Euclid's common notions and the theory of equivalence (Q2152377): Difference between revisions

This is a detailed, definitive study of the authenticity and function of the five common notions contained in Heiberg's standard edition of Euclid's \textit{Elements}. The common notions are: \(\bullet\) CN1: Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. \(\bullet\) CN2: If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. \(\bullet\) CN3: If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal. \(\bullet\) CN4: Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another. \(\bullet\) CN5: The whole is greater than the part. The authenticity analysis reveals that CN1--CN3 are authentic, given that they are also mentioned in Euclid's \textit{Data}, by Plato and Aristotle, and ``are at work in a great number of theorems.'' On the other hand there are a wide range of reasons to believe that CN4 and CN5 are inauthentic. These are: (i) ``The extant mathematical works by Archimedes, Geminus, Zenodorus, and, later on, Pappus mention neither CN4 nor CN5.'' (ii) ``The common notion on coincidence (CN4) appears to be employed only three times in the \textit{Elements}, namely, on the occasions on which Euclid resorts to the procedure of superposition: \textit{Elements} I, 4 and 8, and \textit{Elements} III, 24.'' (iii) ``Euclid never explicitly mentions [CN5] in the demonstrations.'' (iv) Proclus ``states that Heron, in his lost commentary on the \textit{Elements}, only accepted the first three common notions.'' These lead the author to ``advance the hypothesis that in Heron's times the \textit{Elements} only contained three common notions.'' \par Regarding their function, CN1--CN3 ``were first conceived in order to construct a geometrical theory of equivalence''; they ''provide a neat axiomatization of equality and additivity.'' \par CN4 and CN5 ``are used to compare to one another the squares (or parallelogrammic regions) that have been obtained through the process of equiampliability. This comparison is, in a sense, the goal of the theory of equivalence itself and in this respect CN4 and CN5 may be regarded as the crowning of the axiomatic system for such a theory. In another sense, however, CN4 and CN5 are external to the theory itself. They do not need to be embedded into a deductive chain of propositions (such as \textit{Elements} I, 35--45); rather, they are directly employed in order to compare figures: there is nothing to prove by them \(\ldots\) The comparison of figures through CN4 and CN5 occurs by means of \textit{diagrammatic inferences}, whereas CN1--CN3 are purely propositional principles.''