2
$\begingroup$

This is my working 2-column proof for Book 1 Proposition 7. I would be remiss in saying that this is completely foolproof. One question is how we are to formulate a proof by contradiction within the structure of a 2-column proof; needless to say "For contradiction" as a justification on first glance does not look as mathematically salient as such a justification could be. Secondly, I haven't a justification for (7); I would like to keep the justifications as Euclidean as possible, and you can see that it is the transitive property of inequality, but Euclid does not explicitly give this in book 1 despite C.N. 1 being the transitive property of equality. The justification could very well be "Transitive Property of Inequality" but that defeats my purpose of constructing the 2-column proofs using what Euclid has defined, postulated, notioned, and proved previously

Construction of Euclid's Elements I.7

\begin{array}{l l} \text{If } \triangle ABC \text{ and } \triangle ABD \text{ stand on the same base } AB \text{ and }\\[4pt] \text{on the same side of it, and if } AC = AD \text{ and } BC = BD, \text{ then } C = D.\\[4pt]\\ \text{Statement} & \text{Justification} \\[6pt] (1) \text{ Let }\triangle ABC\text{ and }\triangle ABD\text{ on base }AB,\ AC=AD,\ BC=BD. & \text{Given.} \\[4pt] (2) \text{ Assume }C\neq D. & \text{For contradiction.} \\[4pt](3) \text{ Draw }CD. & \text{Postulate 1}\\[4pt](4) \angle ACD=\angle ADC. &\text{I.5}\\[4pt] (5)\angle ADC > \angle DCB. &\text{Common Notion 5}\\[4pt] (6)\angle BDC > \angle ADC &\text{Common Notion 5}\\[4pt] (7)\angle BDC \gg\angle DCB \\[4pt] (8) \text{ But }\angle BDC = \angle DCB. &\text{I.5}\\[4pt](9) \therefore C=D. &Q.E.D \end{array}

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Have you seen Elements, I.7? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 2, 2025 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ @MauroALLEGRANZA I have my own copies of all 13 books, but I have not yet seen that resource. That's an awesome website, thank you! $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 2, 2025 at 12:23

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

The proof uses the "per impossibile" technique, that is a logical principle, not specifically a geometrical one.

See Aristotle's Logic: "In the proof [of syllogistics figures from the first (the "perfect") one] Aristotle says that he “reduces” (anagein) each case to one of the perfect forms and that they are thereby “completed” or “perfected”. These completions are either probative (deiktikos: a modern translation might be “direct”) or through the impossible (dia to adunaton)."

The issue about common notions is complex: some of them are later interpolations and also their correct interpretation is debated.

Thwere is transitivity of equality (CN.1) but tarnsitivity of "less than" is missing: maybe the "weird" CN.5 was introduced to supply it.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.