
mujlinib (or ejil' mli'il, cf. 'Vmar Khayyam, Algebra, ed.
Woepcke, Arabic text p. 22:13) would have been more
appropriate, compare ejil'. See also footnote 6 to Chapter 3).
qutr qli'im erect diameter (3.2) 24b 26b 27e m (Gr. " opeia.
()l~I!E'tpO~, for example Conics II: 38 (Hb 1,256: 2) = al-qutr
al-qli'im AS 75b:22).
ni~f qutr radius (circle) 18c [19g]; half of a diameter (ellipse)
22b 23b.

85.

Qr

qata'a (I) to intersect 4b lOb passim.

taqlita'a (VI) to intersect each other 4m 7c passim.
taqlitu' (msd. VI) intersection 16g: nuqtat al-taqlitu' point of
intersection 5q 5u 13x.
qit' (conic) section 1a passim (Gr: 't01!~).
qit' nliqi~ ellipse (deficient section) 3a passim.
qit'un muklijin parabola (sufficient section) 1b passim.
qit' zli'id hyperbola (exceeding section) 3a passim; see 3.2.
qit'a segment (of a circle) (Gr. 'tl!lll!lL), see dli'ira.

86. QeD

qli'ida base (of a triangle) 5n (of a segment of a circle) [13r].

87. Q'R

taqa"ur (msd. V, subst.): concavity 41* 7c* 70* 17i* (the

Greek equivalent 'tlL KOtAlL "the concave (parts)" occurs in
Conics IV, but it was translated as batn taqwls; or taqwls;
compare Chapter 8). The ms. has always the wrong reading
muqa"ar.
Remark. In On Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors, On Spherical
Burning Mirrors and the Commentary on the Premises of
Euclid's Elements, Ibn al-Haytham uses the pass. part. II
(adj.) muqa"ar "concave": for "concavity" he uses the
msd. II taq'lr. Example: kullu sathin muqa"arin taq'lra
l-mujassami l-muklifi "every concave plane with the concavity of a paraboloid" (Ibn al-Haytham, Rasa'il, no. 3,
p. 8:11) Antonym: muhaddab, convex.

400

Glossary, QLB-MYZ

88. QLB

qalaba (I) to convert (a ratio) 22j (Gr. tXvcxcrtpocp-r, Myou,

i.e. the operation (a:b) --.. (a:a - b), cf. note 22.12).

89. QWS

qaws arc (of a circle) 9b 25c e 27b.

90. QWL

qala to say Of to explain Oe; aqiilu inna I say that (AEYO) on)
2c 4d passim.
maqala treatise, big chapter (tr. book, cf. note 0.2) Ob 3b
passim (the "Books" of the Conics).

91. QWM

qa'im (act. part. I) erect, upright, see zawiya, sahm, tf,W, qu!r.
al-qa'im the latus rectum 5d (cf. tf,W; Apollonius uses a
similar abbreviation'; op9icx, for example, in Conics II :52,
Hb 1,300:3, translated as al-qa'im (without tf,W) in AS 89a:4).

92. KFY

qi!cun mukafin see qi(

c_

93. KYF

kayfa how Od 1a 7q 13e passim.

kayfiyya manner 6h.

94. LZM

lazima (I) to follow, to be necessary [13s].

95. LQY

laqiya (I) to meet 7e lOa passim.

iltaqa (VIII) to meet each other 18a 23b passim.
mawtf,ic al-iltiqa' (msd. VIII) place of concurrence 13y.

96. MA

ma (indef. pronoun) some lla [12g].

97. MThL

mithl example (tr. way) 25g 27g.

amthal (plural) times 5a 20b passim.
mithla (prep.) equal to Od Og 20a passim.

98. MOO

imtadda (VIII) to be extended 5r.

99. MRR

marra bi- (I) to pass through 12j 20b passim.

marra (subst.) time; (once) 4h m passim, (twice) 5n 15c
passim; (four times) 21b.

100. MSS

massa (III) to be tangent to.

mumass (act. part. III; adj.) tangent 4c 5n lOc.
ai-khat! al-mumass tangent Od la 5h passim.
al-mumass tangent 2b 5n 6b.
nuq!at al-tamass, (msd. VI) point of contact 13y 30e.
mawtf,i c al-tamass place of contact (cf. 7.6.2) Oe 8a.

101. M

maca (prep.) together with, plus 27e 30i passim.

maCan (adv.) together 27c.

102. MKN

amkana (IV) to be possible Oi 6h 29f 31q.

mumkin (act. part. IV) possible 1d 25j 27k n.

103. MYZ

tamyzz (msd. II) diversification Of.

Glossary. NSB-WD'

104. NSB

mutanasib (act. part. VI) proportional13d.

nisba ratio 1a 3c passim; see also shablh.

105.

nilifhalf 2d 3e 6c passim; see da)ira, qasama, qutr.

N~F

401

106. N:{:R

(adj.) corresponding [13q r] (na~ir in the sense of

"corresponding" occurs also in texts of Ibn al-Haytham,
for example, Letter on the Proposition of the Banu Musa
(Rasa)il, no. 6, 14:10.

107. NFDh

arifadha (IV) to extend (in a straight line) 4c 5b 12c 16b 23b

na~/r

27b.

108.

NQ~

naqatia (I, msd. nuqtian) to be less 23q.

naqqatia (II) to cut off 21a*.
qW naqiti see qi(

109. NQT

nuqta point Og 3b passim. See tamass, taqatu c.

110. NHY

mutanahin (act. part. VI) finite 31q.

intaha (VIII) to end Oe 1b passim.
bila nihayatin infinite, indefinitely (extended) 17j 31p.
ila ma la nihayata indefinitely (extended) 31p.

111. WTR

awtara (IV) or wattara (II) to subtend 70 p.

watar chord 2b [13t u v].

112. WJB

wajaba to be necessary Oc 21d 25f.

113. WJD

wajada (I, msd. wujUd) to find (i.e. to construct) 6h 7q

25a k passim; to find (non-math.) Ob c.

114. WJH

wajh way 5g [19g]; case 19j.

jiha side 7n 70 30e passim.
cala jihati l-tal;!lil: by way of analysis 3b passim.

115. WRY

min wara)i beyond 5t Antonym: min qablu.

116. WZY

muwazin li- (act. part. III) parallel to lOe passim.

mutawazin (act. part. VI) parallel to each other 9d 10e.

117. WST

wasat midpoint 7d 17j.

118.

W~F

watiafa (I) to describe 4a passim.

watif description 5v.

119.

W~L

watiala (I) to join ("we" join two points by a line) 2d 15b

passim; (a line joins two points) 13y.
ittatiala (VIII) to be adjacent to 17b.
al-khatt al-muttatiil bi-khatt X the rectilinear extension of
line X 5st.

120. WOC

wafl situation [19j] 21d 23h.

maw4ic see tamass, iltiqa).

402

Glossary, WFY - WL Y

121. WFY

istawJa (X) to discuss exhaustively [13z].

122. WQc

waqaCa (I) to fall Od g 5p [13r w] passim (a line falls between

two other lines, etc.); to occur Ob f.
waqaCa cala to meet Og.
aI-khat( alladhlla yaqaCu Cala qi(in za'idin) asymptote (of a
hyperbola) (Gr. tXcrUJ..l1t'tffi'tOC;;) 50 t w 7d passim.

123. WLY

waliya (I) to be adjacent to la 3a 6a 7do [13r u 19d e g i],

cf. note 19.6; Souissi no. 1910.
waliya (I) to follow (non-math.) Of.

15.2. Index of References in the Text of the Completion to

Propositions in the Conics (According to the Numbering of
the Arabic Translation)
Proposition

Referred to in

Remarks

1:17
21
27
32
33
35
36
37
46
II: 8
13
29-30
51*
56*
57*-59*
111:37
52
VII: 1
2
12
13
21
22
23

7e
6c
29b
3b
28c
lc 14b
6g
3c 12b d 13h
28b
70
310
By (+)
14c
Id 2b
Be (+)
30f
20b 21c
28d
6d 30h
25k 27p
24d 26b 27m
27f
25f
25i

see note 7.8

see note 6.2
see note 29.3
see note 28.3

see note 13.34

see note 3.5

References to the Conics

403

Explanation of signs:
( + ): title Conics (kitab al-makhriitat) mentioned in the reference.
* the number of the proposition in the Arabic translation differs from
the number in the Greek text. Conics II :44-63 in the Arabic translation
correspond to Conics 11:44-53 in the Greek edition of Heiberg in the
following way: The analysis and synthesis of 44 (Gr.) and 46 (Gr.) have
separate numbers in the Arabic (44-45, 47-48); 49 (Gr.) is divided
into five propositions in the Arabic: 51 (parabola); 52-54 (three cases
of the hyperbola, beginning in ed. Heiberg, vol. 1,276 :22,280:24,282:16)
55 (ellipse). 50 (Gr.) is divided into four propositions in the Arabic as
follows: 56 (parabola), 57 (analysis for the hyperbola), 58 (synthesis for
the hyperbola), 59 (ellipse). 51 (Gr.) is divided in the Arabic into 60
(parabola), 61 (hyperbola). Propositions 45, 47, 48, 52, 53 (Gr.)
correspond to 46, 49, 50, 62 and 63, respectively, in the Arabic.

15.3. Index of References to the Conics in the

Notes and the Commentary
Book I
Preface: pp. 31n, 41, 42, 43, 80, 311. Def. 1: p. 44. Def. 4: p. 33. Def. 5:
p. 33. Def. 6: p. 37. Def. 7: p. 33. Prop. 1: p. 31n. Prop. 5: p. 44. Prop. 7:
p. 31. Prop. 11: pp. 34, 82. Prop. 12: pp. 34, 82, 366, 367. Prop. 13: pp. 34,
82, 362, 363, 365, 366, 367. Prop. 14: p. 33. Props. 15-51: p. 35. Prop. 15:
pp. 37, 342. Prop. 16: pp. 37, 342. Def. 2 after prop. 16: pp. 369, 394.
Def. 3 after prop. 16: pp. 37, 369. Prop. 17: pp. 33, 35, 82, 332, 396.
Prop. 20: p. 364. Prop. 21: pp. 82, 316, 317, 318, 322, 328, 332, 342, 346,
356, 364, 367, 377, 379, 387, 389. Prop. 27: pp. 120, 320, 339, 375, 377.
Prop. 28: p. 77. Prop. 31: p. 32. Prop. 32: pp. 33, 35, 82, 314, 323, 335,
377, 378. Props. 33-36: pp. 35, 82. Prop. 33: pp. 323, 339, 375. Prop. 34:
pp. 44, 78. Prop. 35: pp. 21, 323, 324, 338, 339, 354, 364, 375. Prop. 36:
pp. 78, 312, 329, 333, 384. Prop. 37: pp. 19,44,82,314, 329, 340, 347, 349,
354, 356, 364, 368, 379, 399 (no. 84). Prop. 38: p. 78. Prop. 41: pp. 44, 78.
Props. 42-47: p. 77. Prop. 43: pp. 44, 78. Prop. 45: p. 78. Props. 46-47:
pp. 82, 338. Prop. 46: p. 376. Prop. 47: pp. 78, 314. Prop. 49: pp. 44n, 45n.
Prop. 50: p. 44. Prop. 51: p. 35. Props. 52-57: pp. 35, 88. Props. 52-60:
p. 66n. Prop. 52: pp. 44n, 82, 316, 355. Props. 54-57: p. 82. Prop. 54:
pp.44,317,355. Prop. 55:p. 345. Prop. 56:p. 360. Prop. 57:p. 34 5. Prop. 60:
pp. 38, 342.

Book II
Book II (as a whole): pp. 36, 43, 67, 82, 94. Props. 1-4: p. 82. Props. 1-14:
p. 334. Prop. 1: p. 325. Prop. 4: pp. 7, 66n, 88. Props. 5-7: p. 82. Prop. 5:

404

References to the Conics

pp. 332, 338, 377, 378. Prop. 8:p. 326. Props. 8-14:p. 82. Prop. IO:p. 326.
Prop. 12: p. 324. Prop. 13: p. 381. Prop. 14: pp. 440, 62. Prop. 16: p. 107.
Prop. 17: pp. 38, 347. Prop. 20: pp. 44, 342. Prop. 24: p. 44. Prop. 29:
pp. 82,338, 353. Prop. 30:pp. 82,353, 378. Prop. 33:p. 377. Prop .37:p.369.
Prop. 38: p. 399 (00. 84). Prop. 44: pp. 76,403. Prop. 45: pp. 76, 82, 403.
Prop. 46:pp. 76, 82, 338,339,403. Prop. 47: pp. 76, 82,403. Prop. 48:pp. 76,
82, 403. Prop. 49: pp. 660, 67, 76, 82, 94, 313, 353, 355, 378, 397 (00. 49),
403.Prop.50:pp. 7,44,660,67,68, 76, 82,92,93,94, 312, 314,403. Prop. 51:
pp. 44, 660, 67,68, 76, 78,82,92,93,94,313,346,398(00. 77),403. Prop. 52:
pp. 44, 660, 67, 68, 76, 78, 82, 92, 93, 313, 400 (00. 91), 403. Prop. 53:
pp. 660,67,68, 76, 78, 82, 92, 93, 313, 398 (00. 79),403.

Book III
Book III (as a whole): pp. 12,36,43. Props. 1-15: p. 77. Prop. 4: p. 44.
Prop. 13:p. 44. Prop. 15:p. 77. Prop. 16:p. 44. Prop. 17:pp. 72, 382, 383.
Prop. 22: p. 44. Prop. 23: pp. 72, 382. Prop. 24: p. 44. Prop. 27: p. 44.
Prop. 28: p. 369. Props. 29-32: p. 44. Prop. 34: p. 770. Props. 35-36:
p. 440. Prop. 37: pp. 28, 82, 378. Prop. 41: p. 69. Prop. 42: pp. 44, 69.
Prop. 45:p. 82. Props. 45-51:p. 780. Prop. 47:p. 380. Prop. 52:pp. 69, 82,
360. Prop. 56: p. 44.

Book IV
Book IV (as a whole): pp. 36, 82, 399 (00. 87). Preface: pp. 430, 71, 80.
Prop. 26:p. 387. Prop. 27:p. 313. Prop. 34:p.313.Prop.35:pp.8 2,318,334.
Props. 35-37: p. 118. Prop. 39: p. 118. Prop. 41: p. 118. Prop. 52: p. 118.
Props. 54-57: p. 118.

Book V
Book V (as a whole): pp. 12, 36, 41, 43, 82, 358, 383. Preface: pp. 310,
430,383. Prop. l:p. 310. Props. 4-11: pp. 82, 359. Prop. 7:p. 389. Prop. 8:
p. 353. Prop. 9: p. 389. Prop. 20: p. 387. Prop. 27: pp. 36, 440, 82, 354.
Props. 27-33: pp. 387, 394 (00.28). Prop. 32: p. 387. Prop. 34: pp. 82, 108.
Prop. 44: pp. 103, 362. Props. 44-63: p. 660. Prop. 51: pp. 440, 103.
Prop. 52:pp. 131,362,387,388. Props. 52-55:p.440. Props. 53-54:p. 389.
Prop. 55: p. 440. Prop. 61: pp. 82,108. Prop. 74: p. 387. Prop. 75: p. 387.
Props. 76-77: p. 389. Missiog part of Book V: p. 44.

Book VI
Book VI (as a whole): pp. 36, 41, 43, 82, 91. Props. 12-13: p. 342.
Prop. 13:p. 440. Prop. 18:pp. 440,60, 83. Props. 28-33:p. 660. Prop. 29:
p. 440. Prop. 31: p. 440. Missiog parte?): p. 440.

Index of Names

405

Book VII
Book VII (as a whole): pp. 26, 31n, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 68, 71, 83, 116,
372. Preface: pp. 41, 42, 68, 312, 313. Prop. 1: pp. 83, 375. Props. 2-3:
pp. 83, 315, 354, 356, 396 (no. 47). Prop. 3: p. 329. Prop. 5: pp. 40, 45, 83, 375.
Props. 6-20: pp. 47, 48. Prop. 6: pp. 38, 47. Prop. 7: pp. 38, 39, 80, 374.
Prop. 8: pp. 38, 39,40, 374. Prop. 9: pp. 39,40, 80. Prop. 10: pp. 39,40.
Prop. 11:p. 39. Prop. 12:pp. 25, 39, 83, 370, 374, 389. Prop. 13:pp.25, 39,
83, 369, 370. Props. 14-16: p. 39. Prop. 17: pp. 39, 72, 83, 371. Prop. 18:
pp. 39, 72, 83, 368. Prop. 19:pp. 39, 369. Prop. 20:p. 39. Prop. 21:pp. 40,
83,372. Prop. 22: pp. 40, 83, 369. Prop. 23:pp. 40, 83, 370. Prop. 24: p. 40.
Prop. 25: pp. 40, 45. Prop. 26: p. 40. Prop. 27: pp. 40, 45. Prop. 28: p. 40.
Prop. 31: pp. 45, 47, 374. Prop. 32: p. 40. Prop. 33: pp. 40, 372. Props.33-51:
p.40. Prop. 38:pp. 83, 371, 372. Prop. 39:p. 371. Prop. 40:pp. 39,83,371,
373. Prop. 41:p. 374. Prop. 42:p. 370. Prop. 43:pp. 83, 371.

Book VIII
Book VIII: pp. 41-51, cf. also Chapter 6.

15.4. Index of Names

This index contains all occurrences of all personal names in this book
with the exception of the Preface and the Bibliography. The Arabic article
al- has been ignored in the alphabetical arrangement. The index also includes
references to most of the ancient and medieval works that have been mentioned. These references can be found under the author's name.
'Abd ai-Malik ai-Shirazi (fl. 1160) (edition of the Conics) 121
Abdukabirov, A. 3
AbU 'All al-l:Iasan ibn al-l:Iasan ibn al-Haytham, see Ibn al-Haytham
Abii I-Fatl]. Mul].ammad ibn Qasim ibn Fagl al-I~fahani (12th c.) (summary
of the Conics) 121, 128
Abii I-Futiil]. Al].mad ibn Mul].ammad ibn ai-Sura (12th c.) 128
Abii Isl].aq al-~abi (10th c.) (correspondence with Abii Sahl al-Kiihi) 92,
93, 114n
Abu Ja'far al-Khiizin (lOth c.) (correction of the Conics) 49n
Abu I-Jiid (10th c.) 104, 113n
Abii Mul].ammad 'Abdallah ibn 'Ali al-l:Iasib (lOth c.) 113n
Abii Na~r ibn 'Iraq (lOth c.) 128
Abii Sa'd al-'Ala) ibn Sahl (10th c.) 113

406

Index of Names

Abu Sahl al-Kiihi (10th c.) 70, 71, 84, 93, 104, 113, 114, 115; Treatise on
the Perfect Compass 36; On Filling the Gap in the Second Book of
Archimedes (On the Sphere and Cylinder) 70, 104; Centres of Circles
Tangent to Lines by Way of Analysis 99, 100; Letter on the Derivation
of the Side of the Heptagon in the Circle 84n, 115n; Measurement of the
Paraboloid 115n; trisection of the angle 128; correspondence with
Abii Isl].aq al-~abi 92, 93n, 114n .
Abii CUthman Miisa ibn CUbaydallah al-Isra'iIl al-Ququbi, see Maimonides
Abu l-Wafa' (10th c.) (geometry) 62
Al].mad ibn Miisa (9th c.) 62, see also Banii Miisa
Alhazen, see Ibn al-Haytham
cAli al-Bayhaqi (12th c.) (History of the Scholars of Islam) 52, 54
Anbouba, A. 84
Apollonius of Perga (fl. 200 B.C.), Conics: passim, see especially Chapters 3,
4 and 15.2-15.3; Pappus' lemmas to the Conics: see 4.2; edition of
the Conics by Eutocius 30, commentary by Eutocius 2, 336; Arabic
translation (supervised by the Banii Miisa) 31, 37n, 42, 43n, 71, 74,
76, 77n, 79n, 80n, 82, 100, 124, 311, 312, 313, 373, 374, 403, see also
15.1; preface and preliminaries to this translation: see Banii Miisa;
alternative Arabic translation of the Conics by a certain Isl).aq (?) 49;
Arabic reeditions of the Conics 2, 50, 121, 124; notes to the Conics
by Maimonides : see Maimonides; notes to the Conics by an anonymous
author 128; other works by Apollonius: On Cutting-Off a Ratio
12, 64, 98, 99, 100, 126, 319, 397; On Cutting-Off an Area (lost) 65,
98, 99; On Determinate Section (lost) 65, 72, 361, 362; On Tangencies
(lost) 64, 65n; Plane Loci (lost) 65, 336; On Inclinations (lost) 65
Aqatiin (Book of Assumptions, Kitab a1-Mafriiejat) 59, 122
Arberry, A. 118n
Archimedes (3rd c. B.C.) 58, 59, 60, 96, 104; On the Sphere and Cylinder
59, 60, 65, 70, 73, 84n, 103, 104; commentary by Eutocius to this:
see Eutocius; Quadrature of the Parabola 65; On Floating Bodies 353;
Lemmata, attributed to Archimedes 60, 97; construction of the regular
heptagon attributed to him 59, 92
Aristaeus (4th c. B.C.) (Solid Loci) 88n, 353
Aristotle 54, 95; Categories 96; Meteorology 336
Athir aI-Din al-Abhari (12th c.) 128
Bacon, Roger 57
Balsam, H. 31,47
Banii Miisa (9th c.) 2, 30,49, 80n; preface to the Arabic translation of the
Conics 2n, 30n, 37n, 48, 49, 79; preliminaries to the Conics 61, 79n;
proposition of the Banii Miisa (in these preliminaries) 63, 83, 401
AI-Bayhaqi, see CAli
Beeston. A. F. L. 31n

Index of Names

407

Berggren, J. L. 93n, 114n

AI-Blnlnl (972-1048) 114n, 336, 358; Extraction of Chords 70, 71
Blau, J. 130
Bulgakov, P. 114n
Commandinus, F. 65
Coxeter, H. S. M. 80n
Danish Pazuh, M. T. 3, 127, 128n
Desargues, G. 2
Descartes, R. 2, 57
Dimirdash, A. S. 70n
Diocles (fl.. 180 B.C.) 61, 104; On Burning Mirrors 84n, 353
Dionysodorus (fl.. 200 B.C.) 84n, 104
Diophantus (3rd c. A.D.) (Arithmetica) 58
Dodge,B.30n,49n
Dold-Samplonius, Yv. 59, 84, 115n, 122
Eratosthenes (3rd c. B.c.) (On Means) 375, 381
Euclid (fl.. 300 B.c.): Elements 1, 21, 31, 76, 77, 90, 97, 102, 125, 314, 320,
338, 345, 347, 350, 354, 355, 362, 364, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 376;
Data 82, 85, 88, 125, 314, 316, 335, 338, 371, 376; Optics 63n; Treatise
on Conics 353; Porisms 65
Eutocius of Ascalon (fl.. A.D. 510): edition and commentary of the Conics
of Apollonius 2, 30, 336; commentary on Archimedes' On the Sphere
and Cylinder 60n, 84n, 103, 104
AI-Farabi (9th c.) 62
Hugel, G. 30n, 49n
Gerard of Cremona (12th c.) 61
God 134, 138,208,298,350
Goniilta~, G. 300
AI-l;Iajj 'Ali Effendi 128n
l;Iajji Mul}.ammad ibn 'Uthman al-Harbaqurl (?) 128n
AI-l;Iakim (Caliph, t1021) 54, 116, 118
Halley, E. (1656-1743) 98, 99, 315; edition of Conics I-IV and translation
of Conics I-VII 30, 31, 42n; reconstruction of Conics VIII 3n, 41, 43,
47,48,65,72,368,371,374
Hamadanizadeh, J. 127
Hanln aI-Rashid (fl.. 800) 1
Heath, T. L. 12, 30, 31, 34n, 41, 42, 43, 60, 71n, 74n, 76, 79, 88n, 96, 97, 98,
99, 103n, 107n, 336, 350,353,360

408

Index of Names

Heiberg, 1. L. 30, 31, 34n, 41, 42n, 43n, 44, 60, 65n, 71n, 74n, 77, 78, 79,
lOOn, 103n, 312, 313, 336, 363, 369,380, 391,403
Hermelink H. 62, 69
Hilal ibn Abi HiIal al-ljim~I (9th c.) 30
Hippocrates of Chios (ft. 430 B.c.) 59
Hogendijk,J. P.49n, 59n, 62, 99n, 337
Hultsch, F. 43, 45, 47, 80, 96n, 99, 107n, 336, 361
Huygens, Chr. 105
Ibn Abi CU~aybiCa (13th c.) ('Uyun al-Anba' fl Tabaqat al-Atibba') 53, 54,
62,63n, 74,97, 107n
Ibn al-Haytham, Abu cAll al-Ijasan ibn al-l;Iasan (965-ca. 1041). Life:
see 5.2. Works: see 5.3-5.4 (pp. 54-62). The following of his works
are also mentioned elsewhere in this book: Completion of the Conics:
passim, for text and translation, see 134-299; Optics, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61,
73, 75, 83, 105-113, 114, 116, 117, 359; On the Construction of the
(Regular) Heptagon 59, 63, 69, 84, 86, 87, 88, 331, 355; On the Quadrature
of the Circle 59, 75, 95, 96,117,118; On Known Things 58, 85, 115,
117, 118, 336; On Analysis and Synthesis 58, 73, 85, 114, 115, 118;
Treatise on the Division of the Line which Archimedes Used in the
Second Book (On the Sphere and Cylinder) 59, 60, 73; Chapter on the
Lemma for the Side of the Heptagon 59, 73, 92; Commentary on the
Premisses of Euclid's Elements (Sharh al-Mu~addarat) 58, 63, 102,
114,117,118,355,399; Measurement of the Paraboloid 59, 62, 69, 115n;
Properties of Triangles with Respect to Perpendiculars (On the Perpendiculars of Triangles) 59, 62, 69; Treatise on the Perfect Compass
36; A Solid Arithmetical Problem 61, 73; Letter on the Proposition of
the Banu Musil 61, 63, 83, 401; On Paraboloidal Burning Mirrors 57, 61,
118, 399; On Spherical Burning Mirrors 399; On the Light of the Stars
62; Summary of the Conics (lost) 61, 83; Letter on the Proof of the
Proposition which Archimedes Used as a Preliminary to the Trisection
of the Angle (lost) 60, 96; Treatise on the Construction of Four Lines
(i.e. mean proportionals) Between Two Lines (lost) 97; Treatise on
the Greatest of the Lines which Fall in a Segment of a Circle (lost) 107n;
On the Properties of the Parabola (lost) 62, 321; reconstruction of
Book I of Ptolemy's Optics (lost) 63, 64, 118, 119
Ibn al-Nadim (t990) (Fihrist) 2n, 49
Ibn al-Qiftl (t1248) (Ta'rlkh al-Ijukama') 49,50,52,54, 55n, 114n, 124
IbrahIm ibn Sinan (t946) 113; On the Description of the Notions He Derived
in Geometry and Astronomy 99; On the Method of Analysis and Synthesis
99, 100; Exquisite Problems 336, 337; Quadrature of the Parabola 65
cImad aI-Din Abu Kalijar al-Marzuban 128n
AI-Isfaracini (ft. 1100) 58n
Is~aq (ibn l;Iunayn?) 49
Is~aq ibn l;Iunayn (9th c.) 103
Is~aq ibn Yunus (ft. 1030) 54

Index of Names

409

Jackson, D. E. P. 65n
Jamal aI-Din MUQammad ibn Wa~il (13th c.) 128n
Jones, A. 44n
Juschkewitch, A. P. In, 2n, 70n
Kamal aI-Din ibn Yiinus (fl. 1200) 128
Kasir, D. 97, 104n
Kepler, J. 57, 360
al-Khayyam, see Vmar
Krause, M. 31n
al-Kiihi, see Abu Sahl
Lane, E. W. 313
Lang,S. 319
Langermann, T. 125
Lejeune, A. 27, 56, 105n
Lippert, J. 49n, 50, 52n, 55n, 114n
Lohne, J. A. 105n
AI-Mahani (fl. 860) 104
Maimonides (tI204) (notes to the Conics of Apollonius) 122, 125, 126,
129, 311, 316, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329, 332, 333, 334, 338, 340
AI-Macmiin (Caliph, t833) 1,49
Menaechmus (4th c. B.c.) 84n
Menelaos (Spherics) 128
Meskill, K. 3n
Mieli, A. In
MUQammad, prophet of Islam, 298
MUQammad ibn Abi Jarada (l3th c.) 128
MUQammad ibn al-l;Iusayn (fl. 1200) 36n
MUQammad ibn Sartaq ibn Jawbar (13th c.) 122
MUQammad Kurd Ali 52n
MUQyi aI-Din al-Maghribi (13th c.) (reedition ofthe Conics of Apollonius) 50
Miiller, A. 52n, 53n, 63n, 107n
Na~ir aI-Din al-Tus! (13th c.) 70n, 84n, 85n, 103n, 128

Nasr, S. H. In
ibn cAbdallah (fl. 1000?) 62
Na~!f, M. 105, 106
Nix, L. 30, 31
Na~r

Pappus of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 325) (Collection) 12, 41, 43-47, 48, 65, 72,
80, 96n, 107n, 336, 361, 362,375
Ptolemy (2nd c. A.D.): Almagest 55, 336; Planetary Hypotheses 55; Optics
63,64, 105, 118, 119

Index of Names

410

Qay~ar

ibn Musiifir (13th c.) 54

Ramsay Wright, R. 358

Rashed,R. 58n, 59n,63,69, 70,84,86,87, 115n,331
Risner, F. 56, 60n, 105, 107, 112n, IBn
Rosenfel'd, B. 3n
AI-~iibi, see Abu Isl]iiq

Sabra, A. I. 5On, 52, 53n, 55, 56, 57, 60n, 61n, 83, 105n, 106, 107, 108, 131n
Saliba, G. 99
Samplonius, Y., see Dold
SaYlh, A. 128
Schooten, F. van 64n
Schoy, C. 59n
Schramm,M. 31, 52, 53n, 54n, 55, 56, 57n,94, 115, 311,313,363
Sedillot, 1. A. 85, 117, 336
Sesiano, J. 58n, 61n, 392 (no. 61), 398 (no. 75)
Sezgin, F. 2, 3; references to GAS: passim
AI-Shannt (10th c.) 113n
AI-Sijzi (lOth c.): Treatise on drawing conic sections 36n; Treatise on the
fact that all geometrical figures are derived from the circle 62; Treatise
on the construction of the regular heptagon and the trisection of the
angle 49n; Treatise on the exquisite problems that were currently being
discussed between him and the geometers of Shlraz and Khorasan
lOOn, 337
Sirazhdinov, S. Kh. 3n
de Slane, M. 99n, 117n
Souissi, M. 398 (no. 75),402 (no. 123)
Steele, A. D. 95
Sude, B. H. 58, 102, 115, 117, 355
Suter, H. 36n, 50, 54,65n, 70n,95,96, 128
TerziogIu, N. 2n, 3, 30n, 37n, 49n, 128
Thiibit ibn Qurra (9th c.) 30, 65, 337
Thaer, C. 85n, 314
Toomer, G. 1. 30,61,62, 84n, 336, 353
AI-Tust, see Na~tr aI-Dtn
'Vmar al-Khayyiim (tI131) (Algebra) 82,97, 104,399 (no. 84)
Ver Eecke, P. 31,42, 44n, 45, 65, 77n, 353
Vieta, F. (Apollonius Gallus) 64
da Vinci, Leonardo, 57
Voorhoeve, P. 60n

Bibliography, A-Be

411

Wiedemann, E. 52n, 61n

Witelo,57
Woepcke,F.36n,60, 70n, 84n, 97, 104n, 399 (no. 84)
Wright, W. 130, 324
Youschkevitch, A. P., see Juschkewitsch
AI-Zawzani (l3th c.) 49n
Zayn al-cAbidin Mul].ammad Tahir, 128n
Zenodorus (early 2nd c. B.C.) 59
Zeuthen,FI.CJ.2n, 12,65, 78n,80,99, 107n, 375, 381, 383

15.5. Bibliography
CAli al-Bayhaqi, see al-BayhaqI.
A. Anbouba, Tasbi c al-da'ira (in Arabic). Journal for Hist. of Arabic Sci.
1/1977/384-352 (summaries in JHAS 1/1977/319 and JHAS
2/1978/264-269).
Apollonius, Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant cum commentariis antiquis,
ed. J. L. Heiberg, Leipzig 1891-1893,2 vols.
- Conicorum libri V I II et Sereni Antissensis De sectione cylindri et coni
libri II, ed. and tr. E. Halley, Oxoniae (Oxford) 1710.
- See also Balsam, Halley, Heath, Nix, Terzioglu, Ver Becke.
A. J. Arberry, A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts (in the Chester Beatty
Library), vol. III, Dublin 1958.
Archimedes, Archimedis Opera omnia cum comm. Eutocii iterum edidit,
J. L. Heiberg. Leipzig 1910-1915, 3 vols.
- See also Heath.

H. Balsam, Des Apollonius sieben Bucher uber Kegelschnitte nebst dem durch
Halley wieder hergestellten achten Buche, Berlin 1861.

al-BayhaqI, 'Ali, Ta'rikh IJukama' ai-Islam, ed. Mul;lammad Kurd CAli,

Damascus 1946.
A. F. L. Beeston, The Marsh Manuscript of Apollonius's Conica, The
Bodleian Library Record, 4/1952-1953/76-77.

412

Bibliography, Bi-Eu

AI-Biriini, RasaJi/ al-Blrunl (in Arabic), Hyderabad (Osmania Oriental

Publications Bureau) 1367 H./AD. 1948.
- Istikhraj al-Awtar Jll-daJira bi-khawa~~ al-khatt al-munhana al-waqi
Jiha, ed. Al:tmad Sacid Dimirdash, Cairo, n.d. ( 1965?).
- Kitab talJdid nihayat al-amakin li-taslJllJ masafiit al-masakin, ed.
P. Bulgakow, Cairo 1962(?).
- The Book oj Instruction in the Elements oj Astrology, ed. (in facsimile)
and tr. R. Ramsay Wright, London 1934.
C

J. Blau. A grammar oj Christian Arabic, based mainly on South-Palestinian

texts Jrom the first millenium. Leuven, 1966-1967, 2 vols. paginated
serially.
Command in us, Pappi Alexandrini Mathematicae Collectiones a Fed.
Commandino in latinum conversae, Pisauri 1588.
Conics, see Apollonius.

H. S. M. Coxeter, The real projective plane, New York 1949.

M. T. Danish-Paiiih, Fihrist-i MlkruJUmha-i Kitabkhana-i Markaz-i
Danishgah-i Tahran (in Persian), vol. I, Teheran 1348 A H. (solar)/AD.
1969.
Data, see Euclid, Thaer.

A S. Dimirdash, see AI-Biriini.

Diodes, see G. J. Toomer.

B. Dodge, Ibn al-Nadim, Kitab al-Fihrist tr. Bayard Dodge, New York
1970,2 vols.

Y. Dold-Samplonius: Book oj Assumptions oj Aqatun, thesis, Amsterdam

1977.
DSB, Dictionary oj Scientific Biography, ed. C. C. Gillespie, New York
1970-1978,14 vols. +suppl.
Ell

Encyclopaedia oj Islam, new edition, Leiden-London 1960ff.

Elements, see Euclid, Heath.

Euclid, Euclidis opera omnia ed. J. L. Heiberg, H. Menge, Leipzig 1883-1916,

8 vols with suppl. (Elements = vol. I-IV, Data = vol. VI).
- See also Heath. Thaer.

Bibliography. GAS-Ibr

413

GAS, see F. Sezgin.

E. Halley, Apollonii Pergaei De sectione rationis libri duo, Oxford 1706.

T. L. Heath, Apollonius of Perga, Treatise on Conic Sections, ed. in modern

notations with introductions, Cambridge 1896.
- The works of Archimedes, ed. in modern notations, Cambridge 1897.
- HGM = A History of Greek Mathematics, Oxford 1921,2 vols.
- Euclid. The Thirteen Books of the Elements, tr. with introd. and comm.
second edition, Cambridge 1925.
- Mathematics in Aristotle, Oxford 1949.
1. L. Heiberg, see Apollonius, Archimedes, Euclid.
H. Hermelink, Zur Geschichte des Satzes von der Lotsumme im Dreieck,
Sudhoffs Archiv 48/1964/240-247.
1. P. Hogendijk, How trisections of the angle were transmitted from Greek
to Islamic geometry, Historia Mathematica 8/1981/417-438.
- Rearranging the Arabic Mathematical and Astronomical Manuscript Bankipore 2468, Journalfor Hist. of Arabic Sci. 6/1982/133-159.
- Greek and Arabic constructions of the regular heptagon, Archive

for Hist. of Sci. 30/1984/197-330.

Hultsch, see Pappus.
Ibn Abl CU~aybiCa, CUyun af Anba' fi Tabaqat af-Atibba', herausgegeben von
August Muller (in Arabic), 2 vols. Cairo-Konigsberg, 1882-1884.
Ibn al-Haytham: Majmu Cal-rasa'il Ii l-calliima al-failasuf Abu cAll ... ibn
al-Haytham (in Arabic). Hyderabad, 1357 H./A.D. 1947.
- AI-J::Iasan ibn al-J::Iasan ibn al-Haytham, Kitab al-Mana#r (Optics),
Books I-III (On direct vision), ed. with introduction, Arabic-Latin
glossaries and concordance tables by A. I. Sabra (in Arabic), Kuwait
1983.
- See also Hermelink, Rashed, Risner, Sude, Terzioglu.
Ibn al-Nadlm, Kitab al-Fihrist, mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben von
Gustav Flugel, Leipzig 1871 (2 vols.).
- See also Dodge.
Ibn al-Qiftl, Ta'rikh al-lfukama', ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig 1903.
Ibrahim ibn Sinan, Rasa'ilu ibn-i-Sinan, Hyderabad 1367 H./A.D. 1948.
- Risala Ibrahim ibn Siniin ibn Thiibit ibn Qurra fI l-macanl llat!

Bibliography, Jac-Pt

414

stakhrajaha fI l-handasa wa-I-nujum ed. G. Saliba, in Studia Arabica

et Islamica, Festschriftfor Ibsan cAbbas, ed. Wadad al-Qa41, American
University of Beirut 1981.
- See also Suter.
D. E. P. Jackson, The Arabic translation of a Greek manual of mechanics,
The Islamic Quarterly, 16/1972/96-103.
A. P. Juschkewitsch, Geschichte der Mathematik im Mittelalter, Leipzig 1964
(translated from the Russian).
Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, ed. M. Caspar et al. Miinchen 1937.
M. Krause, Stambuler Handschriften Islamischer Mathematiker, Quellen
und Studien zur Geschichte der Math. Astr. und Phys, Abt. B. Studien,
3/1936/437-532.

E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, London 1863-1893, 8 vols.

S. Lang, Algebra, Reading (Mass.) 1977.
A. Lejeune, L'Optique de Claude Ptolemee, Louvain 1956.
- Recherches sur la catoptrique grecque, in: Academie Royale de
Belgique, Classe des lettres, Memoires, 2 serie 52/1957.
J. A. Lohne, Alhazens Spiegelproblem, Nordisk Matematisk Tidskrift,
18/1970/5-35.
A. Mieli, La Science Arabe et son role dans l' evolution scientifique mondiale,
Sarajewo 1938 (reprint Leiden 1966).

S. H. Nasr, Islamic Science, an illustrated study, London 1976.

M. Na?lf, AI-I;lasan ibn al-Haytham, Bubiithuhu wa-kushiifuhu al-ba~ariyya
(in Arabic), Cairo 1942-1943, 2 vols.

L. Nix, Dasft1nfte Buch der Conica des Apollonios von Perga in der arabischen
Ubersetzung des Thabit ibn Corrah. (Teilweise) Herausgegeben, ...
Leipzig 1889.

Pappus: Pappi Alexandrini Collectionis quae supersunt, ed. Fr. Hultsch

Berlin 1875-1878, 3 vols. paginated serially.
Ptolemy, see G. J. Toomer.

Bibliography, Ra-Ses

415

R. Rashed, La construction de l'heptagone regulier par Ibn al-Haytham,

Journalfor Rist of. Arabic Sci. 3/1979/309-387.
- Ibn al-Haytham et Ie theoreme de Wilson, Archive for Rist. of Ex.
Sci. 22/1980/305-321.
- Ibn al-Haytham et la mesure du paraboloYde, J ourn.for Rist. ofArabic
Sci. 5/1981/191-262.
F. Risner (ed.), Opticae Thesaurus Alhazeni Arabis libri Septem ... eiusdem
Liber De Crepusculis et Nubium Ascensionibus. Item Vitellonis Thuringopoloni Libri X, Basel 1572. (Reprint New York 1972.)

A. I. Sabra, Article: Ibn al-Haytham in DSB VI,189-210.

- A note on Codex Bibliotheca Medica-Iaurenziana Or. 152, Journal
for Rist. of Arabic Sci. 1/1977/276-283.
- Ibn al-Haytham's Lemmas for Solving "Alhazen's Problem"
Archivefor Rist. Ex. Sci. 26/1982/299-324.
- See also Ibn al-Haytham.
G. Saliba, see Ibrahim ibn Sinan.
Yv. Samplonius, Die Konstruktion des regelmassigen Siebenecks nach AbU
Sahl al-Quhi Waigan ibn Rustam, Janus 50/1963/227-249.

A. SaYlh, The Trisection of the Angle by Abu Sahl Wayjan ibn Rustam
al-KuhI (in Turkish and English), Belleten 26/1962/693-700.

C. Schoy, Die trigonometrischen Lehren des persischen Astronomen Abii'lRaihan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni, hrsg. von J. Ruska und H.

Wieleitner. Hannover 1927.

M. Schramm, Ibn al-Raytham's Weg zur Physik, Wiesbaden 1963.
- Ibn al-Haytham's SteHung in der Geschichte der Wissenschaften,
Fikrun wafann 6/1965/1-22.

L. A. Sedillot, Materiaux pour servir

l'histoire comparee des sciences
mathematiques chez les Grecs et les Orientaux, Paris 1845-1849, 2 vols.

J. Sesiano, Un memo ire d'Ibn al-Haytham sur un probleme arithmetique

solide, Centaurus 20/1976/189-195.
- Herstellungsverfahren magischer Quadrate aus islamischer Zeit (I),
Sildhoffs Archiv 64/1980/187-196.
- Books IV to VII of Diophantus' "Arithmetica" in the Arabic Translation Attributed to Qus!a ibn Luqa, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin 1982.
(Sources in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, vol. 3.)

Bibliography, Sez-Th

416

= Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums. Band V: Mathematik (1974), Band VI, Astronomie (1978), Band VII, Astrologie,
Meteorologie und Verwandtes (1979), Leiden.

F, Sezgin, GAS

S. Kh. Sirazhdinov (ed.), Mathematics and astronomy in the works oj Ibn Slna,
his contemporaries and successors (in Russian) Tashkent ("Fan") 1981,
see ZentralblattJur Mathematik, # 481.01007 (2 Dec. 1982).
M. de Slane, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes (de la Bibliotheque Nationale),
vol. I, Paris 1883.
M. Souissi, La langue des Mathematiques en Arabe, Tunis 1968.
A. D. Steele, Uber die Rolle von Zirkel und Lineal in der griechischen
Mathematik. Quellen und Studien zur Gesch. der Math. Astr. und Phys.
Abt. B, Studien 3/1936/287-369.

B. H. Sude, Ibn al-Haytham's commentary on the premises oj Euclid's Elements,

Books I-VI. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University 1974.
(University Microfilms International no. DC] 75-23243.)
H. Suter, Die M athematiker und Astronomen der Araber und ihre Werke,
Leipzig 1900. (Reprint New York 1972.)
- Das Buch der Auffindung der Sehnen im Kreise von Abu'l-Rayl)an
Mul).ammad a1-Biriini, Bibliotheca Mathematica, 3. Fo1ge, 11/1910/
11-78.
- Uber die Ausmessung der Parabel von Thabit b. IS:-urra al-Barrani,
Sitzungsberichte der Phys.-Med. Soz. zu Erlangen, 48/1916/65-86.
- Die Abhandlungen Thabit b. IS:-urras und AbU Sahl al-Kuhi's fiber
die Ausmessung der Parabololde, Sitzungsberichte der Phys. Med. Soz.
zu Erlangen 48-49/1916-1917/186-227.
- Die Abhandlung tiber die Ausmessung der Para bel von Ibrahim ibn
Sin an ibn Thabit, Vierteljahresschrift der NaturJorschenden
GesellschaJt in Zurich 63/1918/214-228.
N. Terzioglu, Das Vorwort des Astronomen Bani Miisa b. ~akir zu den
"Conica" des Apollonius von Perge, Istanbul 1974, Publications of the
Mathematical Research Institute no. 3.
- Das Achte Buch zu den" Conica" des Apollonius von Perge. Rekonstruiert von Ibn al-Haysam. Herausgegeben und eingeleitet von
NaZlm Terziog1u, Istanbul 1974.
C. Thaer, Die Data von Euklid, Berlin-G6ttingen-Heidelberg 1962.

Bibliography, To-Z

417

G. J. Toomer, Diocles on Burning Mirrors, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York

1976. (Sources in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences,
no. 1.)
- Ptolemy's Almagest, translated and annotated by G. 1. Toomer.
London 1984, also New York - Berlin-Heidelberg-Tokyo 1984.
al-Tusi, Na~ir ai-Din, Rasa'il, Hyderabad 1358-1359 H./A.D. 1939-1940,
2 vols.
P. Ver Eecke, Les Coniques d'Apolionius de Perge, 1922, nouveau tirage,
Paris 1959.
F. Vieta, Opera mathematica recognita Francisci a Schoo ten, Vorwort und
Register von 1. E. Hofmann, Hildesheim-New York 1970.
P. Voorhoeve, A handlist of Arabic manuscripts in the library of the University
of Leiden and other collections in the Netherlands. Second enlarged
edition. The Hague-Boston-London 1980.
E. Wiedemann, Ibn al-Haytham, ein arabi scher Gelehrter, in: Festschriftfiir
J. Rosenthal, Leipzig 1906, pp. 149-178.

F. Woepcke, L'algebre d'Omar Alkhayyami, Paris 1851.

- Trois traites arabes sur Ie compas parfait, Notices et Extraits des
M anuscrits de la Bibliotheque N ationale et autres bibliotheques
22/1874/1-176.
W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Translated from the German
of Caspari and edited with numerous additions and corrections, third
edition (1859), reprint London-New York-Melbourne 1979.
H. G. Zeuthen, Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertum, Kopenhagen
1886.