The Teaching of Geometry Part 13

These are the chief methods of attack, and are all that should be given to an average cla.s.s for practical use.

Besides the methods of attack, there are a few general directions that should be given to pupils.

1. In attacking either a theorem or a problem, take the most general figure possible. Thus, if a proposition relates to a quadrilateral, take one with unequal sides and unequal angles rather than a square or even a rectangle. The simpler figures often deceive a pupil into feeling that he has a proof, when in reality he has one only for a special case.

2. Set forth very exactly the thing that is given, using letters relating to the figure that has been drawn. Then set forth with the same exactness the thing that is to be proved. The neglect to do this is the cause of a large per cent of the failures. The knowing of exactly what we have to do and exactly what we have with which to do it is half the battle.

3. If the proposition seems hazy, the difficulty is probably with the wording. In this case try subst.i.tuting the definition for the name of the thing defined. Thus instead of thinking too long about proving that the median to the base of an isosceles triangle is perpendicular to the base, draw the figure and think that there is given

_AC_ = _BC_, _AD_ = _BD_,

and that there is to be proved that

[L]_CDA_ = [L]_BDC_.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

Here we have replaced "median," "isosceles," and "perpendicular" by statements that express the same idea in simpler language.

=Bibliography.= Petersen, Methods and Theories for the Solution of Geometric Problems of Construction, Copenhagen, 1879, a curious piece of English and an extreme view of the subject, but well worth consulting; Alexandroff, Problemes de geometrie elementaire, Paris, 1899, with a German translation in 1903; Loomis, Original Investigation; or, How to attack an Exercise in Geometry, Boston, 1901; Sauvage, Les Lieux geometriques en geometrie elementaire, Paris, 1893; Hadamard, Lecons de geometrie, p. 261, Paris, 1898; Duhamel, Des Methodes dans les sciences de raisonnement, 3^e ed., Paris, 1885; Henrici and Treutlein, Lehrbuch der Elementar-Geometrie, Leipzig, 3. Aufl., 1897; Henrici, Congruent Figures, London, 1879.

CHAPTER XIV

BOOK I AND ITS PROPOSITIONS

Having considered the nature of the geometry that we have inherited, and some of the opportunities for improving upon the methods of presenting it, the next question that arises is the all-important one of the subject matter, What shall geometry be in detail? Shall it be the text or the sequence of Euclid? Few teachers have any such idea at the present time. Shall it be a mere dabbling with forms that are seen in mechanics or architecture, with no serious logical sequence? This is an equally dangerous extreme. Shall it be an entirely new style of geometry based upon groups of motions? This may sometime be developed, but as yet it exists in the future if it exists at all, since the recent efforts in this respect are generally quite as ill suited to a young pupil as is Euclid's "Elements" itself.

No one can deny the truth of M. Bourlet's recent a.s.sertion that "Industry, daughter of the science of the nineteenth century, reigns to-day the mistress of the world; she has transformed all ancient methods, and she has absorbed in herself almost all human activity."[57]

Neither can one deny the justice of his comparison of Euclid with a n.o.ble piece of Gothic architecture and of his a.s.sertion that as modern life demands another type of building, so it demands another type of geometry.

But what does this mean? That geometry is to exist merely as it touches industry, or that bad architecture is to replace the good? By no means.

A building should to-day have steam heat and elevators and electric lights, but it should be constructed of just as enduring materials as the Parthenon, and it should have lines as pleasing as those of a Gothic facade. Architecture should still be artistic and construction should still be substantial, else a building can never endure. So geometry must still exemplify good logic and must still bring to the pupil a feeling of exaltation, or it will perish and become a mere relic in the museum of human culture.

What, then, shall the propositions of geometry be, and in what manner shall they answer to the challenge of the industrial epoch in which we live? In reply, they must be better adapted to young minds and to all young minds than Euclid ever intended his own propositions to be.

Furthermore, they must have a richness of application to pure geometry, in the way of carefully chosen exercises, that Euclid never attempted.

And finally, they must have application to this same life of industry of which we have spoken, whenever this can really be found, but there must be no sham and pretense about it, else the very honesty that permeated the ancient geometry will seem to the pupil to be wanting in the whole subject.[58]

Until some geometry on a radically different basis shall appear, and of this there is no very hopeful sign at present, the propositions will be the essential ones of Euclid, excluding those that may be considered merely intuitive, and excluding all that are too difficult for the pupil who to-day takes up their study. The number will be limited in a reasonable way, and every genuine type of application will be placed before the teacher to be used as necessity requires. But a fair amount of logic will be retained, and the effort to make of geometry an empty bauble of a listless mind will be rejected by every worthy teacher. What the propositions should be is a matter upon which opinions may justly differ; but in this chapter there is set forth a reasonable list for Book I, arranged in a workable sequence, and this list may fairly be taken as typical of what the American school will probably use for many years to come. With the list is given a set of typical applications, and some of the general information that will add to the interest in the work and that should form part of the equipment of the teacher.

An ancient treatise was usually written on a kind of paper called papyrus, made from the pith of a large reed formerly common in Egypt, but now growing luxuriantly only above Khartum in Upper Egypt, and near Syracuse in Sicily; or else it was written on parchment, so called from Pergamos in Asia Minor, where skins were first prepared in parchment form; or occasionally they were written on ordinary leather. In any case they were generally written on long strips of the material used, and these were rolled up and tied. Hence we have such an expression as "keeping the roll" in school, and such a word as "volume," which has in it the same root as "involve" (to roll in), and "evolve" (to roll out).

Several of these rolls were often necessary for a single treatise, in which case each was tied, and all were kept together in a receptacle resembling a pail, or in a compartment on a shelf. The Greeks called each of the separate parts of a treatise _biblion_ ([Greek: biblion]), a word meaning "book." Hence we have the books of the Bible, the books of Homer, and the books of Euclid. From the same root, indeed, comes Bible, bibliophile (booklover), bibliography (list of books), and kindred words. Thus the books of geometry are the large chapters of the subject, "chapter" being from the Latin _caput_ (head), a section under a new heading. There have been efforts to change "books" to "chapters," but they have not succeeded, and there is no reason why they should succeed, for the term is clear and has the sanction of long usage.

THEOREM. _If two lines intersect, the vertical angles are equal._

This was Euclid's Proposition 15, being put so late because he based the proof upon his Proposition 13, now thought to be best taken without proof, namely, "If a straight line set upon a straight line makes angles, it will make either two right angles or angles equal to two right angles." It is found to be better pedagogy to a.s.sume that this follows from the definition of straight angle, with reference, if necessary, to the meaning of the sum of two angles. This proposition on vertical angles is probably the best one with which to begin geometry, since it is not so evident as to seem to need no proof, although some prefer to rank it as semiobvious, while the proof is so simple as easily to be understood. Eudemus, a Greek who wrote not long before Euclid, attributed the discovery of this proposition to Thales of Miletus (_ca._ 640-548 B.C.), one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece, of whom Proclus wrote: "Thales it was who visited Egypt and first transferred to h.e.l.lenic soil this theory of geometry. He himself, indeed, discovered much, but still more did he introduce to his successors the principles of the science."

The proposition is the only basal one relating to the intersection of two lines, and hence there are no others with which it is necessarily grouped. This is the reason for placing it by itself, followed by the congruence theorems.

There are many familiar ill.u.s.trations of this theorem. Indeed, any two crossed lines, as in a pair of shears or the legs of a camp stool, bring it to mind. The word "straight" is here omitted before "lines" in accordance with the modern convention that the word "line" unmodified means a straight line. Of course in cases of special emphasis the adjective should be used.

THEOREM. _Two triangles are congruent if two sides and the included angle of the one are equal respectively to two sides and the included angle of the other._

This is Euclid's Proposition 4, his first three propositions being problems of construction. This would therefore have been his first proposition if he had placed his problems later, as we do to-day. The words "congruent" and "equal" are not used as in Euclid, for reasons already set forth on page 151. There have been many attempts to rearrange the propositions of Book I, putting in separate groups those concerning angles, those concerning triangles, and those concerning parallels, but they have all failed, and for the cogent reason that such a scheme destroys the logical sequence. This proposition may properly follow the one on vertical angles simply because the latter is easier and does not involve superposition.

As far as possible, Euclid and all other good geometers avoid the proof by superposition. As a practical test superposition is valuable, but as a theoretical one it is open to numerous objections. As Peletier pointed out in his (1557) edition of Euclid, if the superposition of lines and figures could freely be a.s.sumed as a method of demonstration, geometry would be full of such proofs. There would be no reason, for example, why an angle should not be constructed equal to a given angle by superposing the given angle on another part of the plane. Indeed, it is possible that we might then a.s.sume to bisect an angle by imagining the plane folded like a piece of paper. Heath (1908) has pointed out a subtle defect in Euclid's proof, in that it is said that because two lines are equal, they can be made to coincide. Euclid says, practically, that if two lines can be made to coincide, they are equal, but he does not say that if two straight lines are equal, they can be made to coincide. For the purposes of elementary geometry the matter is hardly worth bringing to the attention of a pupil, but it shows that even Euclid did not cover every point.

Applications of this proposition are easily found, but they are all very much alike. There are dozens of measurements that can be made by simply constructing a triangle that shall be congruent to another triangle. It seems hardly worth the while at this time to do more than mention one typical case,[59] leaving it to teachers who may find it desirable to suggest others to their pupils.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

Wis.h.i.+ng to measure the distance across a river, some boys sighted from _A_ to a point _P_. They then turned and measured _AB_ at right angles to _AP_. They placed a stake at _O_, halfway from _A_ to _B_, and drew a perpendicular to _AB_ at _B_. They placed a stake at _C_, on this perpendicular, and in line with _O_ and _P_. They then found the width by measuring _BC_. Prove that they were right.

This involves the ranging of a line, and the running of a line at right angles to a given line, both of which have been described in Chapter IX.

It is also fairly accurate to run a line at any angle to a given line by sighting along two pins stuck in a protractor.

THEOREM. _Two triangles are congruent if two angles and the included side of the one are equal respectively to two angles and the included side of the other._

Euclid combines this with his Proposition 26:

If two triangles have the two angles equal to two angles respectively, and one side equal to one side, namely, either the side adjoining the equal angles, or that subtending one of the equal angles, they will also have the remaining sides equal to the remaining sides, and the remaining angle to the remaining angle.

He proves this c.u.mbersome statement without superposition, desiring to avoid this method, as already stated, whenever possible. The proof by superposition is old, however, for Al-Nair[=i]z[=i][60] gives it and ascribes it to some earlier author whose name he did not know. Proclus tells us that "Eudemus in his geometrical history refers this theorem to Thales. For he says that in the method by which they say that Thales proved the distance of s.h.i.+ps in the sea, it was necessary to make use of this theorem." How Thales did this is purely a matter of conjecture, but he might have stood on the top of a tower rising from the level sh.o.r.e, or of such headlands as abound near Miletus, and by some simple instrument sighted to the s.h.i.+p. Then, turning, he might have sighted along the sh.o.r.e to a point having the same angle of declination, and then have measured the distance from the tower to this point. This seems more reasonable than any of the various plans suggested, and it is found in so many practical geometries of the first century of printing that it seems to have long been a common expedient. The stone astrolabe from Mesopotamia, now preserved in the British Museum, shows that such instruments for the measuring of angles are very old, and for the purposes of Thales even a pair of large compa.s.ses would have answered very well. An ill.u.s.tration of the method is seen in Belli's work of 1569, as here shown. At the top of the picture a man is getting the angle by means of the visor of his cap; at the bottom of the picture a man is using a ruler screwed to a staff.[61] The story goes that one of Napoleon's engineers won the imperial favor by quickly measuring the width of a stream that blocked the progress of the army, using this very method.

[Ill.u.s.tration: SIXTEENTH-CENTURY MENSURATION

Belli's "Del Misurar con la Vista," Venice, 1569]

This proposition is the reciprocal or dual of the preceding one. The relation between the two may be seen from the following arrangement:

Two triangles are congruent if two _sides_ and the included _angle_ of the one are equal respectively to two _sides_ and the included _angle_ of the other.

Two triangles are congruent if two _angles_ and the included _side_ of the one are equal respectively to two _angles_ and the included _side_ of the other.

In general, to every proposition involving _points_ and _lines_ there is a reciprocal proposition involving _lines_ and _points_ respectively that is often true,--indeed, that is always true in a certain line of propositions. This relation is known as the Principle of Reciprocity or of Duality. Instead of points and lines we have here angles (suggested by the vertex points) and lines. It is interesting to a cla.s.s to have attention called to such relations, but it is not of sufficient importance in elementary geometry to justify more than a reference here and there. There are other dual features that are seen in geometry besides those given above.

THEOREM. _In an isosceles triangle the angles opposite the equal sides are equal._

This is Euclid's Proposition 5, the second of his theorems, but he adds, "and if the equal straight lines be produced further, the angles under the base will be equal to one another." Since, however, he does not use this second part, its genuineness is doubted. He would not admit the common proof of to-day of supposing the vertical angle bisected, because the problem about bisecting an angle does not precede this proposition, and therefore his proof is much more involved than ours. He makes _CX_ = _CY_, and proves [triangles]_XBC_ and _YAC_ congruent,[62] and also [triangles]_XBA_ and _YAB_ congruent. Then from [L]_YAC_ he takes [L]_YAB_, leaving [L]_BAC_, and so on the other side, leaving [L]_CBA_, these therefore being equal.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

This proposition has long been called the _pons asinorum_, or bridge of a.s.ses, but no one knows where or when the name arose. It is usually stated that it came from the fact that fools could not cross this bridge, and it is a fact that in the Middle Ages this was often the limit of the student's progress in geometry. It has however been suggested that the name came from Euclid's figure, which resembles the simplest type of a wooden truss bridge. The name is applied by the French to the Pythagorean Theorem.

Proclus attributes the discovery of this proposition to Thales. He also says that Pappus (third century A.D.), a Greek commentator on Euclid, proved the proposition as follows: