\documentclass[%
version=last,%
a5paper,
10pt,%
%headings=small,%
%bibliography=totoc,%
index=totoc,%
twoside,%
%leqno,%
cleardoublepage=empty,%
open=any,%
%parskip=half,%
draft=true,%
%DIV=classic,%
%DIV=10,%
DIV=12,%
headinclude=true,%
pagesize]%
{scrbook}
%{scrreprt}
%{scrartcl}

%\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}

\usepackage[headsepline]{scrpage2}
\pagestyle{scrheadings}
\clearscrheadings
\ohead{\pagemark}
\ihead{\headmark}

\let\oldmarginpar\marginpar
\renewcommand{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\raggedright\smaller#1}}

\usepackage{moredefs,lips}

%\usepackage{float}
%\floatstyle{boxed}
%\floatstyle{ruled}
%\restylefloat{figure}

\renewcommand{\captionformat}{. }

\usepackage{verse}
\usepackage{pstricks}
\usepackage{verbatim}

\usepackage{hfoldsty}
\usepackage[neverdecrease]{paralist}
\usepackage{url}

\usepackage{relsize} % Here \smaller scales by 1/1.2; \relscale{X} scales by X

\renewenvironment{quote}{\begin{list}{}
{\relscale{.90}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0.05\textwidth}
\setlength{\rightmargin}{\leftmargin}}
\item\relax}
{\end{list}}

\renewenvironment{quotation}{\begin{list}{}%
{\relscale{.90}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0.05\textwidth}
\setlength{\rightmargin}{\leftmargin}
\setlength{\listparindent}{1em}
\setlength{\itemindent}{\listparindent}
\setlength{\parsep}{\parskip}}
\item\relax}
{\end{list}}

\newcommand{\ldiv}{\textbf{//}\ }

\usepackage[polutonikogreek,english]{babel}

%\usepackage{cmbright} % documentation of gfsneohellenic suggests this
\usepackage{gfsneohellenic} % From the Greek Font Society
\usepackage{gfsporson} % From the Greek Font Society

\newcommand{\gr}[1]{\foreignlanguage{polutonikogreek}%
{%
\relscale{0.9}%
\textneohellenic{#1}}}%  Greek text

\newcommand{\grpor}[1]{\foreignlanguage{polutonikogreek}%
{%
%\relscale{0.9}%
\textporson{#1}}}%  Greek text, Porson font

\newcommand{\grm}[1]{\text{\gr{#1}}}

\newcommand{\gnm}[1]{\overset{\prime}{\rule{0pt}{1.3ex}\smash{#1}}}

%\newcommand{\tr}[1]{\textneohellenic{\relscale{0.9}#1}}
\newcommand{\tr}[1]{\textneohellenic{#1}}
%\newcommand{\tr}[1]{\textneohellenic{\itshape #1}}
%\newcommand{\tr}[1]{\emph{\textneohellenic{#1}}} % does nothing

\usepackage{amsmath,mathrsfs,amsthm}

\newcommand{\aer}{$\mspace{2mu}$} % for spacing out letters for emphasis
\renewcommand{\phi}{\varphi}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\renewcommand{\emptyset}{\varnothing}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\DeclareMathOperator{\gcm}{gcm}
\renewcommand{\setminus}{\smallsetminus}

\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb N}
\newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb Z}
\newcommand{\Exists}[1]{\exists#1\;}
\renewcommand{\leq}{\leqslant}


\usepackage{textcomp}
\renewcommand{\dagger}{\text{\textdagger}}  % Otherwise:
%  ! LaTeX Error: Command \dagger unavailable in encoding T1.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\fnsymbol{equation}}

\begin{document}

\title{On the Foundations\\
of Arithmetic\\
in Euclid}
\author{David Pierce}
\date{Draft of January 12, 2015}
\publishers{Mathematics Department\\
Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University\\
Istanbul\\
\url{http://mat.msgsu.edu.tr/~dpierce/}}
\maketitle

\addchap{Summary}

The geometry presented in the thirteen books of Euclid's \emph{Elements} 
is founded on five postulates;
but the arithmetic in Books \textsc{vii}, \textsc{viii}, and \textsc{ix} 
makes no explicit use of postulates.
Nonetheless, 
Euclid proves rigorously the commutativity of multiplication
in any ordered ring whose positive elements are well ordered:
such is one conclusion of this monograph,
worked out in the third and last chapter.
The various contents of the chapters and their sections
might be summarized as follows.
\begin{asparaenum}
\renewcommand{\labelenumii}{\arabic{enumi}.\arabic{enumii}.}
  \item
The study of Euclid is an instance of doing \emph{history.}
As such, the study can both benefit from, and illustrate,
the philosophy of history 
developed by R.~G. Collingwood in several of his books.
\begin{compactenum}
  \item
Studying the \emph{Elements} 
is like studying an ancient building, such as the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul:
it is a kind of archeology.
Archeology is in turn a kind of history.
Historical inference actually resembles mathematical inference;
but the way to understand this 
is by actually doing history and mathematics---%
which we do by studying Euclid.
\item
The present study of Euclid is motivated by questions such as:
Can students today learn number theory from Euclid?
Does Euclid correctly prove such results as
the commutativity of multiplication,
and ``Euclid's Lemma''?
\item
We cannot decide whether a particular statement or argument of Euclid
is correct or incorrect without first understanding what it means.
The meaning is not always obvious.
\item
In studying Euclid,
we have to re-enact his thoughts, as best we can.
\item
In reading Euclid (or any philosopher),
we cannot just say that he is wrong (if we think he is),
without also offering a correction that (in our best judgment)
he can agree with.
\end{compactenum}
\item
Mathematicians used to learn mathematics from Euclid.
Since this no longer happens,
we may be better able now to understand Euclid properly.
Nonetheless, some students
do still learn mathematics from Euclid.
Among those students are undergraduates 
in my own mathematics department in Istanbul:
reading with them brings out certain features of Euclid.
\begin{compactenum}
\item
Dedekind did \emph{not} 
learn his construction of the real numbers from Euclid.
Unlike some of his contemporaries,
he understood Euclid well enough to see that what he was doing was different.
\item
Looking back at Euclid's Greek
(for the sake of translating this into Turkish)
brings out some misleading features 
of the standard English translation by Heath.
Heath aids the reader by typographical means;
but this may cause us to think wrongly
that Euclid's propositions are like modern theorems.
Euclid may have established a pattern for modern mathematical exposition;
but this does not mean he is obliged to follow it.
\item
Contrary to modern mathematical practice,
Euclid's \emph{equality} is not sameness or identity.
Thinking about what equality really means,
one can see that Euclid's Proposition \textsc i.4,
the ``Side Angle Side'' theorem of triangle congruence,
is a real theorem.
\item
According to Hilbert,
Euclid's Fourth Postulate,
the equality of all right angles, is really a theorem.
Examining Hilbert's proof of this theorem
shows how different is his way of thinking of geometry from Euclid's.
\end{compactenum}
\item
We turn to Book \textsc{vii} of Euclid's \emph{Elements}
and to the specific investigation of questions raised earlier.
  \begin{compactenum}
    \item
The definition of unity may well be a late addition to this book.
\item
By definition,
if a number is of a second number
the same \emph{part} or \emph{parts} 
that a third number is of a fourth,
then the four numbers are \emph{proportional.}
Whatever else it means,
a proportion is not an equation of ratios,
but an identification of them.
\item
Euclid's numbers are finite nonempty sets.
Euclid distinguishes between \emph{dividing} numbers into parts 
and \emph{measuring} numbers by numbers.
It turns out that for infinite sets,
being divisible into two equipollent subsets
is logically stronger than being measurable by a two-element set.
\item
If a number is \emph{parts} of a number,
this does not mean 
that the one number is a \emph{fraction} of the other.
\item
When the numbers in Euclid's diagrams appear as line segments,
it is useful to think of these as lyre strings.
The ancient musical treatise called \emph{Sectio Canonis}
suggests a way of thinking about numerical ratios
that is useful for understanding the \emph{Elements.}
\item
Lying behind the notion of a ratio is the alternating subtraction or 
\emph{anthyphaeresis} used in the Euclidean Algorithm.
\item
Proposition 4, that the less number is either part or parts of the greater,
should be understood as an explanation of what being the \emph{same parts} 
means in the definition of proportion:
it means that application of the Euclidean Algorithm
requires the same pattern of alternating subtractions in either case.
\item
With this understanding,
the proof of the commutativity of multiplication, Proposition 16,
unfolds logically.
\item
So does the proof of ``Euclid's Lemma,'' Proposition 30.
\item
The last three propositions of Book \textsc{vii}
may be a late addition.
In any case, they are written by somebody
who is starting to think of mathematics as symbol-manipulation.
  \end{compactenum}
\end{asparaenum}

%\begin{multicols}2
\tableofcontents
%\end{multicols}

%\begin{multicols}2
\listoffigures
%\end{multicols}

\chapter{Philosophy of History}

\section{Archeology}

We are going to investigate foundational aspects of Euclid's arithmetic,
as presented in Books \textsc{vii, viii,} 
and \textsc{ix} of the thirteen books of the \emph{Elements.}
Our investigation might be called archeology,
though it will require no actual digging.
We want to know something about the \emph{Elements,}
and in particular its theory of numbers;
however, we have no first-hand \emph{testimony}
about what Euclid was doing, or trying to do.
We just have the \emph{Elements} itself.
As for the earlier tradition that Euclid came out of,
we have only traces of it.
We have later works about Euclid, especially Proclus's
\emph{Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's \emph{Elements.}}
We shall make some use of this commentary,
but it was written centuries after the \emph{Elements.} 

Euclid himself does not provide testimony about what he is doing;
he just does it.
If proper history requires such testimony,%%%%%
\footnote{A \emph{Wikipedia} article requires testimony
in a broader sense.  Because of the rule of No Original Research,
a \emph{Wikipedia} article about a book
must be based on what other people have said about the book.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 
then we cannot make an historical study of Euclid's arithmetic.
We can still make an \emph{archeological} study.
We can read the \emph{Elements} itself,
for evidence of what Euclid was trying to do there.
In the same way, 
one might read the Constantinopolitan Church of St Sophia,
for evidence of the aims of its master builders,
Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus:
for, the basilica itself can still be visited in Istanbul.

Concerning this basilica,
called the Hagia Sophia or Ayasofya,
we do also have some written testimony.
Procopius saw the church constructed in the sixth century,
at the command of Emperor Justinian,
after an earlier church had been destroyed in the so-called Nika Insurrection.
Justinian spared no expense to build a new church, says Procopius,
\begin{quote}
  so finely shaped,
that if anyone had enquired of the Christians before the burning 
if it would be their wish that the church should be destroyed
and one like this should take its place,
shewing them some sort of model of the building we now see,
it seems to me they would have prayed 
that they might see their church destroyed forthwith,
in order that the building might be converted to its present form.
\cite[I.i.22, p.\ 11]{Procopius-Buildings}
\end{quote}
We might infer that Anthemius and Isidore did actually show Justinian
a model of the basilica that they planned to build.
Like this model,
or like the old church that the new Hagia Sophia would replace, 
some kind of mathematics came before the \emph{Elements} as we have it now;
but we have only hints (as in Plato's \emph{Meno}) of what this was like.
About the construction of the Hagia Sophia itself,
from Procopius we know
\begin{quote}
  it was not with money alone that the Emperor built it,
but also with labour of the mind and with the other powers of the soul,
as I shall straightway show.
One of the arches which I just now mentioned
(\emph{l\^ori} the master-builders call them),
the one which stands towards the east,
had already been built up from either side,
but it had not yet been wholly completed in the middle,
and was still waiting.
And the piers (\emph{pessoi}),
above which the structure was being built,
unable to carry the mass which bore down upon them,
somehow or other suddenly began to crack,
and they seemed on the point of collapsing.
So Anthemius and Isidorus,
terrified at what had happened,
carried the matter to the Emperor,
having come to have no hope in their technical skill.
And straightway the Emperor,
impelled by I know not what,
but I suppose by God (for he is not himself a master-builder),
commanded them to carry the curve of this arch to its final completion.
``For when it rests upon itself,'' he said,
``it will no longer need the props (\emph{pessoi}) beneath it.''
And if this story were without witness,
I am well aware that it would have seemed a piece of flattery
and altogether incredible;
but since there were available many witnesses of what then took place,
we need not hesitate to proceed to the remainder of the story.
So the artisans carried out his instructions,
and the whole arch then hung secure,
sealing by experiment the truth of his idea.
Thus, then, was this arch completed.
\cite[I.i.68--74, pp.\ 29--31]{Procopius-Buildings},
\end{quote}
We have no such contemporary account of the \emph{Elements.}
Nobody who knew Euclid can tell us, for example,
of Euclid's discovery of the Fifth or Parallel Postulate,
as being needed to prove such results as
the equality of an exterior angle of a triangle
to the two opposite interior angles.
Nobody can testify that,
since the Parallel Postulate is phrased in terms of right angles,
Euclid figured he needed another postulate, according to which 
all right angles were equal to one another,
and thus arose the Fourth Postulate.
We have no \emph{testimony} that Euclid's thoughts proceeded in this way;
we can only infer it (or something like it) 
from the edifice of the \emph{Elements} as it has come down to us.

By some accounts then,
there can be no properly \emph{historical} study of the \emph{Elements,}
but only a ``prehistorical'' or archeological study.
However, I am going to agree with
the philosopher and historian R.~G. Collingwood (1889--1943)
that archeology \emph{is} history.
It is hard to say that we know more about the construction of the Hagia Sophia
than of the \emph{Elements,}
simply because we have Procopius's fanciful story 
about how the Emperor saved a partially erected arch from collapse.
That story might after all be true;
but it can hardly be credited 
without independent reason for thinking it plausible.

I shall make use of Collingwood's ideas about history,
because I know them and find them relevant.
Now, the Hagia Sophia is relevant as being,
like the \emph{Elements,} 
one of the great structures of the ancient world.%
\footnote{One might classify the Hagia Sophia 
as medieval rather than ancient.
The edifice at least \emph{symbolizes} 
the ancient mathematical world,
in that the master builder Isidore
also compiled texts of Archimedes
with the commentaries of Eutocius,
and he is mentioned in the extant manuscripts
\cite[p.\ 368, n.\ 750]{MR2093668}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
After the Turkish conquest of Constantinople,
nine centuries after the construction of the Hagia Sophia,
this edifice and especially its great dome 
became a model for Ottoman Imperial mosques
\cite{Gunay-sinan}.
Euclid's \emph{Elements} became a model for mathematics,
even as it is done today.

As for Collingwood,
though some of his books have remained in print
or been brought back into print,
he is little known today.
After speculating on why this is, Simon Blackburn concludes,
\begin{quote}
A lucky life, then, rather than an unlucky one, 
is the explanation for Collingwood's unattractive features---%
unless, as Aristotle thought, we cannot even call men lucky when they die, 
since we can be harmed after our death. 
I do not know whether Aristotle was right, but if he was wrong, 
then in most respects the neglect of Collingwood's thought 
may be our tragedy rather than his. \cite{Blackburn}
\end{quote}
In Blackburn's judgment, 
``Collingwood was the greatest British philosopher of history 
of the twentieth century'' \cite{Blackburn-Coll-REP}.
In her own assessment of Collingwood,
Mary Beard argues,
\begin{quote}
it is surely crucial that he was a product of the old Oxford `Greats'
(that is, classics) course,
which focused the last two and a half years of a student's work
on the parallel study of ancient history on the one hand,
and ancient and modern philosophy on the other.
Most students were much better at one side than the other\lips
In the context of Greats,
Collingwood was not a maverick with two incompatible interests.
Given the educational aims of the course,
he was a rare success, even if something of a quirky overachiever;
his combination of interests was exactly what Greats was designed to promote.
\cite{Beard}
\end{quote}
Collingwood's combination of interests 
does not seem to have included mathematics especially.
Nonetheless, he was aware of it and talked about it,
as will be seen below.
His sense of what it means to do history will help us
as we bring our own interest in mathematics
to the reading of Euclid.

In directing actual archeological excavations,
Collingwood 
found himself ``experimenting in a laboratory of knowledge,''
as he reports in \emph{An Autobiography} of 1939 
\cite[p.\ 24]{Collingwood-Auto}.
The study of Euclid can likewise serve as a laboratory of ideas about history.
Collingwood likens history to mathematics in 
\emph{The Idea of History,}
posthumously edited and first published in 1946:
\begin{quote}
One hears it said that history is `not an exact science'. The meaning
of this I take to be that no historical argument ever proves its
conclusion with that compulsive force which is characteristic of
exact science. Historical inference, the saying seems to mean, is
never compulsive, it is at best permissive; or, as people sometimes
rather ambiguously say, it never leads to certainty, only to
probability. Many historians of the present writer's generation,
brought up at a time when this proverb was accepted by the general
opinion of intelligent persons (I say nothing of the few who were a
generation ahead of their time), must be able to recollect their
excitement on first discovering that it was wholly untrue, and that
they were actually holding in their hands an historical argument
which left nothing to caprice, and admitted of no alternative
conclusion, but proved its point as conclusively as a demonstration
in mathematics.
\cite[pp.\ 262--3]{Collingwood-IH}
\end{quote}
These words were originally intended for \emph{The Principles of History}
\cite[p.\ 18]{Collingwood-PH},
whose extant manuscripts were rediscovered in 1995,
having been thought discarded 
after being (severely) edited to form part of 
\emph{The Idea of History.}
I do not know whether historians generally agree with Collingwood
on the subject of historical inference.
According to one archeologist's explanation of his field,
\begin{quotation}
  Since nobody \emph{knows} what happened in the past\label{Bahn-orig}
(even in the recent historical past),
there will never be an end to archaeological research.
Theories will come and go,
and new evidence or discoveries will alter the accepted fiction
that constitutes the orthodox view of the past
and which becomes established through general repetition
and widespread acceptance.
As Max Planck wrote,
`A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it.'

Archaeology is a perpetual search, never really a finding;
it is an eternal journey, with no true arrival.
Everything is tentative, nothing is final.
\cite[p.\ 7]{Bahn}
\end{quotation}
We shall return later (in \S\ref{Bahn}, p.\ \pageref{Bahn})
to Paul Bahn's skepticism here.
His reference to ``accepted fiction''
calls to my mind Gore Vidal's 1993 Introduction
to his 1964 historical novel \emph{Julian} \cite{Vidal-J}.
Vidal quotes one historian on another as being
``The best in the field.  Of course he makes most of it up,
like the rest of us.''  
Speaking for himself, Vidal says,
\begin{quote}
  Why write historical fiction instead of history?
Because, when dealing with periods so long ago,
one is going to make a lot of it up anyway,
as Finley blithely admitted.
Also, without the historical imagination
even conventional history is worthless.
Finally, there is the excitement when a pattern starts to emerge.
\end{quote}
An emerging pattern in history is the opportunity for the flights of fancy
that Vidal takes in novels like \emph{Julian} and \emph{Creation}.
Vidal does however admit a difference between fiction and history,
as when he says,
\begin{quote}
as every dullard knows, the historical novel is neither history nor a novel\lips
I personally don't care for historical novels as such
(I'm obliged to read history in order to write stories set in the past).
\end{quote}
In any case, our present topic is not history as such, but Euclid.
The editors of \emph{The Principles of History}
lament that,
when declaring the compulsive force of historical inference,
 Collingwood does not give 
``at this point an example of historians 
actually reasoning to certain conclusions''
\cite[p.\ xxix]{Collingwood-PH}.
But one should be able to supply one's own examples.
Euclid will be \emph{our} example,
and in a footnote, the editors supply theirs.
They report that, in a 1927 article, Collingwood said, 
``it is more certain than ever that the forts
[on Hadrian's Wall] were built before the stone Wall.''
This conclusion is now held to be incorrect.

Collingwood's supposed historical mistake does not disprove 
his ideas of historical inference,
any more than mathematical mistakes dispel our belief 
that mathematical correctness is possible.
I suppose every mathematician has had the pleasure and excitement 
of discovering a theorem,
only to find later that it was not a theorem after all.
We may then give up mathematics,
or we may simply return to it with more care.

Again, if Collingwood does not give examples of historical inference
in \emph{The Principles of History,}
it is because he expects readers to come up with their own.
He has already said,
\begin{quote}
  Like every science, history is autonomous. The
historian has the right, and is under an obligation, to make up his
own mind by the methods proper to his own science as to the
correct solution of every problem that arises for him in the pursuit
of that science\lips
\begin{comment}
He can never be under any obligation, or have any
right, to let someone else make up his mind for him. If anyone else,
no matter who, even a very learned historian, or an eyewitness, or a
person in the confidence of the man who did the thing he is
inquiring into, or even the man who did it himself, hands him on a
plate a ready-made answer to his question, all he can do is to reject
it: not because he thinks his informant is trying to deceive him, or is
himself deceived, but because if he accepts it he is giving up his
autonomy as an historian and allowing someone else to do for him
what, if he is a scientific thinker, he can only do for himself. 
\end{comment}
There
is no need for me to offer the reader any proof of this statement. If
he knows anything of
historical work, he already knows of his own experience that it is
true. If he does not already know that it is true, he does not know
enough about history to read this essay with any profit, and the best
thing he can do is to stop here and now.
\cite[p.\ 256]{Collingwood-IH} \cite[pp.\ 11--2]{Collingwood-PH}
\end{quote}
Actually, 
the best thing the reader could do would be to do some history---%
which is just what we are going to do with Euclid.

\section{Questions}

In his own experiments in the historical or archeological 
``laboratory of knowledge,'' 
Collingwood was
\begin{quote}
  at first asking myself a quite vague question,
such as: `was there a Flavian occupation on this site?'
then dividing that question into various heads and
putting the first in some such form as this: `are these
Flavian sherds and coins mere strays, or were they
deposited in the period to which they belong?' and
then considering all the possible ways in which light
could be thrown on this new question, and putting
them into practice one by one, until at last I could
say, `There was a Flavian occupation; an earth and
timber fort of such and such plan was built here in
the year $a\pm b$ and abandoned for such and such rea%
sons in the year $x\pm y$.' Experience soon taught me
that under these laboratory conditions one found out
nothing at all except in answer to a question; and not
a vague question either, but a definite one.
\cite[p.\ 24]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quote}
Concerning Euclid's number-theory,
my own vague initial question is,
``Can Books \textsc{vii--ix} of the \emph{Elements} 
serve as a text for undergraduates today,
as Book \textsc i can?''
Book \textsc i is indeed a text for students in my own mathematics department,
as will be discussed in \S\ref{sect:course} (p.\ \pageref{sect:course}).
Euclid does prove several famous results that those students should also learn:
\begin{compactitem}
\item 
the efficacy of the ``Euclidean Algorithm''
for finding greatest common divisors (\textsc{vii}.1, 2);
\item
``Euclid's Lemma,''
that a prime divisor of the product of two numbers divides one of the numbers 
(\textsc{vii}.30);%%%
\footnote{The result is called Euclid's Lemma by Burton \cite[p.\ 24]{Burton}
and by \emph{Wikipedia};
Hardy \&\ Wright \cite[p.\ 3, Thm 3]{MR568909}
call it Euclid's First Theorem
(the Second being, ``The number of primes is infinite'').}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\item
that the set of prime numbers is unbounded (\textsc{ix}.20);
\item
that
if the sum $\sum_{k=0}^n2^k$ 
of consecutive powers of two (starting from one) is a prime $p$,
then its product $p\cdot 2^n$ with the last term in the sum is a 
perfect number (\textsc{ix}.36).
\end{compactitem}
Towards formulating a more precise question\label{induction}
than whether Euclid is suitable as a textbook,
I note a certain \emph{unsuitability} in the textbooks of today.
There is a common foundational error of assuming that 
recursive definitions of number-theoretic functions
are justified by induction alone.
Thus if we say
$1!=1$ and $(k+1)!=k!\cdot(k+1)$,
%\begin{align*}
%1!&=1,&(k+1)!&=k!\cdot(k+1),
%\end{align*}
it may be thought that
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
  \item
we have defined $n!$ when $n=1$, and 
\item
if we have defined $n!$ when $n=k$,
then we have defined it when $n=k+1$;
\end{inparaenum}
therefore, ``by induction,'' 
we have defined $n!$ for all natural numbers $n$.
Actually cannot define it by induction \emph{alone.}
We have made a \emph{recursive} definition,
relying on $k+1$ to uniquely determine $k$,
and requiring $1$ not to be of the form $k+1$.
Clarification of this point leads to insight,
as I have argued elsewhere \cite{Pierce-IR}.
It so happens that induction \emph{is} enough
to justify the recursive definitions of addition and multiplication,
as Landau shows tacitly in \emph{The Foundations of Analysis} \cite{MR12:397m}.
Therefore congruence of integers with respect to a particular modulus
respects addition and multiplication,
since induction is valid on integers considered with respect to a modulus.%%%%%
\footnote{The phrase ``with respect to the modulus $m$'' is,
in Gauss's Latin, \emph{secundum modulum $m$}
\cite[\S2]{Gauss-Latin}.
For reasons unknown to me, 
the English translation \cite{Gauss} sticks to Latin, 
in the shorter form ``modulo $m$.''}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
One can then use induction 
to prove associativity and commutativity of addition and multiplication, 
as well as distributivity of the latter over the former.
The proofs of these results can be exercises for students today.
Euclid himself establishes commutativity of multiplication
in Proposition \textsc{vii}.16 of the \emph{Elements.}
A more definite question for the present investigation is then,
``Does Euclid give a valid proof of the commutativity of multiplication?''

Another question is
whether Euclid gives a valid proof of ``Euclid's Lemma.''
The question is investigated 
by Pengelley and Richman \cite{MR2204484}%%%
\marginpar{I need Pengelley's more recent paper}
and then by Mazur \cite{Mazur-Th-pub};
the former also review earlier, albeit still modern, investigations.
Such investigations can be inhibited
by the modern notion of a fraction.\label{fraction}
In the \emph{Elements,}
there are two definitions of proportion,
to be quoted in full in \S\ref{sect:prop} (p.\ \pageref{sect:prop}):
there is a clear definition of proportion of \emph{magnitudes}
at the head of Book \textsc v,
and an unclear definition of proportion of \emph{numbers}
at the head of Book \textsc{vii}.
By the latter definition,
is $A$ to $B$ as $C$ to $D$,
just in case the fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ are equal?
To answer this,
we should ask what question \emph{Euclid} was trying to answer
in his writing.

I shall propose that Euclid's question is,
``Can we simplify the \emph{anthyphaeretic} definition of proportion,
that is, 
the definition based on the method of finding greatest common divisors 
[the Euclidean Algorithm]?''
I think this proposal is at least hinted at by David Fowler
in \emph{The Mathematics of Plato's Academy} \cite{MR2000c:01004},
which is all about anthyphaeresis,
though it does not say too much\marginpar{Really?} 
about Euclid's arithmetic as such.

I am aware of other writing on Euclid and his theory of numbers;
there may be much more of which I am not aware.
As an apology for just going ahead anyway,
and saying what I have to say,
I cite Robert Pirsig, who coins a word
in his philosophical novel \emph{Lila} \cite[ch.\ 26, pp.\ 370--2]{Pirsig-L}
and defines it by an analogy:
\begin{quote}
  Philosophology is to philosophy
as musicology is to music,
or as art history and art appreciation are to art,
or as literary criticism is to creative writing.
\end{quote}
One might add two more terms to the analogy,
namely history of mathematics and mathematics itself.
And yet, as has already been suggested,
you cannot properly study the history of mathematics
without already being something of a mathematician.
The point for now is that,
according to Pirsig,
philosophologists put
\begin{quote}
\noindent  a philosophological cart before the philosophical horse.
Philosophologists not only start by putting the cart first;
they usually forget the horse entirely.
They say first you should read 
what all the great philosophers of history have said
and \emph{then} you should decide what \emph{you} want to say.
The catch here is that by the time you've read 
what all the great philosophers of history have said 
you'll be at least two hundred years old.
\end{quote}
Some questions about Euclid have arisen 
in the course of my own mathematical life,
and here I take them up.
In the next chapter, I shall consider the question
of how Richard Dedekind and David Hilbert 
(and my own students) read Euclid.
One could raise the same question about every earlier mathematician,
since just about all of them must have read Euclid.
But one has only so much time.
One should also have something one is looking for:
this was said by Collingwood above,
and it is said by Pirsig,
or more precisely by his persona, called Phaedrus:
\begin{quotation}
Phaedrus, in contrast, sometimes forgot the cart
but was fascinated by the horse.
He thought the best way 
to examine the contents of various philosophological carts
is first to figure out what \emph{you} believe
and then to see what great philosophers agree with you.
There will always be a few somewhere.
These will be much more interesting to read
since you can cheer what they say and boo their enemies,
and when you see how their enemies attack them
you can kibitz a little 
and take a real interest in whether they were right or wrong.
\end{quotation}
It is unfortunate that Pirsig thinks of intellectual life
as an arena for attack and defense;
but apparently there are reasons for this.


\section{Evidence}

We can read Euclid as if he were a contemporary mathematician.
Then we may think that we understand him
if we have translated his mathematics into our own terms.
This is the approach that E. C. Zeeman takes and defends 
in an article (originally a talk) on Euclid:
\begin{quote}
  In our discussions we found ourselves following 
the traditional opposing roles of historian and mathematician. 
The historian thinks extrinsically in terms of the written evidence 
and adheres strictly to that data, 
whereas the mathematician thinks intrinsically 
in terms of the mathematics itself, 
which he freely rewrites in his own notation 
in order to better understand it 
and to speculate on what might have been passing through 
the mind of the ancient mathematician, 
without bothering to check the rest of the data.
\cite[p.\ 16]{Zeeman}
\end{quote}
The person given the role of historian here is the late David Fowler,
mentioned above;
but he was a mathematician as well.
Zeeman seems to suggest that 
the mathematician has an advantage over the historian,
because an understanding of mathematics can take a researcher places
where a lack of evidence prevents the historian from going.

Though we have seen (or at least seen it argued by Collingwood)
that mathematics is similar to history,
the two disciplines are still different.
Collingwood suggests this himself in \emph{The Principles of History}
\cite[p.\ 5]{Collingwood-PH}.
Mathematics and history are sciences; but
\begin{quote}
  anything that is a
science at all must be more than merely a science, it must be a
science of some special kind. A body of knowledge is never merely
organized, it is always organized in some particular way. 
\end{quote}
There are sciences of observation, like meteorology;
there are sciences of experiment, like chemistry.
There is mathematics, not named as such by Collingwood here,
but described as being
\begin{quote}
organized not by observing events at all, but by making certain
assumptions and proceeding with the utmost exactitude to argue out
their consequences.
\end{quote}
History is not like this.
In meteorology and chemistry, the aim is
``to detect the constant or recurring features 
in all events of a certain kind.'' 
In being different from this,
history does \emph{resemble} mathematics, but only to a certain point:
\begin{quote}
It is true that in history, as in
exact science, the normal process of thought is inferential; that is to
say, it begins by asserting this or that, and goes on to ask what it
proves. But the starting-points are of very different kinds. In exact
science they are assumptions, and the traditional way of expressing
them is in sentences beginning with a word of command prescribing
that a certain assumption be made: `Let ABC be a triangle, and let
AB = AC.' In history they are not assumptions, they are facts, and
facts coming under the historian's observation, such as, that on the
page open before him there is printed what purports to be a charter
by which a certain king grants certain lands to a certain monastery.
The conclusions, too, are of different kinds. In exact science, they
are conclusions about things which have no special habitation in
space or time: if they are anywhere, they are everywhere, and if they
are at any time they are at all times. In history, they are conclusions
about events, each having a place and date of its own.
\end{quote}
Collingwood appears to have the view of mathematics 
described by Timothy Gowers in \emph{Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction}
\cite[pp.\ 39--40]{MR2147526}.
Gowers recognises it as a \emph{twentieth-century} view.
It is a view that has its place in history:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent
[T]he steps of a mathematical
argument can be broken down into smaller and therefore more
clearly valid substeps. These steps can then be broken down into
subsubsteps, and so on. A fact of fundamental importance to
mathematics is that this process \emph{eventually comes to an end}\lips

What I have just said in the last paragraph is far from obvious: in
fact it was one of the great discoveries of the early 20th century,
largely due to Frege, Russell, and Whitehead.
This discovery has had a profound impact on mathematics, because
it means that \emph{any dispute about the validity of a mathematical
proof can always be resolved.} In the 19th century, by contrast, there
were genuine disagreements about matters of mathematical
substance.
For example, Georg Cantor, the father of modern set theory, 
invented arguments that relied on the idea 
that one infinite set can be `bigger' than another. 
These arguments are accepted now,
but caused great suspicion at the time. 
\end{quotation}
Cantor's arguments are accepted now,
and one might say this is because they can be worked out
in a formal system based on the Zermelo--Fraenkel theory of sets.
Does Gowers mean to suggest that any dispute 
about the validity of a proof \emph{in Euclid} can now be resolved?
I do not know; but I myself would say that today's mathematics
does not \emph{automatically} give us a good criterion for assessing Euclid.
Though Euclid may have inspired the formal systems alluded to by Gowers,
Euclid himself is not using a formal system,
or at least he is not \emph{obviously} using one,
even though it may well be possible to retrofit the \emph{Elements}
with a formal system, 
as is done by Avigad, Dean, and Mumma \cite{MR2583927}.

Mathematics might be held up as an example 
of the peaceable resolution of disputes.
Gowers finds it to be unique in this way
\cite[p.\ 40]{MR2147526}:
\begin{quote}
There is no
mathematical equivalent of astronomers who still believe in the
steady-state theory of the universe, or of biologists who hold,
with great conviction, very different views about how much is
explained by natural selection, or of philosophers who disagree
fundamentally about the relationship between consciousness
and the physical world, or of economists who follow opposing
schools of thought such as monetarism and
neo-Keynesianism.
\end{quote}
And yet, if all mathematical disputes are resoluble in principle,
this is only because we accept the principle.
Collingwood finds the same principle at work in history.
``History,'' he says
\cite[p.\ 7]{Collingwood-PH},
\begin{quote}
has this in common with every other science: that the
historian is not allowed to claim any single piece of knowledge,
except where he can justify his claim by exhibiting to himself in the
first place, and secondly to anyone else who is both able and willing
to follow his demonstration, the grounds upon which it is based.
This is what was meant, above, by describing history as inferential.
\end{quote}
Mathematics is inferential in the same way.
Now, can the grounds of an inference be accepted by one person,
yet rejected by another?
Practically speaking, it is less likely in mathematics than elsewhere.
Nonetheless, it can happen anywhere,
because one can always be faced with a \emph{skeptic,}
whom Collingwood goes on to distinguish from a proper \emph{critic}:
\begin{quote}
a critic is a person able and willing to go over somebody
else's thoughts for himself to see if they have been well done;
whereas a sceptic is a person who will not do this; and because you
cannot make a man think, any more than you can make a horse
drink, there is no way of proving to a sceptic that a certain piece of
thinking is sound, and no reason for taking his denials to heart. It is
only by his peers that any claimant to knowledge is judged.
\end{quote}
Mathematical disputes are resoluble in principle.
In practice, they may not be resoluble;
but in this case, we may say of the parties to the dispute
that one is a skeptic in Collingwood's sense.
This is possible in \emph{any} dispute,
be it in mathematics or history or anywhere else.

According to Zeeman as quoted above, 
``The historian thinks extrinsically in terms of the written evidence 
and adheres strictly to that data,''
although this is admittedly a ``traditional'' view.
It sounds like the obsolescent view of history 
that distinguishes history from archeology
and that is described by Collingwood 
as ``scissors and paste'':
\begin{quotation}
\noindent  
It is characteristic of scissors-and-paste history, from its least
critical to its most critical form, that it has to do with ready-made
statements, and that the historian's problem about any one of these
statements is whether he shall accept it or not: where accepting it
means reasserting it as a part of his own historical knowledge.
\cite[p.\ 30]{Collingwood-PH}
\end{quotation}
We can take an example from Euclid.
Among the ``definitions'' at the head of Book \textsc{vii} 
of the \emph{Elements,} there are the following two statements,
numbered 3 and 4 in the Greek text established by Heiberg 
\cite{Euclid-Heiberg},
and hence so numbered in translations like Heath's \cite{MR17:814b}:
\begin{quote}\label{part/s}\centering
\gr{\textbf{M'eroc} >est`in >arijm`oc >arijmo~u <o >el'asswn to~u me'izonoc,\\ 
<'otan katametr~h| t`on me'izona.\\
\textbf{M'erh} d'e, <'otan m`h katametr~h|.}\\
%\ldiv
\tr{A number is \textbf{part} of a number, the less%%%%%
\footnote{Etymologically, ``less'' is a comparative form,
although we seem not to have retained a positive form of its root,
but we take ``little'' for the positive form \cite{Skeat}.
The second S in ``less'' 
can be considered to stand for the R of the usual comparative suffix ``-er.''
The word ``lesser'' is thus a double comparative,
as ``greaterer'' would be, if there were such a word.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 
of the greater,\\
when it measures the greater.\\
But \textbf{parts,} when it does not measure.}
\end{quote}
In the body of Book \textsc{vii},
Proposition 4 has the following enunciation.
\begin{quote}\label{prop.7.4}\centering
\gr{<'Apac >arijm`oc pant`oc >arijmo~u <o >el'asswn to~u me'izonoc\\
>'htoi m'eroc >est`in >`h m'erh.}\\
%\ldiv
\tr{Every number is of every number, the less of the greater,\\
either a part or parts.}
\end{quote}
If the first two statements are really definitions,
then the last statement follows immediately from them;
but Euclid gives a nontrivial proof anyway.
Suppose we think of geometry as a body of knowledge 
consisting of axioms and the theorems that they entail;
and suppose we are, as it were, historians of this geometry.
If we are scissors-and-paste historians,
then we are going to reject 
at least one of the three ready-made statements of Euclid,
because they cannot all be respectively definitions and theorem.

In fact we are going to reject none one of the statements out of hand;
nor shall we just accept them as definitions or theorem.
We shall do something like what Collingwood goes on to describe:
\begin{quote}
  \begin{comment}
It follows that scientific history contains no ready-made statements
at all. The act of incorporating a ready-made statement into the body
of his own historical knowledge is an act which, for a scientific
historian, is impossible. 
  \end{comment}
  Confronted with a ready-made statement
about the subject he is studying, the scientific historian never asks
himself: `Is this statement true or false?', in other words `Shall I
incorporate it in my history of that subject or not?' The question he
asks himself is: `What does this statement mean?' And this is not
equivalent to the question `What did the person who made it mean
by it?', although that is doubtless a question that the historian must
ask, and must be able to answer. It is equivalent, rather, to the
question `What light is thrown on the subject in which I am
interested by the fact that this person made this statement, meaning
by it what he did mean?'
\end{quote}
Our ultimate interest is in our \emph{own} statements,
as mathematicians and historians of mathematics.
Collingwood describes these statements on his next page:
\begin{quotation}
A statement to which an historian listens, or one which he reads, is
to him a ready-made statement. But the statement that such a
statement is being made is not a ready-made statement. If he says to
himself `I am now reading or hearing a statement to such and such
effect', he is himself making a statement; but it is not a second-hand
statement, it is autonomous. He makes it on his own authority. And
it is this autonomous statement that is the scientific historian's
starting-point\lips

If the scientific historian gets his conclusions not from the statement
that he finds ready made, but from his own autonomous statement
of the fact that such statements are made, he can get conclusions
even when no statements are made to him.
\end{quotation}
Thus the mathematician's activity described by Zeeman,
the rewriting of Euclid's mathematics in one's own notation,
the better%%%%%
\footnote{Since we shall look briefly at Euclid's use of the definite article
in \S\ref{sect:course} (p.\ \pageref{sect:course}),
let us note that the word ``the'' in ``the better''
is not the usual definite article descended from the Old English \emph{\th e}.
It is rather a descendent of this pronoun's instrumental case,
spelled as \emph{\th y} and \emph{\th on} \cite{CODEE}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
to understand it---%
this would seem to be an activity of the scientific historian,
in Collingwood's terms.
``In scientific history'' says Collingwood \cite[p.\ 36]{Collingwood-PH},
\begin{quote}
anything is evidence which is used as evidence, 
and no one can know what is going to be useful as evidence 
until he has had occasion to use it.
\end{quote}
Thus the mathematics that \emph{we} work out
can serve as evidence of what Euclid was doing.
And yet it must be used with care,
being based, as it is,
on the presupposition of a kind of unity of mathematics---%
the presupposition about mathematical truths that, 
as Collingwood says,
``if they are anywhere, they are everywhere, and if they
are at any time they are at all times.''

In the study of Euclid at least,
it is desirable to question this presupposition.
In his article \cite{MR1631396} on the International Congresses of Mathematics,
David Mumford's theme is that the unity of mathematics
(as reflected in the very existence of these Congresses)
cannot be taken for granted, but must be worked for,
and will not be achieved by forcing all of mathematics into the same mold.
This is especially true 
when the mathematics under consideration 
is spread out over more than two thousand years.

\section{Re-enactment}

In a quotation above from \emph{The Principles of History,} 
Collingwood distinguishes between 
what a statement means and 
what the person who made the statement means.
We want to understand the mathematics thought about by Euclid,
and we want to understand what Euclid thought about the mathematics;
but these are different.
Collingwood does not seem so concerned with the distinction in 
\emph{An Autobiography}; 
but he does establish there that all history is the history of thought.
He distinguishes history from pseudo-history,
the latter meaning
\begin{quotation}
\noindent the narratives of geology, palaeontology, astronomy,
and other natural sciences which in the late eighteenth
and the nineteenth centuries had assumed a semblance
at least of historicity\lips

History and pseudo-history alike consisted of narratives: 
but in history these were narratives of purposive activity, 
and the evidence for them consisted of relics they had left behind 
(books or potsherds, the principle was the same) 
which became evidence precisely to the extent to which 
the historian conceived them in terms of purpose, 
that is, understood what they were for.
\cite[pp.\ 107--9]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quotation}
Thus we shall ask of Euclid's ``definition'' 
of \emph{part} and \emph{parts} of a number,
and of his propositions about the same: what are they for?
\begin{quotation}
I expressed this new conception of history in the phrase: 
`all history is the history of thought.' 
You are thinking historically, I meant, 
when you say about anything, 
`I see what the person who made this 
(wrote this, used this, designed this, \&c.)\ was thinking.' 
Until you can say that, 
you may be trying to think historically but you are not succeeding. 
And there is nothing else except thought 
that can be the object of historical knowledge. 
Political history is the history of political thought: 
not `political theory', 
but the thought which occupies the mind of a man engaged in political work:
the formation of a policy, the planning of means to execute it, 
the attempt to carry it into effect, 
the discovery that others are hostile to it, 
the devising of ways to overcome their hostility, and so forth.
\cite[p.\ 110]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quotation}
As historians of mathematics, and in particular of Euclid's mathematics,
we study what Euclid was thinking while composing the \emph{Elements.}

We should acknowledge at some point that the author of the \emph{Elements,}
whom we call Euclid, was not necessarily one person.
This should remind us that, if different parts of the \emph{Elements,}
or even of one of its thirteen books, do not seem to fit together,
it may be because different hands put them together.
Then again, 
we can decide the question of the value of the \emph{Elements} for us,
without knowing whether Euclid was one person or many.
This is a point made by Collingwood in \emph{The Principles of Art}
of 1938 \cite[pp.\ 318--9]{Collingwood-PA}:
\begin{quotation}
Individualism would have it that the work of a genuine artist is altogether 
`original', that is to say, 
purely his own work and not in any way that of other artists\lips
All artists have modelled their style upon that of others, 
used subjects that others have used, 
and treated them as others have treated them already\lips

The individualistic theory of authorship 
would lead to the most absurd conclusions. 
If we regard the \emph{Iliad} as a fine poem, 
the question whether it was written by one man or by many is automatically, 
for us, settled. 
If we regard Chartres cathedral as a work of art, 
we must contradict the architects who tell us 
that one spire was built in the twelfth century 
and the other in the sixteenth, 
and convince ourselves that it was all built at once.
\end{quotation}
If the \emph{Elements} is a fine work of mathematics,
its authorship is not necessarily singular;
if not, not necessarily multiple.

For Collingwood in \emph{An Autobiography,}
our study of Euclid is not only history,
but typical or exemplary history.
We want to understand the thoughts expressed in the \emph{Elements,} 
and to do this, since they are mathematical thoughts, 
we have to be mathematicians:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent 
the historian must be able to think over again for himself 
the thought whose expression he is trying to interpret. 
If for any reason he is such a kind of man that he cannot do this, 
he had better leave that problem alone. 
The important point here is that the historian of a certain thought 
must think for himself that very same thought, not another like it. 
If some one, hereinafter called the mathematician, 
has written that twice two is four, and if some one else,
hereinafter called the historian, 
wants to know what he was thinking when he made those marks on paper,
the historian will never be able to answer this question
unless he is mathematician enough 
to think exactly what the mathematician thought, 
and expressed by writing that twice two are four. 
When he interprets the marks on paper, and says, 
`by these marks the mathematician meant that twice two are four', 
he is thinking simultaneously: 
(\emph a) that twice two are four,
(\emph b) that the mathematician thought this, too; and
(\emph c) that he expressed this thought by making these marks on paper. 
I will not offer to help a reader who replies, 
`ah, you are making it easy for yourself by taking an example
where history really is the history of thought; 
you couldn't explain the history of a battle 
or a political campaign in that way.' 
I could, and so could you, Reader, if you tried.

This gave me a second proposition: `historical
knowledge is the re-enactment in the historian's
mind of the thought whose history he is studying.'
\cite[pp.\ 111--2]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quotation}
Re-enactment is not discussed in 
\emph{The Principles of History,} as we have the text;
but re-enactment is discussed 
in some preliminary notes that Collingwood made for the book
\cite[pp.\ 239--40]{Collingwood-PH}:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent 
all genuine historians interest themselves in the past 
just so far as they find in it what they, as practical men, 
regard as living issues.
Not merely issues \emph{resembling} these: 
but \emph{the same} issues\lips
And this must be so, 
if history is the re-enactment of the past in the present: 
for a past so re-enacted is not a past that has finished happening, 
it is happening over again.
  
People have been quite right to say 
that the historian's business is not to narrate the past in its entirety\lips 
but to narrate such of the past as has historical importance
\lips historical importance means importance \emph{for us.} 
And to call a thing important for us means that \emph{we} are interested in it, 
i.e.\ that it is a past which we desire to re-enact in our present.
\end{quotation}
We are studying Euclid for the sake of doing mathematics today.
Re-enacting Euclid means doing his mathematics.
There are things called re-enactment that are not what Collingwood has in mind.
It does not mean dressing in period costumes and aping archaic manners.
Thus, 
the passage from \emph{An Autobiography} mentioning political history continues:
\begin{quote}
Consider how the historian describes a famous speech.
He does not concern himself with any sensuous elements in it 
such as the pitch of the statesman's voice,
the hardness of the benches, 
the deafness of the old gentleman in the third row:
he concentrates his attention on what the man was trying to say 
(the thought, that is, expressed in his words) 
and how his audience received it 
(the thoughts in their minds, 
and how these conditioned the impact upon them of the statesman's thought). 
\cite[p.\ 110]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quote}
Treating the \emph{Elements} historically does not mean just reading it,
or reproducing its propositions in lectures delivered at a blackboard.
It does involve \emph{understanding} those propositions somehow.
Historical study of Euclid does not even require learning Ancient Greek,
though this does seem to be of value,
and I shall usually quote Euclid in Greek as well as English.
Euclid's Greek is easy, being formulaic and having a small lexicon,
many of whose words can be seen in the mathematical language of today.

Proper re-enactment of the past is nonetheless a grand project.
Many years before writing the books quoted so far,
Collingwood engaged in another grand project,
in \emph{Speculum Mentis} of 1924
\cite[p.\ 9]{Collingwood-SM}:
\begin{quotation}
  This book is the outcome of a long-growing conviction
that the only philosophy that can be of real use to anybody
\lips is a critical review of the chief forms of human experience\lips
We find people practicing art, religion, science, and so forth,
seldom quite happy in the life they have chosen,
but generally anxious to persuade others to follow their example.
Why are they doing it, and what do they get for their pains?
This question seems, to me, crucial for the whole of modern life\lips
\end{quotation}
After using the bulk of the book to review the ``forms of experience'' 
called art, religion, science, history, and philosophy,
Collingwood sums things up
\cite[pp.\ 306--9]{Collingwood-SM}:
\begin{quotation}
We set out to construct a map of knowledge
on which every legitimate form of human experience
should be laid down, its boundaries determined,
and its relations with its neighbors set forth\lips 

Such a map of knowledge is impossible\lips

Beginning, then, with our assumption 
of the separateness and autonomy of the various forms of experience,
we have found that this separateness is an illusion\lips

The various countries on our initial map, then,
turn out to be vari\-ously-distorted versions of one and the same country\lips
What, then, is this one country?
It is the world of historical fact,
seen as the mind's knowledge of itself.
\end{quotation}
I would read the emphasis on historical fact as follows.
To know a theorem, such as Fermat's ``Little'' Theorem,
means knowing that it is true,
and this means knowing, as historical fact,
that one has worked through a proof of the theorem
and verified its correctness.
One may have established a proof by induction,
having noted that 
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
  \item
$1^p\equiv1\pmod p$, and 
\item
if $a^p\equiv a\pmod p$,
then $(a+1)^p\equiv a^p+1\equiv a+1\pmod p$.
\end{inparaenum}
One can then file the proof away.
Asserting the theorem as true 
does not require reopening the file;
but it requires summoning up the historical fact
of the proof's having been placed in the file.

One may find this ``historical fact'' inadequate;
for, in the words of Paul Bahn quoted earlier
(\S\ref{Bahn-orig}, p.\ \pageref{Bahn-orig}),\label{Bahn}
``nobody \emph{knows} what happened in the past
(even in the recent historical past).''
If these words are to be taken seriously,
then the memory of having proved a theorem
does not suffice to provide knowledge that the theorem is true.
Maybe we made a mistake when we proved the theorem yesterday.
Maybe as students we accepted a teacher's proof,
but had not yet acquired sufficient mathematical skepticism 
to find the gaps in the proof.

We should then try to ensure that the stating of a theorem 
includes within itself an actual proof.
I think this is Mazur's ``self-proving theorem principle''
\cite[p.\ 229]{Mazur-Th-pub}, namely:
\begin{quote}
if you can restate a theorem,
without complicating it, so that its proof, or the essence of its proof, is
already contained in the statement of the theorem, then you invariably have
\begin{compactitem}
  \item
a more comprehensible theorem,
\item
a stronger theorem, and
\item
a shorter and more comprehensible proof!
\end{compactitem}
\end{quote}
For Mazur, the self-proving formulation of the Euclidean Algorithm is,
\begin{quote}
Suppose you are given a pair of numbers $A$ and $B$ with $A$ greater than $B$.
Any common divisor of $A$ and $B$ is a common divisor of $B$ and $A-B$; and
conversely, any common divisor of $B$ and $A-B$ is a common divisor of $A$
and $B$.
\end{quote}
This formulation gives us a key part of the theorem;
but it omits that the process
of continually replacing the greater of two numbers 
with the difference of the two numbers must eventually come to an end.
That the natural numbers are well ordered must still be summoned up somehow.

Collingwood seems to have anticipated our difficulty.
As we were reading him in \emph{Speculum Mentis,}
he was speaking of a country, namely
``the world of historical fact'':
\begin{quotation}
\noindent Can we, then, sketch this country's features in outline?

We cannot.
To explore that country is the endless task of the mind;
and it only exists in its being explored.
Of such a country there is no map,
for it is itself its own map\lips

There is and can be no map of knowledge,
for a map means an abstract of the main features of a country,
laid before the traveller in advance of his experience of the country itself.
Now no one can describe life to a person who stands on the threshold of life.
The maxims given by age to youth are valueless
not because age means nothing by them
but because what it means is just its own past life.
To youth they are empty words.
The life of the spirit cannot be described except by repeating it:
an account of it would just be itself.
\end{quotation}
The bare statement of a theorem 
is thus a valueless maxim given by age to youth.
This would appear to be so,
even if ``age'' here is our younger self.
As Wordsworth wrote in ``My Heart Leaps Up''
\cite[p.\ 85]{Wordsworth-Ode},
\settowidth{\versewidth}{Bound each to each by natural piety.}
\begin{verse}[\versewidth]
\relscale{0.9}
The child is the father of the man;\\
  And I could wish my days to be\\
Bound each to each by natural piety.
\end{verse}
The child, or younger person, passes along a theorem to the man, 
or older person;
but how can the older person properly receive this legacy?
How can one day be remembered in the next,
without being simply relived?
To give a proper account of Euclid would seem to require us to repeat him;
not to parrot him, but, as it were, to \emph{be} him.

The same goes for Collingwood too, by the way.
If I parrot him here, in the sense of just quoting him,
it is because I think his words need little translation,
but usually make good-enough sense as they are.
Further sense will come, if it comes at all,
from applying them to one's own experience,
such as the experience of reading Euclid.

What Serge Lang says of mathematics 
\cite[p.\ v]{Lang-alg}
is true for any of Collingwood's ``forms of human experience'':
\begin{quote}
Unfortunately, 
a book must be projected in a totally ordered way on the page axis, 
but that's not the way mathematics ``is,''
so readers have to make choices 
how to reset certain topics in parallel for themselves, 
rather than in succession.
\end{quote}
Thoughts projected on the axis of time become totally ordered;
but sometimes a different ordering is needed for understanding them.
My present anthology of quotations of Collingwood (and others)
is intended to offer such an ordering.
In any case, our main purpose is to understand \emph{Euclid};
Collingwood is here to serve that purpose.
On the other hand, if that purpose \emph{is} served,
this in turn will illuminate Collingwood.

There is a certain pessimism or futility in \emph{Speculum Mentis}:
the old---Euclid---can give nothing to the young---us---,
but we must go over everything thoroughly for ourselves.
And yet progress is possible:
\begin{quote}
  In the toil of art, the agony of religion,
and the relentless labour of science,
actual truth is being won
and the mind is coming to its own true stature.
\cite[p.\ 312]{Collingwood-SM}
\end{quote}
Progress \emph{of a sort} is possible:
\begin{quote}
This process of the creation and destruction of external worlds
might appear, to superficial criticism, 
a mere futile weaving and unweaving of Penelope's web,
a declaration of the mind's inability to produce solid assets,
and thus the bankruptcy of philosophy.
And this it would be if knowledge were the same thing as information,
something stored in encyclopaedias and laid on like so much gas and water
in schools and universities.
But education does not mean stuffing a mind with information;
it means helping a mind to create itself, 
to grow into an active and vigorous contributor to the life of the world.
The information given in such a process
is meant to be absorbed into the life of the mind itself,
and a boy leaving school with a memory full of facts
is thereby no more educated 
than one who leaves table with his hands full of food is thereby fed.
At the completion of its education, if that event ever happened,
a mind would step forth as naked as a new-born babe,
knowing nothing, but having acquired the mastery over its own weaknesses,
its own desires, its own ignorance, 
and able therefore to face any danger unarmed.
\cite[p.\ 316]{Collingwood-SM}
\end{quote}
\emph{How} does the mind ``create itself,''
with the help of education?
Collingwood continued to work on this question.
The pessimism of \emph{Speculum Mentis} did not lead to despair.
Collingwood continued to think,
as the mathematician continues to think 
after finding an error in a supposed proof.

The answer given in \emph{An Autobiography}
is summarized in three ``propositions,''
two of which we have seen: history is history of thought,
and historical knowledge is re-enactment of thought.
Then there is
\begin{quotation}
\noindent  
my third proposition:
`Historical knowledge is the re-enactment of a past thought 
incapsulated in a context of present thoughts which, 
by contradicting it, confine it to a plane different from
theirs.'

How is one to know which of these planes is `real' life, 
and which mere `history'? 
By watching the way in which historical problems arise. 
Every historical problem ultimately arises out of `real' life.
The scissors-and-paste men think differently: 
they think that first of all people get into the habit of reading books,
and then the books put questions into their heads.
But am not talking about scissors-and-paste history.
In the kind of history that I am thinking of, 
the kind I have been practising all my life, 
historical problems arise out of practical problems. 
We study history in order to see more clearly 
into the situation in which we are called upon to act. 
Hence the plane on which, ultimately, 
all problems arise is the plane of `real' life: 
that to which they are referred for their solution is history.
\cite[p.\ 114]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quotation}
To the question how we know which plane of life is real, and which history,
I am not sure whether Collingwood's answer 
is any clearer than saying, ``We just \emph{do} know.''
Collingwood works through the example of Admiral Nelson,
on the deck of the \emph{Victory,}
wondering whether to remove his decorations 
so as to become a less conspicuous target to snipers on enemy ships.
To understand Nelson's answer,
as apparently Collingwood tried as a boy,
we have to understand what Nelson thinks about the question;
and yet we still know 
that the question does not actually arise in our own lives.
Nonetheless, young Collingwood may have had a personal interest in the question,
knowing that Nelson had a friend and colleague
bearing the name of Collingwood,
who took command at the Battle of Trafalgar after Nelson's death
\cite{Brit-Hist}.

We are interested in Euclid now,
and difficulties in reading him
arise precisely when the questions that underlie what he tells us
are not our own questions.
We must \emph{make} them our own questions, 
and this will be re-enacting them.
But the very difficulty of doing this will tell us that we are doing history.
This is how I understand Collingwood's ``third proposition.''

\section{Science}

Before continuing with Euclid,
I want to note again that, for Collingwood in \emph{The Principles of History,}
history is a science.
This classification agrees with the general account of science given in
\emph{An Essay on Metaphysics} of 1940:
\begin{quote}
The word `science', in its historical sense,
which is still its proper sense not in the English language alone
but in the international language of European civilization,
means a body of systematic or orderly thinking 
about a determinate subject-matter.
This is the sense and the only sense in which I shall use it.
\cite[p.\ 4]{Collingwood-EM}
\end{quote}
And yet earlier, 
in \emph{An Essay on Philosophical Method} of 1933,
Collingwood distinguished history from science:
\begin{quote}
Historical thought concerns itself with something individual, 
scientific thought with something universal; 
and in this respect philosophy is more like science than history, 
for it likewise is concerned with something universal: 
truth as such, not this or that truth; 
art as such, not this or that work of art. 
In the same way exact science considers the circle as such, 
not this or that individual instance of it; 
and empirical science considers man as such,
not, like history, this man as distinct from that.
\cite[p.\ 26]{Collingwood-EPM}
\end{quote}
In \emph{An Autobiography}
\cite[p.\ 117]{Collingwood-Auto},
Collingwood described
\emph{An Essay on Philosophical Method} as
\begin{quote}
my best book in matter; 
in style, I may call it my only book, 
for it is the only one I ever had the time to finish as well as I knew how, 
instead of leaving it in a more or less rough state.
\end{quote}
Did Collingwood nonetheless change his mind about science later?
The passage from 
\emph{An Essay on Metaphysics} continues:
\begin{quote}
There is also a slang sense of the word [`science'],
unobjectionable (like all slang) on its lawful occasions,
parallel to the slang use of the word `hall' for a music-hall
or the word `drink' for an alcoholic drink,
in which it stands for natural science.
\end{quote}
In the earlier \emph{Essay on Philosophical Method,}
was Collingwood using the word ``science'' in its slang sense?
Does the term ``natural science'' in the later \emph{Essay} 
encompass both empirical and exact science?
These questions are not of great importance for us,
but provide an opportunity to note the grand theme of
the earlier \emph{Essay,} which is the ``overlap of classes'':
\begin{quote}
The specific classes of a philosophical genus do not exclude one another, 
they overlap one another. 
This overlap is not exceptional, it is normal; 
and it is not negligible in extent, 
it may reach formidable dimensions.
\end{quote}
Thus in \emph{The Principles of Art} of 1938,
Collingwood will be at pains to distinguish art from craft,
although, for example,
 \begin{quote}
 The distinction between planning and executing 
certainly exists in some works of art, 
namely those which are also works of craft or artifacts; 
for there is, of course, an overlap between these two things, 
as may be seen by the example of a building or a jar, 
which is made to order for the satisfaction of a specific demand, 
to serve a useful purpose, but may none the less be a work of art.
But suppose a poet were making up verses as he walked\lips
\cite[p.\ 21]{Collingwood-PA}
 \end{quote}
The poem may be unplanned, and so not be craft, 
but nonetheless be a work of art; yet other things are both craft and art.

The overlap of classes has a practical result
\cite[p.\ 105]{Collingwood-EPM}.
First:
\begin{quote}
On a matter of empirical fact it is possible, 
when asked for example `where did I leave my purse?' 
to answer `not in the taxi, I am sure', 
without having the least idea where the purse was actually left\lips
\end{quote}
Likewise, when asked, ``Is this proof correct?''
we may answer ``No,'' 
without having the least idea of a correct proof,
if indeed there is a correct proof.
Nonetheless,
\begin{quote}
In philosophy this is not so. The normal and
natural way of replying to a philosophical statement
from which we dissent is by saying, not simply `this
view seems to me wrong', but `the truth, I would
suggest, is something more like this', and then we
should attempt to state a view of our own\lips
This is not a mere opinion. 
It is a corollary of the Socratic principle 
(itself a necessary consequence of the principle of overlapping classes) 
that there is in philosophy no such thing 
as a transition from sheer ignorance to sheer knowledge, 
but only a progress in which we come to know better 
what in some sense we know already.
\end{quote}
Euclid's \emph{Elements} is not philosophy;
and yet perhaps the best reason for reading it is philosophical:
to deepen our understanding of mathematics as we already know it.
In this case, if we detect what we think are errors in Euclid,
we ought to be prepared to correct them, 
and correct them
\emph{in a way that Euclid himself would agree with.}

Mathematics is not philosophy; but there is an overlap.
After writing \emph{An Essay on Philosophical Method,}
with its doctrine of the overlap of classes,
Collingwood applied the method to \emph{nature};
the resulting lectures were posthumously published in 1945 as
\emph{The Idea of Nature.}
What Collingwood says at the beginning about natural science
applies as well to mathematics:
\begin{quotation}
  The detailed study of natural fact is commonly called natural science, 
or for short simply science; 
the reflection on principles, 
whether those of natural science 
or of any other department of thought or action, 
is commonly called philosophy. 
Talking in these terms, 
and restricting philosophy for the moment 
to reflection on the principles of natural science, 
what I have just said may be put by saying 
that natural science must come first 
in order that philosophy may have something to reflect on; 
but that the two things are so closely related 
that natural science cannot go on for long without philosophy beginning; 
and that philosophy reacts on the science out of which it has grown 
by giving it in future a new firmness and consistency 
arising out of the scientist's new consciousness 
of the principles on which he has been working.

For this reason it cannot be well 
that natural science should be assigned exclusively 
to one class of persons called scientists 
and philosophy to another class called philosophers.
\cite[p.\ 2]{Collingwood-IN}
\end{quotation}
Collingwood saw the need for a bridge between science and philosophy,
and thought himself not alone in this:
\begin{quote}
In the nineteenth century 
a fashion grew up of separating natural scientists and philosophers
into two professional bodies, 
each knowing little about the other's work and having little sympathy with it. 
It is a bad fashion that has done harm to both sides, 
and on both sides there is an earnest desire to see the last of it 
and to bridge the gulf of misunderstanding it has created. 
The bridge must be begun from both ends; 
and I, as a member of the philosophical profession, 
can best begin at my end 
by philosophizing about what experience I have of natural science. 
Not being a professional scientist, 
I know that I am likely to make a fool of myself; 
but the work of bridge-building must go on.
\cite[p.\ 3]{Collingwood-IN}
\end{quote}
\emph{Why} build bridges?
Collingwood had seen the great destructive folly of the First World War,
albeit from a desk in London at the Admiralty Intelligence Division
\cite[p.\ 29]{Collingwood-Auto}.
\begin{quotation}
  The War was an unprecedented triumph for natural science. 
Bacon had promised that knowledge would be power, and power it was: 
power to destroy the bodies and souls of men 
more rapidly than had ever been done by human agency before. 
This triumph paved the way to other triumphs: 
improvements in transport, in sanitation, in surgery, medicine, and psychiatry, 
in commerce and industry, and, above all, in preparations for the next war.

But in one way the War was an unprecedented
disgrace to the human intellect\lips 
nobody has ever supposed that any 
except at most the tiniest fraction of the combatants wanted it\lips
I seemed to see the reign of natural science, 
within no very long time, converting Europe into a wilderness of Yahoos.
\cite[pp.\ 90--1]{Collingwood-Auto}
\end{quotation}
Collingwood saw salvation in history,
pursued scientifically in the sense described earlier,
and not by scissors and paste.

It was suggested earlier 
that a kind of salvation from conflict lay in mathematics,
where all disputes could be resolved amicably.
And yet, strictly speaking,
what can be so resolved 
are disputes about mathematics 
that can be expressed in formal systems.
Mathematics, and number theory in particular,
can no longer be distinguished from other sciences
as Hardy distinguished it in 1940 by saying,
\begin{quote}
science works for evil as well as for good 
(and particularly, of course, in time of war); 
and both Gauss and less mathematicians may be justified in rejoicing
that there is one science at any rate, and that their own, 
whose very remoteness from ordinary human activities 
should keep it gentle and clean.
\cite[\S21, p.\ 121]{MR92j:01070}
\end{quote}
The \emph{Elements} is an old book,
and certain old books have been,
and continue to be, 
the nominal causes of bloody disputes.
Euclid is different.
There have been no wars in his name.
There may still be academic disputes about him.
If history has the potential that Collingwood saw in it,
Euclid may be as good a place as any
for a mathematician, at least,
to try out the possibilities.




\chapter{Euclid in History}

\section{Dedekind and Hilbert}

Today we may be better able to learn Euclid's mathematics,
precisely because the \emph{Elements}
is \emph{not} commonly used as a textbook.
We can approach Euclid more easily now,
without assuming that he is doing just what we are doing
when we do mathematics.

In the preface of his 1908 translation of the \emph{Elements}
\cite[v.\ \textsc i, p.\ vii]{MR17:814b},
Thomas Heath said,
\begin{quote}
  no mathematician worthy of the name
can afford not to know Euclid,
the real Euclid as distinct from any revised or rewritten versions
which will serve for schoolboys or engineers.
\end{quote}
I do not know why engineers and schoolchildren, boys \emph{and} girls,
do not also deserve to know the real Euclid; but in any case,
I suppose mathematicians of Heath's day \emph{did} know Euclid.
Whether they knew him more directly than through
the ``revised or rewritten versions'' that Heath refers to,
I do not know.
However, a few years before Heath,
David Hilbert introduced his \emph{Foundations of Geometry} 
\cite[p.\ 1]{MR0116216}
by saying,
\begin{quote}
Geometry, like arithmetic, 
requires for its logical development only a small number of simple, 
fundamental principles. 
These fundamental principles are called the axioms of geometry. 
The choice of the axioms 
and the investigation of their relations to one another is a problem which, 
since the time of Euclid, 
has been discussed in numerous excellent memoirs 
to be found in the mathematical literature.
This problem is tantamount to the logical analysis of our intuition of space.
\end{quote}
Presumably Hilbert had actually read Euclid,
at least in some form.
Thus he could disagree explicitly with Euclid 
on whether the congruence of all right angles
is an axiom or a theorem
\cite[p.\ 13]{MR0116216}\label{Hilbert-right}.
On the other hand, 
this disagreement may represent a somewhat careless reading of Euclid; 
I shall discuss this point in \S\ref{Hilbert-right-2} 
(p.\ \pageref{Hilbert-right-2}).

A few years before Hilbert,
Richard Dedekind \cite[pp.~39--40]{MR0159773}
complained about critics
who thought that his theory of irrational numbers
could be found already in the 
\emph{Trait\'e d'Arithm\'etique}
of Joseph Bertrand.
According to Dedekind, the theory in Bertrand's work
had already been present in \emph{Euclid's} work;
but his own theory was different.
Dedekind traced his own definition of irrational numbers to the idea that
\begin{quote}
an irrational number is defined 
by the specification of all rational numbers that are less 
and all those that are greater than the number to be defined\lips
That an irrational number is to be considered 
as fully defined by the specification just described,
this conviction certainly long before the time of Bertrand 
was the common property of all mathematicians 
who concerned themselves with the irrational\lips 
[I]f, as Bertrand does exclusively in his book
(the eighth edition, of the year 1885, lies before me,)
one regards the irrational number 
as the ratio of two measurable quantities,
then is this manner of determining it 
already set forth in the clearest possible way
in the celebrated definition which Euclid gives of the equality of two ratios
(\emph{Elements}, V., 5).
\end{quote}
In the 1849 edition of his \emph{Trait\'e} \cite{Bertrand}
(the one that I was able to find),
Bertrand indeed defines irrational square roots
and other irrational numbers as measures of quantities
with respect to a predetermined unit.
Thus he writes:
\begin{quotation}
  \textbf{267.}  Lorsqu'un nombre $\mathrm N$, n'est le carr\'e d'aucun nombre
entier ou fractionnaire, la d\'efinition de sa racine carr\'ee exige
quelques d\'eveloppements.

On dit qu'un nombre est plus grand ou plus petit que $\sqrt{\mathrm N}$ sui%
vant que son carr\'e est plus grand ou plus petit que $\mathrm N$; d'apr\`es
cela, pour d\'efinir \emph{les grandeurs dont $\sqrt{\mathrm N}$ est la mesure}, supposons,
par exemple, qu'apr\`es avoir adopt\'e une certaine unit\'e\label{unite} de longueur
on regarde tous les nombres comme exprimant des longueurs
port\'ees sur une m\`eme ligne droite \`a partir d'une origine
donn\'ee.  Une portion de cette ligne recevra les extr\'emit\'es des
longueurs dont la mesure est moindre que $\sqrt{\mathrm N}$, et une autre por%
tion celles des lignes dont la mesure est plus grande que $\sqrt{\mathrm N}$;
entre ces deux r\'egions, il ne pourra \'evidemment exister aucun
intervalle, mais, seulement, un \emph{point de d\'emarcation.}  La distance
\`a laquelle se trouve ce point, est, par d\'efinition, mesur\'ee
par $\sqrt{\mathrm N}$.
\end{quotation}
That is, if $N$ is not a square,
we define $\sqrt N$ by saying first $x>\sqrt N$ if $x^2>N$, 
and $x<\sqrt N$ if $x^2<N$, where implicitly the $x$ are rational.
If such $x$ are taken to measure lengths along a straight line
from a given origin,
a unit length having been chosen,
then the extremities of the lengths measuring less than $\sqrt N$
will be separated from the extremities of the lengths measuring more than 
$\sqrt N$ by a single point,
whose distance from the origin is $\sqrt N$.

Bertrand's account has some obscurities,
such as how a length can be distinguished 
from the bounded straight line of which it is a length.
Dedekind seems right in saying that Euclid had 
``already set forth in the clearest possible way''
the approach that Bertrand would take.
Thus, suppose $A$ and $B$ are magnitudes that 
\emph{have a ratio to one another}
in the sense of Definition \textsc v.4 of the \emph{Elements.}
This means some multiple of either magnitude exceeds the other, or,
in our terms,
$A$ and $B$ are positive elements of an archimedean ordered group.%%%%%
\footnote{In the paper \cite{Zeeman} discussed earlier,
Zeeman shows how to avoid using the full group structure
in order to define the ratio of $A$ to $B$.
One may not be able to find the \emph{difference} of $A$ and $B$;
but if $A<B$, one should know that $(n+1)A<nB$ for some natural number $n$.}
%%%%%%%%%
We derive from these magnitudes the set $\{m/n\colon mB<nA\}$
consisting of positive rational numbers;
here $m$ and $n$ range over the set $\N$ of positive integers.
The set $\{m/n\colon mB<nA\}$ determines the ratio of $A$ to $B$,
in the sense that, 
if $C$ and $D$ are also magnitudes having a ratio to one another,
then they have the \emph{same ratio} that $A$ and $B$ have,
provided
\begin{equation*}
  \{m/n\colon mB<nA\}=\{m/n\colon mD<nC\}.
\end{equation*}
Such is Euclid's Definition \textsc v.5, in modern form.
I suggested in \S\ref{fraction} (p.\ \pageref{fraction}) 
that fractions were problematic;
but in the present context,
we can just replace $m/n$ with the ordered pair $(m,n)$.

Dedekind's insight was that a set of the form $\{m/n\colon mB<nA\}$
had properties that could be specified 
without reference to magnitudes like $A$ and $B$;
and then the sets of rational numbers with those properties
could be used to define the irrational numbers.
In the \emph{Geometry} \cite{Descartes-Geometry},
Descartes had justified algebraic manipulations geometrically,
by showing how the product of two line-segments
could be understood as another segment,
once a unit length was chosen.%%%
\footnote{My article \cite{MR2505433} 
has some developments from Descartes's idea.}
Bertrand, for one, seems to have continued the tradition 
of finding the ultimate foundation of mathematics in geometry.
Dedekind saw that arithmetic also could serve as a foundation of mathematics,
even a better foundation.
This was a significant advance,
not always appreciated by Dedekind's contemporaries,
who were perhaps too strongly attached to ideas traceable to Euclid.

Or did Dedekind perhaps understand Euclid more clearly than others did?
Dedekind showed that we need not \emph{assume}
that the number line is continuous;
we can \emph{make} it continuous.
He observed \cite[p.~38]{MR0159773}
that if the points $M$ of a plane have algebraic coordinates
(according to some coordinatization),
\begin{quote}
  \begin{comment}
    

  If we select three non-collinear points $A$, $B$, $C$ at pleasure,
with the single limitation that the ratios of the distances $AB$, $AC$, $BC$
are algebraic numbers,
and regard as existing in space only those points $M$,
for which the ratios of $AM$, $BM$, $CM$ to $AB$
are likewise algebraic numbers,


  \end{comment}
  then is the space made up of the points $M$,
as is easy to see, everywhere discontinuous;
but in spite of this discontinuity,
and despite the existence of gaps in this space,
all constructions that occur in Euclid's \emph{Elements},
can, so far as I can see,
be just as accurately effected as in perfectly continuous space;
the discontinuity of this space would not be noticed in Euclid's science,
would not be felt at all.
If any one should say
that we cannot conceive of space as anything else than continuous,
I should venture to doubt it and 
to call attention to the fact 
that a far advanced, refined scientific training
is demanded in order to perceive clearly the essence of continuity
and to comprehend that besides rational quantitative relations,
also irrational, and besides algebraic, 
also transcendental quantitative relations
are conceivable.
\end{quote}
Mathematicians had drifted away from the rigor of Euclid without realizing it.
They worked with kinds of numbers never contemplated by Euclid,
while still founding their ideas of such numbers in geometric intuition.
For Dedekind, this would not do.
There is more to the story; 
but the point for now is that 
when there has been a continuous tradition 
of building up mathematics from Euclid,
the tradition may lose sight of what Euclid actually did.
Now that we no longer have this tradition,
we may be better able to do what Dedekind could do,
and understand what Euclid really did do.

\section{From a course of Euclid}\label{sect:course}

Some students do still learn mathematics from Euclid.
My own mathematics department in Turkey 
now has a first-semester undergraduate course
based on the first book of the \emph{Elements.}
Students go to the board and demonstrate propositions,
more or less on the pattern of my own \emph{alma mater,}
St.\ John's College in the United States.
However, they use a Turkish translation of Euclid
prepared in collaboration with my colleague \"Ozer \"Ozt\"urk 
\cite{Oklid-2014}.
The translation is from the original Greek,
as established by Heiberg \cite{Euclid-Heiberg}.
One could just translate Heath's English \cite{MR17:814b};
but there are ways that Heath is inaccurate.
In translating the first proposition of the first book of the \emph{Elements,}
Heath begins,
\begin{quotation}
\emph{On a given finite straight line
to constuct an equilateral triangle.}

Let $AB$ be the given finite straight line.

Thus it is required to construct an equilateral triangle 
on the straight line $AB$.

With centre $A$ and distance $AB$ let the circle $BCD$ be described.
\end{quotation}
But what Euclid says (in Heiberg's transcription
and in my literal translation) is,
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>Ep`i t~hc doje'ishc e>uje'iac peperasm'enhc 
tr'igwnon >is'opleuron sus\-t'hsasjai.
>'Estw <h doje~isa e>uje~ia peperasm'enh <h AB.
De~i d`h >ep`i t~hc AB e>uje'iac tr'igwnon >is'opleuron sust'hsasjai.
K'entrw| m`en t~w| A diast'hmati d`e t~w| AB k'ukloc gegr'afjw <o BGD.}
\ldiv
\tr{\begin{inparaenum}[[1{]}]
    \item
On the given finite straight [line]
to construct an equilateral triangle.
\item
Let the given finite straight [line] be \gr{AB}.
\item
Thus it is required 
on the straight [line] \gr{AB}
to construct an equilateral triangle.
\item
With center \gr A and distance \gr{AB}
let a circle have been drawn, \gr{BGD}.
  \end{inparaenum}}
\end{quote}
The four sentences here are, respectively,
the four parts of a proposition 
that Proclus \cite[p.\ 159]{MR1200456}
calls 
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
\item  
\emph{enunciation,}
\item
\emph{exposition}
(or ``setting out''), 
\item 
\emph{specification,} and 
\item
\emph{construction.}
(The fourth sentence is only part of the construction.)
The remaining two parts of a proposition are the 
\item
\emph{demonstration}
and
\item
\emph{conclusion.}
\end{inparaenum}
In Proposition \textsc i.1, the construction continues
with the drawing of a second circle as in Figure \ref{fig:I.1},
\begin{figure}
  \centering
    \psset{unit=2cm}
\begin{pspicture}(3,2)
\pscircle(1,1)1
\pscircle(2,1)1
\uput[l](1,1){\gr A}
\uput[r](2,1){\gr B}
\uput[u](1.5,1.866){\gr G}
\uput[r](0,1){\gr D}
\uput[l](3,1){\gr E}
\pspolygon(1,1)(2,1)(1.5,1.866)
\end{pspicture}
  \caption{Proposition \textsc i.1}%%
\label{fig:I.1}
  
\end{figure}
and with the connection of one of the points of intersection of the two circles
with the endpoints of the original finite straight line.
Then follows the (easy) demonstration
that the resulting triangle is indeed equilateral,
and the conclusion that what was to be done has been done.
The literal translation of the Greek above shows five differences from Heath:
\begin{asparaenum}
  \item
In the enunciation,
Euclid refers not to \emph{a} straight line,
but \emph{the} straight line.
The definite article ``the'' here can be understood as being generic,
as in Wordsworth's verse, ``The child is the father of the man.''
I discuss this matter in more detail elsewhere \cite{Pierce-AO}.
The straight line of Euclid's enunciation can also be understood
as the straight line in Euclid's diagram,
which exists before we start to read the proposition.
\item
Today if we say that we are going to construct an equilateral triangle
on \emph{a} straight line,
we mean an arbitrary straight line;
but then we proceed to draw our own straight line,
assigning to its endpoints, as Heath does, the letters $A$ and $B$.
This is not what Euclid does,
as Reviel Netz explains in 
\emph{The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics} 
\cite[pp.\ 24--5]{MR1683176}:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent Nowhere in Greek mathematics do we find a moment of specification 
\emph{per se}, 
a moment whose purpose is to make sure 
that the attribution of letters in the text is fixed. 
Such moments are very common in modern mathematics, 
at least since Descartes.
But specifications in Greek mathematics are done, literally, \emph{ambulando.} 
The essence of the `imperative' element in Greek mathematics---%
`let a line be drawn\lips', etc.---is to do some job upon the geometric space, 
to get things moving there\lips%%%
\footnote{The first ellipsis here is Netz's;
the second, mine.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

What we see, in short, is that while the text is being worked through,
the diagram is assumed to exist. 
The text takes the diagram for granted.
\end{quotation}
Thus, at the start of Euclid's proposition,
we have already been given a straight line, labelled as \gr{AB}.
The exposition or ``setting out'' 
of the proposition
tells us to understand the straight line of the enunciation
as the straight line \gr{AB}.
We are \emph{not} told to let \gr{AB} be some straight line
that we proceed to create for ourselves.
\item
Heath tells us to let a circle be drawn.
Using chalk or a pen, we can then draw a circle.
But apparently Euclid had nothing like our blackboards or whiteboards,
with which a diagram could be constructed during a lecture.
Again, his diagrams would already have been drawn,
perhaps on a wax tablet.
Referring to the last passage quoted,
Netz says,
\begin{quote}
%This reflects the material implementation discussed above. 
This, in fact, is the simple explanation for the use of 
\emph{perfect} imperatives 
in the references to the setting out---`let the point $A$ have been taken'. 
It reflects nothing more than the fact that, by the time one comes to
discuss the diagram, it has already been drawn.
\end{quote}
Though seen in the command ``Have done with it,''
the English imperative in the perfect aspect is awkward.
English does not even have a \emph{third-person} imperative in any aspect,
except in some formulas like ``God bless you'';
otherwise we achieve the same effect periphrastically,%%%%%
\footnote{``Periphrasis \&\ civilisation are by many held to be inseparable;
these good people feel that there is an almost indecent nakedness,
a reversion to barbarism,
in saying \emph{No news is good news}
instead of \emph{The absence of intelligence
is an indication of satisfactory developments.}
Nevertheless, \emph{The year's penultimate month}
is not in truth a good way of saying \emph{November.}''
H. W. Fowler, \emph{A Dictionary of Modern English Usage} 
\cite[\textsc{Periphrasis,} p.\ 430]{Fowler}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%
by means of the second-person imperative ``let,''
as in ``Let it be done.''
Turkish, like Greek, does have third-person imperatives,
which are commonly used:
\begin{center}
  \begin{tabular}{rcl}\hline
    let somebody draw &\gr{graf'etw} &\emph{\c cizsin}\\
       let it be drawn&\gr{graf'esjw}&\emph{\c cizilsin}\\
let it have been drawn&\gr{g'egrafjw}&\emph{\c cizilmi\c s olsun}\\\hline
  \end{tabular}
\end{center}
This similarity between Turkish and Greek 
was a particular reason to translate directly from Euclid's Greek into Turkish.
\item
For Euclid, a line is what we call a curve;
our lines are Euclid's \emph{straight} lines.
Heath is faithful to Euclid by writing ``straight line'' 
when this is what is meant.
However, Euclid usually abbreviates ``straight line'' (\gr{e>uje~ia gramm'h})
to ``straight'' (\gr{e>uje~ia}).
Heath cannot do this if, as he does,
he wants to maintain good English style.
One can do it in Turkish though:
here a line in Euclid's sense is \emph{\c cizgi,}
while a straight line is \emph{do\u gru \c cizgi} or just \emph{do\u gru.}
\item
The foregoing differences between Heath and Euclid
are perhaps of little mathematical importance.
A fifth difference brings out a remarkable feature of Euclid.
Heath \emph{italicizes} the enunciations of Euclid's propositions;
but Euclid had no such means of emphasizing text.
He did not even have the medieval distinction 
between minuscule and capital letters.
\end{asparaenum}

Like Heath, Heiberg emphasizes Euclid's enunciations:
not however by a change of font, 
b{\aer}u{\aer}t b{\aer}y 
s{\aer}p{\aer}a{\aer}c{\aer}i{\aer}n{\aer}g o{\aer}u{\aer}t 
t{\aer}h{\aer}e l{\aer}e{\aer}t{\aer}t{\aer}e{\aer}r{\aer}s
l{\aer}i{\aer}k{\aer}e t{\aer}h{\aer}i{\aer}s.
I assume Euclid did not consider doing such a thing,
since he would not even have separated \emph{words} with spaces,
\textsc{butwrotecontinuouslylikethis.}
I suppose there still would have been 
\underline{the possibility of underlining for}
\underline{emphasis.}%%
\marginpar{Any chance that underlines were used?}

In \emph{The Mathematics of Plato's Academy}
\cite[\S6.2]{MR2000c:01004},
David Fowler discusses what we know about ancient manuscript style.
He also
\cite[\S10.4]{MR2000c:01004}
looks at what he calls 
the \emph{protasis}-style of Euclid.
\gr{Pr'otasis} is the term of Proclus that we translate as ``enunciation.''
Before Euclid,
we have no evidence of any mathematics
written in the Euclidean style, with an enunciation followed by justification.
Aristotle's \emph{Prior Analytics} might be an exception,
except that it is not really mathematics, but logic.%%
\footnote{At the beginning of the \emph{Prior Analytics,}
Aristotle defines \gr{pr'otasis} as
``an affirmative or negative statement of something about some subject''
\cite[24\textsuperscript a10, p.\ 199]{Aristotle-LI}.
We then translate the word
as premiss or just proposition.
\gr{Pr'otasis} is used in Greek today 
for an entire proposition of Euclid
\cite{Euclid-homepage},
but I am not aware of any ancient basis for this usage.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Today the \emph{protasis}-style is ubiquitous in mathematics;
and yet we signal our protases with rubrics like ``Theorem $N$,''
and our justifications with the word ``Proof''
(and a box $\qedsymbol$ at the end).
Strictly speaking, this is not Euclid's style.

It is often not students' style either.
In performing the task of demonstrating something,
students will write down various statements,
without being clear about the logical relations between them.
Even professional mathematicians will do this at the board,
expecting the attentive listener to know what is meant
(and expecting all listeners to be attentive).

At least Euclid establishes a set pattern for his propositions.
Read a bit, and you see that the \emph{Elements} 
is a sequence of assertions, each followed by a justification,
the justification itself following (more or less)
the outline given by Proclus.
Actually, some of Euclid's enunciations
are not assertions, but tasks,
as in the very Proposition \textsc i.1 that we have been looking at.
The distinction between an assertion and a task 
can be indicated by the labels\label{th-pr}
\emph{theorem} (\gr{je'orhma}) and \emph{problem} (\gr{pr'oblhma}).
However, according to Pappus,
``among the ancients some described them all as problems,
some as theorems'' \cite[p.\ 567]{MR13:419b}.
Euclid himself did not use such labels at all.

Heath helps the reader typographically,
by italicizing enunciations, 
by breaking the text into short paragraphs,
and by centering some phrases.
This typography may be misleading,
if it causes us to think of Euclid's propositions
just as if they were modern theorems with proofs.
In some cases at least, Euclid's propositions are not like that.
An example mentioned above in \S\ref{prop.7.4} (p.\ \pageref{prop.7.4}),
and to be further considered in \S\S\ref{prop.7.4again} \&\ \ref{sect:part/s}
(pp.\ \pageref{prop.7.4again} \&\ \pageref{sect:part/s})
is Proposition \textsc{vii}.4.

\section{Equality}\label{sect:=}

Another of Euclid's propositions
that is not like a modern theorem
is Proposition \textsc i.4.
This is where Euclid establishes the principle of triangle congruence
that we call ``Side Angle Side.''
For Hilbert, this principle is an axiom, 
the one that he numbers \textbf{IV, 6.}%%
\footnote{More precisely,
Hilbert's axiom is that if two sides and the included angle of a triangle
are respectively congruent 
to two sides and the included angle of another triangle,
then the remaining angles are respectively congruent to the remaining angles.
That the remaining side is congruent to the remaining side is his Theorem 10.}
%%%%%
Euclid proves the principle, 
but without using any postulate or any previous proposition.
Can Euclid's proof then be a ``real'' proof?
Given triangles \gr{ABG} and \gr{DEZ} as in Figure \ref{fig:I.4},
\begin{figure}
  \centering

\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.5)(7,3)
\pspolygon(0,0)(3,0)(2.5,2.5)
\pspolygon(4,0)(7,0)(6.5,2.5)
\uput[u](2.5,2.5){\gr A}
\uput[d](0,0){\gr B}
\uput[d](3,0){\gr G}
\uput[u](6.5,2.5){\gr D}
\uput[d](4,0){\gr E}
\uput[d](7,0){\gr Z}
%pscurve(4,0)(5.5,-0.15)(7,0)
\end{pspicture}
  \caption{Proposition \textsc i.4}%%
\label{fig:I.4}
  
\end{figure}
let us suppose $\grm{AB}=\grm{DE}$ and $\grm{AG}=\grm{DZ}$ and 
$\angle\;\grm{BAG}=\angle\;\grm{EDZ}$.
If we apply triangle to triangle
so that \gr A falls on \gr D, and \gr{AB} falls along \gr{DE},
then \gr B will fall on \gr E, and \gr{AG} will fall along \gr{DZ},
so that \gr G will fall on \gr Z;
and then \gr{BG} will coincide with \gr{EZ}.
So argues Euclid.  Do we accept it?

Students are sometimes disturbed by an expression like $\grm{AB}=\grm{DE}$;
they want to make it $\abs{\grm{AB}}=\abs{\grm{DE}}$.
Apparently they think that the sign of equality in fact denotes identity.
Obviously the straight lines \gr{AB} and \gr{DE} are not identical;
but they may have identical \emph{lengths,}
which can then be denoted indifferently by $\abs{\grm{AB}}$ or $\abs{\grm{DE}}$.

Euclid does not use a symbol for equality;
he just says \gr{AB} is \emph{equal} (\gr{>'isos}%%
\footnote{More precisely \gr{>'ish},
in agreement with the feminine gender of \gr{gramm'h};
but the \emph{lemma} or dictionary-form of the word is \gr{>'isos}.})
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 
to \gr{DE}.
Along with definitions and postulates,
the preamble of the \emph{Elements}
contains so-called Common Notions;
and of the five of these
that Heiberg and Heath accept as genuine,
four establish what equality means.
According to the assigned numbering, these Common Notions are that
(4) things congruent to one another are equal to one another,
and (1) things equal to the same thing are equal to one another;
but moreover, if equals be (2) added to or (3) subtracted from equals,
the results are equal.
In Common Notion 4,
I use the word \tr{congruent}
for Euclid's participle \gr{>efarm'ozwn}, 
to emphasize that the notion of congruence found in Hilbert
originates in Euclid's notion of equality;
but Heath says ``things which coincide with'' 
instead of \tr{things congruent to.}
For Euclid, 
figures are equal if congruent parts can be added or subtracted
so as to obtain congruent figures.\marginpar{Motivic integration?}
Thus parallelograms on equal bases and in the same parallels
can be shown to be equal to one another 
by cutting out and rearranging the parts shown in Figure \ref{fig:I.36}.
\begin{figure}
\psset{unit=6mm}
  \mbox{}\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(-1,0)(2.67,3)
    \pspolygon(-1,3)(0,0)(2.67,0)(1.67,3)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](0,0)(2,2)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](-0.67,2)(0.33,3)
  \end{pspicture}
  \begin{comment}
    

\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(-2.67,0)(2,3)
    \pspolygon(-1,3)(-0.67,2)(-2.67,0)(0,0)(2,2)(1.67,3)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](0,0)(-0.67,2)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](-0.67,2)(0.33,3)
  \end{pspicture}

  \end{comment}
  \hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(-2.67,0)(3,3)
    \pspolygon(-2.67,0)(0,0)(3,3)(0.33,3)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](0,0)(-0.67,2)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](2,2)(1.67,3)
  \end{pspicture}
\hfill\mbox{}
  \caption{Proposition \textsc i.36}%%
\label{fig:I.36}  
\end{figure}
The equality of these parallelograms is Proposition \textsc i.36.
Actually Euclid derives this equality from Proposition \textsc i.35,
where the bases of the parallelograms are not equal,
but \emph{the same} (\gr{<o a>ut'os}),
as in Figure \ref{fig:I.35}.\begin{figure}
\psset{unit=6mm}
\centering
  \begin{pspicture}(-1,0)(5,3)
    \pspolygon(-1,3)(0,0)(2.67,0)(1.67,3)
    \pspolygon(2.67,0)(5.67,3)(2.67,3)(0,0)
\psline[linestyle=dotted](2.67,3)(1.67,3)
  \end{pspicture}

  \caption{Proposition \textsc i.35}%%
\label{fig:I.35}  
\end{figure}
\emph{Here} the proof is by cutting and pasting;
then \textsc i.36 is proved by means of a third parallelogram,
which shares a base with either of the first two parallelograms,
as in Figure \ref{fig:I.36again}.
\begin{figure}
\psset{unit=6mm}
  \mbox{}\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(-1,0)(9.67,3)
    \pspolygon(-1,3)(0,0)(2.67,0)(1.67,3)
%    \pspolygon(-2.67,0)(0,0)(3,3)(0.33,3)
    \pspolygon(4,0)(6.67,0)(9.67,3)(7,3)
\psline(-1,3)(4,0)
\psline(1.67,3)(6.67,0)
  \end{pspicture}
\hfill\mbox{}
  \caption%[Prop.\ \textsc i.36 in Euclid]%
{Proposition \textsc i.36 as Euclid does it}%%
\label{fig:I.36again}  
\end{figure}

In the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America,
when Thomas Jefferson wrote the self-evident truth,
``that all men are created equal'' \cite[p.\ 15]{Heffner},
he did not mean that all persons were the same person.
However, in mathematics today, we confuse equality and identity.
Thus when I wrote the equation $nx=my$ earlier,
I meant that $nx$ and $my$ 
were to be considered as the same element of the set $\N$,
although I would read the sign = as ``equals.''

In the article called
``When is one thing equal to some other thing?'' \cite{MR2452082},
the notion of equality that Barry Mazur contemplates
is not distinct from the notion of sameness.
Thus the article begins%
%(on page 222 of the volume in which it appears)
:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent  One can't do mathematics for ten minutes
without grappling, in some way or other,
with the slippery notion of \emph{equality.}
Slippery, because the way in which objects are presented to us hardly ever,
perhaps never, immediately tells us---without further com\-ment\-ary---%
when two of them are to be considered equal.
We even see this, for example,
if we try to define real numbers as decimals,
and then have to mention aliases like $20=19.999\dots$, 
a fact not unknown to the merchants who price their items $\$19.99$.

The heart and soul of much mathematics consists of the fact that the ``same''
object can be presented to us in different ways.
Even if we are faced with the simple-seeming task
of ``giving'' a large number,
there is no way of doing this without also, at the same time,
giving a heft amount of extra structure that comes 
as a result of the way we pin down---or the way we present---our large number.
If we write our number as $1729$ we are, sotto voce,
offering a preferred way of ``computing it''
(add one thousand to seven hundreds to two tens to nine).
If we present it as $1+12^3$ we are recommending another mode of computation,
and if we pin it down---as [Ramanujan] did---%
as the first number expressible as a sum of two cubes in two different ways,
we are being less specific about how to compute our number,
but we have underscored a characterizing property of it
within a subtle diophantine arena.
\end{quotation}
When we are presented with the angles
\gr{BAG} and \gr{EDZ}
in the triangles in Figure \ref{fig:I.4},
there is nothing about this presentation itself
that tells us that the two angles are equal,
just as there is nothing about the two expressions $20$
and $19.999\dots$ that tells us they stand for equal numbers.
However, even when the expressions are understood,
the equal angles
\gr{BAG} and \gr{EDZ}
are not \emph{interchangeable}
in the way that $20$ and $19.999\dots$ are.
We say that the numbers $20$ and $19.999\dots$ are the \emph{same} number;
but \gr{BAG} and \gr{EDZ} are different angles of different triangles.

In fact they \emph{could} be the same angle,
as they are for example in Proposition \textsc i.5,
whose diagram is in Figure \ref{fig:I.5}.
\begin{figure}
  \begin{center}
\psset{unit=5mm}
\begin{pspicture}(0,-3)(2,3.5)
\pspolygon(0,0)(2,0)(1,3)
\uput[u](1,3){\gr A}
\uput[l](0,0){\gr B}
\uput[r](2,0){\gr G}
\psline(0,0)(-1,-3)
\uput[l](-1,-3){\gr D}
\psline(0,0)(2.5,-1.5)
\uput[r](2.5,-1.5){\gr H}
\psline(2,0)(3,-3)
\uput[r](3,-3){\gr E}
\psline(2,0)(-0.5,-1.5)
\uput[l](-0.5,-1.5){\gr Z}
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}

  \caption{Proposition \textsc i.5}%%
\label{fig:I.5}
  
\end{figure}
Here the sides \gr{AB} and \gr{AG} of the triangle \gr{ABG}
are given as being equal to one another.
By construction, $\grm{AZ}=\grm{AH}$.
Since also the angle \gr{ZAH} is common to the triangles
\gr{AZG} and \gr{AHB},
these two triangles are congruent to one another,
by Proposition \textsc i.4---but strictly speaking,
this conclusion requires us to recognize
that the common angle of the two triangles is equal to \emph{itself.}
We must also recognize that this angle can be expressed indifferently
as $\grm{ZAG}$ or $\grm{HAB}$.
Euclid does not say this explicitly.

Mazur's concern is more with the question of 
whether your triangles are the same as my triangles,
or your numbers are the same as my numbers.
He says \cite[p.\ 225]{MR2452082},
``\emph{Equivalence} (of structure) in the above `compromise'
is the primary issue,
rather than \emph{equality} of mathematical objects''---where again I think 
``equality'' can be read as sameness.
The ``compromise'' is between the treatment of the number $5$ 
as a particular standard five-element set,
and its treatment as the class of all five-element sets.
The compromise is to let you use your five-element set,
and let me use mine,
as long as what each of us does with it can be ``translated''
into what the other does with it.
Mazur elaborates on how the language of category theory
lets us talk about these things.
However, I think there is no question that,
in any instance of actually doing mathematics,
there is only one number $5$.
There may be different five-element sets,
but there is only one \emph{five,}
be it a \emph{particular} five-element set reserved as a standard,
or be it the unique class consisting precisely of all five-element sets.

For Euclid, the matter is less clear.
But before looking at his treatment of numbers in particular,
I want to answer the question raised at the beginning of this section.
Euclid's proof of Proposition \textsc i.4 \emph{is} a real proof,
because it is based on several applications
of the principle that equal straight lines can be made to coincide,
and likewise equal angles.
This principle is not explicitly stated;
but should it have been?
\emph{What else can equality of straight lines or angles mean?}

The status of Proposition \textsc i.8, ``Side Side Side,'' is not so clear.
In Figure \ref{fig:I.4}, if we now let $\grm{AB}=\grm{AG}$ 
and $\grm{AG}=\grm{DZ}$ and $\grm{BG}=\grm{EZ}$,
then we can apply the base \gr{BG} to the base \gr{EZ}, since they are equal.
Euclid argues that \gr A must fall on \gr D,
because otherwise it falls on a point \gr Z as in Figure \ref{fig:I.8},
\begin{figure}
  \centering

\begin{pspicture}(4,-0.5)(7,3)
\pspolygon(4,0)(7,0)(6.5,2.5)
\psline(4,0)(6.8,2.4)(7,0)
\uput[u](6.5,2.5){\gr D}
\uput[d](4,0){\gr E}
\uput[d](7,0){\gr Z}
\uput[ur](6.8,2.4){\gr H}
%pscurve(4,0)(5.5,-0.15)(7,0)
\end{pspicture}
  \caption{Proposition \textsc i.8}%%
\label{fig:I.8}
  
\end{figure}
and then a contradiction to Proposition \textsc i.7 arises.
If Euclid allows such an argument,
perhaps he will allow Hilbert's proof 
that all right angles are equal to one another.
Still, perpendiculars can be erected and dropped
(as in Propositions \textsc i.11 and 12)
without recourse to Proposition \textsc i.8,
and then this proposition can be proved
by means of perpendiculars,
Proposition \textsc i.4,
and the equality of all right angles.
There is no reason not to think Euclid was aware of this,
but preferred to leave such a proof as an exercise for the reader.
Euclid does not \emph{say} he is doing this;
but then there is a lot that he does not spell out,
as we shall discuss in \S\ref{spell} (p.\ \pageref{spell}).

\section{Right angles}

We do not know what the preamble of the \emph{Elements} consisted of
when this collection of thirteen books was first compiled.
In \emph{The Forgotten Revolution} \cite[pp.\ 323--4]{MR2038833},
Lucio Russo argues that 
Euclid's obscure definition of straight line
is only a later addition to the \emph{Elements}:
in origin it is a truncated sentence from a student's crib-sheet.
The definition in the \emph{Elements} is
\begin{quote}\centering
  \gr{E>uje~ia gramm'h >estin, 
<'htic >ex >'isou to~ic >ef> <eaut~hc shme'ioic ke~itai,}
\end{quote}
which is practically the same as the first part of
\begin{quote}\centering
\makebox[0pt]{\gr{E>uje~ia m`en o>~un gramm'h >estin,
<'htis >ex >'isou to~is >ep' a>ut~hs shme'iois ke~itai}}\\
\gr{>orj`h o>~usa ka`i o<~ion >ep' >'akron tetam'enh >ep`i t`a p'erata.}
\end{quote}
Russo noticed this among the
\emph{Definitions of Terms in Geometry} attributed to Hero
\cite[p.\ 16, ll.\ 22--4]{Hero-Heiberg-IV};
it means something like
\begin{quote}\centering
\makebox[0pt]{A straight %(\gr{e>uje~ia}) 
line is one that equally with respect to all points on itself lies}\\
%\emph{straight} (\gr{>orj'h}) 
\emph{right and maximally taught between its extremities.}%%%%%
\footnote{Russo's translation, as rendered in English by Silvio Levy,
is ``A straight (\gr{e>uje~ia}) 
line is a line that equally with respect to all points on itself lies
straight (\gr{>orj'h}) 
and maximally taught between its extremities.''}
%%%%%
\end{quote}
The italicized part is what is missing from the \emph{Elements,}
though it is where the meaning of the definition lies;
the reference to ``all points on itself''
allows for the case of an unbounded straight line,
where any two points must serve as extremities
for the purpose of the definition.

Here I just want to assert the plausibility of Russo's argument.
There is reasonable doubt about the authenticity 
of the definition of straight line in the \emph{Elements.}
\emph{Some} understanding of straightness
is needed for the conclusion in Proposition \textsc i.4 that,
when points \gr B and \gr G are made to coincide with points \gr E and \gr Z,
then straight line \gr{BG} will coincide with straight line \gr{EZ}.
Whether Euclid meant this understanding to be part of Postulate 1,
or part of the definition of straight line,
or even just part of Proposition \textsc i.4,
I do not know.

The definition in the \emph{Elements} of a right angle 
(\gr{>orj`h gwn'ia})
is given as,
\begin{quote}
  When a straight line set up on a straight line
makes the adjacent angles equal to one another,
each of the equal angles is \emph{right,}
and the straight line standing on the other
is called a \emph{perpendicular} to that on which it stands.
\end{quote}
This is Heath's translation, with his italics.
As the italics suggest, 
surely it is right angles that are being characterized,
and not equality of angles.
Equality of angles is implicitly understood;
and indeed, what else can it mean
but that one angle can be picked up and placed on another?

Postulate 4 is that all right angles are equal to one another.
I take this to mean that we have a toolkit containing a carpenter's square.
The square is not for \emph{drawing} right angles:
this is achieved by Propositions \textsc i.11 and 12.
But the carpenter's square reminds us that indeed all right angles 
\emph{are} equal to one another,
because they can be made to coincide with this one standard angle.
(I take an actual carpenter's square to my own Euclid classes,
to serve as such a reminder.)

Euclid's first three postulates
are that we can do things that can be done with a straightedge and compass,
or just with a string or cord.
We can 
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
  \item
connect two points with a straight line,
\item
extend a given straight line,
and 
\item
draw a circle with given center,
passing through another given point.
\end{inparaenum}
Finally, Postulate 5 tells us something else that we can do:
we can find a point of intersection of two straight lines,
if we extend them far enough,
provided that a line falling across them
makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles.
Here the angles are \emph{together} less than two right angles,
though one of them might be greater than a right angle.
Thus we are going to need a way to bring two angles together,
for comparison with two right angles.

I noted in \S\ref{Hilbert-right} 
(p.\ \pageref{Hilbert-right})\label{Hilbert-right-2}
that Hilbert thought Euclid's Postulate 4 was actually a theorem.
In the style of Euclid, Hilbert's proof would seem to be as follows.
Suppose, as in Figure \ref{fig:I.13},
\begin{figure}
\mbox{}\hfill
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.5)(2,1.5)
\psline(0,0)(2,0)
\psline(1,1)(1,0)
  \uput[u](1,1){\gr A}
\uput[d](1,0){\gr B}
\uput[d](2,0){\gr G}
\uput[d](0,0){\gr D}
\end{pspicture}
\hfill
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.5)(2,1)
\psline(0,0)(2,0)
\psline(1,1)(1,0)
  \uput[u](1,1){\gr E}
\uput[d](1,0){\gr Z}
\uput[d](2,0){\gr H}
\uput[d](0,0){\gr J}
\psline(1.5,1)(1,0)
\uput[u](1.5,1){\gr K}
\end{pspicture}
\hfill\mbox{}
  \caption{Postulate 4}\label{fig:I.13}
  
\end{figure}
straight line \gr{AB} is perpendicular to \gr{GD},
and \gr{EZ} is perpendicular to \gr{HJ}.
If right angles \gr{ABG} and \gr{EZH} are not equal to another,
then one is greater.
Suppose the latter is greater.
Then \gr{ABG} will fall inside it as \gr{KZH}.
The supplement \gr{KZJ} of \gr{KZH}
must be equal to the supplement \gr{ABD} of \gr{ABG},
though this needs further discussion: it is Hilbert's Theorem 12.
Absurdity results, since in short
\begin{equation*}
  \angle\;\grm{ABG}=
  \angle\;\grm{KZH}<
  \angle\;\grm{EZH}=
  \angle\;\grm{EZJ}<
  \angle\;\grm{KZJ}=
  \angle\;\grm{ABD}=
  \angle\;\grm{ABG}.
\end{equation*}
How did we obtain angle \gr{KZH}?
Hilbert can use his axiom \textbf{IV, 4,}
which he summarizes as being
\begin{quote}
  that every angle in a given plane can be \emph{laid off}
 upon a given side of a given half-ray in one and only one way.
\end{quote}
For Euclid, this is a \emph{theorem,} namely Proposition \textsc i.23.
Hilbert's toolkit contains a protractor,
or else triangles with angles of all posssible sizes;
and these can be used to draw with.
But again, the only triangles in Euclid's toolkit are right triangles,
and they cannot be used to draw with
(and their acute angles cannot be used in any way).
In Euclid's Proposition \textsc i.4,
we are able to ``lay off'' one given angle on another,
because this possibility is implicit in the assumption
that the two angles are equal to one another.
In Figure \ref{fig:I.13},
there is no assumed equality of anything on the left 
with anything on the right;
so for Euclid, there can be no ``laying off.''

If he had wished to,
Hilbert could have assumed $\grm{AB}=\grm{EZ}$,
and likewise for the other corresponding straight lines,
because of his axiom \textbf{IV, 1,}
summarized as being
\begin{quote}
  that every segment can be \emph{laid off} 
upon a given side of a given point of a given straight line 
in one and only one way.
\end{quote}
This is Euclid's Proposition \textsc i.3.
There must have been a great change in thinking about mathematics,
if Hilbert was trying to build up geometry on a minimal foundation,
and yet could treat as axiomatic what for Euclid needed proof.
Hilbert seems not to have been troubled by this change.
Perhaps this is because he was reading Euclid
according to a tradition 
whose changes to the meaning of Euclid had gone unnoticed.

\chapter{Euclid's Foundations of Arithmetic}

\section{Unity}

Not only is the definition of straight line
plausibly held to be a late addition to the \emph{Elements,}
but Russo says the same of the definition of unity,
at the head of Book \textsc{vii}.
His reason is that,
six centuries after Euclid,
Iamblichus described the same definition as being due to 
``more recent authorities.''

Heath discusses the same passage of Iamblichus,
both in his edition of the \emph{Elements} 
\cite[v.\ \textsc{ii}, p.\ 279]{MR17:814b}
and in his \emph{History of Greek Mathematics} \cite[p.\ 69]{MR654679}.
The discussion is more brief in the latter,
where the very part of the passage 
that is relevant for us now is not considered.
In his notes on the \emph{Elements,}
Heath gives no explicit indication
that the authenticity of the definition of unity
is called into question by the words of Iamblichus.
The definition in Euclid is,\label{unity}
\begin{quote}\centering
\gr{\textbf{Mon'ac} >estin, 
kaj> <`hn <'ekaston t~wn >'ontwn <`en l'egetai.}\\
%\ldiv
\tr{\textbf{Unity} 
is that according to which each entity is said to be one thing.}
\end{quote}
The translation is mine;
Heath's is
``A \textbf{unit} is that by virtue of which 
each of the things that exist is called one.''
I propose to try out \tr{unity} instead of Heath's ``unit,''
because the latter is a made-up word,
albeit made up precisely to translate Euclid's \gr{mon'as}.
In his preface to Billingsley's English translation of the \emph{Elements,}
published in 1570, John Dee wrote,
\begin{quote}
  Number, we define, to be,
a certayne Mathematicall Summe, of Vnits.
And, an Vnit, is that thing Mathematicall, Indiuisible,
by participation of some likenes of whose property,
any thing, which is in deede,
or is counted One,
may resonably be called One.
\end{quote}
As Billingsley's was the first English translation of the \emph{Elements}
\cite[v.\ 1, p.\ 109]{MR17:814b},
so is the passage from Dee the first of the illustrative quotations 
in the \textsc{Unit} article of the \emph{Oxford English Dictionary} \cite{OED}.
In the etymology section of that article, 
Dee's marginal note---apparently on the passage above---is quoted:
\begin{quote}
  Note the worde, Vnit,
to expresse the Greke Monas, and not Vnitie:
as we haue all, commonly, till now, vsed. 
\end{quote}
However, at \textsc{Unity,} the \emph{OED} gives Billingsley's translation
of Euclid's definition:
\begin{quote}\centering
  Vnitie is that, whereby euery thing that is,
is sayd to be on.
\end{quote}
Evidently Billingsley did not perceive a need for Dee's new word ``unit.''
Billingsley and Dee could have used ``monad'' 
(from the stem \gr{mon'ad-} of \gr{mon'as}):
this is now an English word,
though its earliest quotation in the \emph{OED} is from 1615.
The French \emph{monade} dates to 1547 \cite[p.\ 484]{LDE}.
Meanwhile, French is content to use the old \emph{unit\'e}
where English puts the newfangled ``unit'':
in the quotation from Bertrand's \emph{Trait\'e d'Arithm\'etique}
in \S\ref{unite} (p.\ \pageref{unite}),
``unit\'e de longueur''
serves where we say ``unit of length.''%%%%
\footnote{The word \emph{unit\'e} is Anglo-French,
being traced to the \emph{Psautier d'Oxford} of 1120 \cite{LDE}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

By the way, it is not clear
whether Euclid's \gr{mon'as} and \gr{<'en} (``one'') are etymologically related.
The Greek cardinal numeral ``one'' is declined as an adjective and, 
as such, has three distinct genders:
the masculine, feminine, and neuter are respectively 
\gr{e<~is, m'ia, <'en}.
Despite appearances, these three forms \emph{are} related to one another:
each comes from \gr{sem},
according to Smyth's old \emph{Greek Grammar} \cite[\P349]{Smyth}
and the more recent Chantraine 
\cite[II, 326, \textbf{\gr{e<'is}}]{Chantraine}.
The same root is seen also in the Latin sources 
of our ``simple'' and ``single.''
But whether the \gr m of \gr{m'ia} is related to the 
\gr m of \gr{mon'as} is unclear.
The latter word comes from \gr{m'onos, -h, -on},
meaning ``only, alone, sole,''
as we may see from English words like ``monotheism.''
Chantraine just traces \gr{m'onos}
to a conjectural \gr{*mon\ddigamma'os},
expressing doubt that it is related to \gr{man'os} ``thin, scanty.''

As Smyth  \cite[\P354e]{Smyth} describes it,
the ending \gr{-'as, -'adoc} creates ``abstract and collective numbers,''
so that \gr{<en'ac} or \gr{mon'ac} is ``the number one, unity, monad.''
I think we may usefully consider the suffix as indicating a \emph{set}
with the number of elements indicated by the main word.
Thus a \gr{dek'ac}, a \tr{decade,} is a set of ten years.
As far as I can tell though,
the only specific number that Euclid uses is \gr{d'uac},
in \textsc{ix}.32 and later:
it is a pair or double or dyad.

Meanwhile, 
our question was whether the definition of unity now in Euclid is authentic,
and in particular whether some words of Iamblichus bear on this question.
Those words are from
\emph{On Nicomachus's Introduction to Arithmetic}
 \cite[p.\ 11, l.\ 1]{Iamblichus}\label{Iamblichus}.%%%%%
\footnote{The Greek text names the work
as being \tr{of Iamblichus of Chalcis in the valley of Syria}
(\gr{IAMBLIQOU QALKIDEWS THS KOILHS SURIAS}).}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The relevant paragraph begins as follows;
as there seems to be no full published English translation,
I give my own attempt.%%%%%
\footnote{The clause ``even though it be collective'' is Heath's
\cite[v.\ II, p.\ 279]{MR17:814b}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{quote}
\gr{Mon`as d'e >esti poso~u t`o >el'aqiston 
>`h poso~u t`o pr~wton ka`i koin`on m'eros >`h >arq`h poso~u; 
<ws d`e Jumar'idas
\emph{pera'inousa pos'oths,}
>epe`i <ek'astou ka`i >arq`h ka`i t'elos p'eras kale~itai, 
>'esti d`e <~wn ka`i t`o m'eson, <'wsper >am'elei k'uklou ka`i sfa'iras.
<oi d`e ne'wteroi \emph{kaj' <`hn <'ekaston t~wn >'ontwn <`en l'egetai;}
>'eleipe d`e t~w| <'orw| to'utw| t`o \emph{k>`an susthmatik`on >~h|.}
sugkequm'enws d`e o<i Qrus'ippeioi l'egontes  
``\emph{mon'as >esti pl~hjos <'en}'';
m'onh g`ar a<'uth >antidi'estaltai t~w| pl'hjei.}%%%%%
\footnote{The three passages italicized here
are just printed in spaced-out letters in Pistelli's text.
There, as in the transcription, 
only the third of these passages is bounded by inverted commas.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ldiv
  \tr{Unity is the least of an amount
or the first and common part of an amount
or the beginning of an amount:
thus Thymaridas [called it] ``[the] limiting quantity,''
since the beginning and end of everything is called a limit.
(But there are things of which there is a middle,
such as, of course, the circle and sphere.)%%%%%
\footnote{Pistelli, the editor, marks this passage, ``abesse malim.''}%%
\marginpar{What does ``abesse malim'' mean?}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
More recent authorities [called unity]
``that according to which each entity is said to be one thing'';
but they left out the restriction,
``even though it be collective.''
The Chrysippians, confusedly, saying,
``Unity is multitude one'';
for one is opposed to multitude.}
\end{quote}
Thymarides was 
``an ancient Pythagorean, probably not later than Plato's time'' 
\cite[p.\ 69]{MR654679}.
Since Euclid was later than Plato's time,
it is not clear whether Iamblichus's ``more recent authorities''
(\gr{ne'wteroi}) included Euclid or not.
As suggested above, Russo \cite[p.\ 320]{MR2038833} 
thinks Euclid is \emph{not} one of these authorities.

Heath \cite[p.\ 279]{MR17:814b} apparently thinks he \emph{is.}
At any rate, Heath continues to refer to the definition of unity 
in the \emph{Elements} as ``Euclid's definition,''
even though he has taken note of Iamblichus's observation
of what was missing from this definition.
Apparently, according to Iamblichus, 
the full definition should be something like,
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Unity} is that according to which each entity is said to be one thing,
even though it be collective.
\end{quote}
I see no indication by Heath or Russo
that such a definition can be found anywhere else
than in Iamblichus's comment.
However, it does bear some resemblance to a definition
that Sextus Empiricus attributes to Plato
in \S11 of ``Against the Arithmeticians''
(which is Book IV of \emph{Against the Professors,} 
here from the edition of Bekker \cite[p.\ 724, l.\ 6]{Sextus},
with the translation of Bury \cite[pp.\ 310 f.]{Sextus-Loeb-IV}):
\begin{quote}
  \gr{T`hn to~u <en`os to'inun n'ohsin 
diatup~wn <hm~in pujagorik'wteron 
<o Pl'atwn fhs`in 
``<'en >estin o<~u mhd`en qwr`is l'egetai <'en'' 
>`h ``o<~u metoq~h| <'ekaston <'en te ka`i poll`a l'egetai.''
t`o g`ar fut'on, e>i t'uqoi, ka`i t`o z~won ka`i <o l'ijos 
prosagore'uetai m`en <'en, 
o>uk >'esti d`e kat`a t`on >'idion l'ogon <'en, 
>all' >en metoq~h| <en`os noe~itai, 
to'utou mhden`os to'utwn kajest~wtos.}
\ldiv
Now Plato, in formulating in rather Pythagorean fashion the concept of the one,
 declares that
``One is that without which nothing is termed one,'' or
``by participation in which each thing is termed one or many.''
For the plant, let us say, or the animal, or the stone is called one,
yet is not one according to its own proper description,
but is conceived as one by participation in the One,
none of them actually being the One.
\end{quote}
This has little to do with mathematics,
and neither does Sextus's entire essay.
Sextus does not give me the impression 
of somebody who knows what Euclid is about.
It is plausible that the definition of unity now in the \emph{Elements}
was a later addition.

\section{Proportion}\label{sect:prop}

What we refer to as \emph{proportion} could also be called \emph{analogy.}
The Greek for \tr{proportional} is \gr{>an'alogon},
and Euclid defines it for numbers,
in what is now listed as the twentieth definition 
at the head of Book \textsc{vii}:
\begin{quote}\label{def.7.20}
\gr{>Arijmo`i \textbf{>an'alog'on} e>isin, <'otan <o pr~wtoc
to~u deut'erou ka`i <o tr'itoc to~u tet'artou >is'akic >~h|
pollapl'asioc >`h t`o a>ut`o m'eroc >`h t`a a>ut`a m'erh
>~wsin.}
\ldiv
\tr{Numbers are \textbf{proportional}
when the first is of the second, and the third is of the fourth,
equally multiple,
or the same part, or the same parts.}
\end{quote}
We saw the ``definitions'' 
of \emph{part} and \emph{parts} in \S\ref{part/s} (p.\ \pageref{part/s}).
These are followed by:
\begin{quote}
\gr{\textbf{Pollapl'asioc} d`e <o me'izwn to~u >el'assonoc, 
<'otan katametr~htai <up`o to~u >el'assonoc.}
\ldiv
\tr{And the greater [number] is a \textbf{multiple} of the less
when it is measured by the less.}
\end{quote}
The notions of multiple and part are thus correlative,
and we have three ways to say the same thing:
\begin{compactenum}[1)]
  \item
$B$ is a multiple of $A$;
\item
$A$ is a part of $B$;
\item
$A$ measures $B$.
\end{compactenum}
\emph{Measurement} is the basic undefined notion.

Proportionality of \emph{magnitudes} is defined
at the head of Book \textsc v:
\begin{quote}
\gr{\textbf{>En t~w| a>ut~w| l'ogw|} meg'ejh l'egetai e>~inai pr~wton pr`oc
de'uteron ka`i tr'iton pr`oc t'etarton, <'otan t`a to~u pr'wtou ka'i
tr'itou >is'akic pollapl'asia t~wn to~u deut'erou ka`i tet'artou
>is'akic pollaplas'iwn kaj> <opoiono~un pollaplasiasm`on
<ek'ateron <ekat'erou >`h <'ama <uper'eqh| >`h <'ama >'isa >~h| >`h
<'ama >elle'ip~h| lhfj'enta kat'allhla.
T`a d`e t`on a>ut`on >'eqonta l'ogon meg'ejh \textbf{>an'alogon}
kale'isjw.}
\ldiv
\tr{Magnitudes are said to be \textbf{in the same ratio,}
the first to the second and the third to the fourth,
when equimultiples of the first and third,
by whatever multiplication,
are respectively either alike in excess of,
or alike equal to,
or alike falling short of,
equimultiples of the second and fourth.
And magnitudes having the same ratio are called \textbf{proportional.}}
\end{quote}
In the definition of proportionality of numbers,
Euclid does not mention ratios; but he does mention them later,
as for example in
Propositions 11 and 17 in Book \textsc{vii}:
\begin{quote}
\gr{>E`an >arijm`oc d'uo >arijmo`uc pollaplasi'asac poi~h| tinac, 
o<i gen'omen\-oi >ex a>ut~wn \textbf{t`on a>ut`on <'exousi l'ogon}
to~ic pollaplasiasje~isin.}
\ldiv
\tr{If a number multiply two numbers,
the numbers produced \textbf{will have the same ratio} as the multiplicands.}
\end{quote}
A third way of referring to numbers in proportion
is seen in Proposition \textsc{vii}.11:
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>Ean  \textbf{>~h| <wc} <'oloc \textbf{pr`oc} <'olon, 
\textbf{o<'utwc} >afaireje`ic \textbf{pr`oc} >afairej'enta,
ka`i 
<o loip`oc \textbf{pr`oc} t`on loip`on \textbf{>'estai, <wc} 
<'oloc \textbf{pr`oc} <'olon.}
\ldiv
\tr{If \textbf{as} whole \textbf{be to} whole, 
\textbf{so} subtrahend \textbf{to} subtrahend,
also remainder \textbf{to} remainder 
 \textbf{will be, as} whole \textbf{to} whole.}
\end{quote}
Thus, whether we are working with arbitrary magnitudes
or numbers
we have different ways of expressing what seems to be the same thing.
We can say in words that
\begin{compactenum}[1)]
  \item
$A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are proportional, or 
\item
$A$ is to $B$ as $C$ is to $D$, or 
\item
$A$ has the same ratio to $B$ that $C$ has to $D$.
\end{compactenum}
I do not see an important distinction to make 
between these modes of expression as such.
We might abbreviate any of them by writing
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:prop}
  A:B::C:D.
\end{equation}
However, it is important not to write $A:B=C:D$.
Neither definition of proportion
describes an equation of two things.
In a proportion, two ratios are not \emph{equal,} but the \emph{same.}
This is related to the fact that 
a ratio is not a thing that can be drawn in a diagram;
it is a relation between two things in a diagram---%
two things that might have the same relation to one another
that two other things have.
(See \S\ref{ratio-in-diagram}, p.\ \pageref{ratio-in-diagram},
for a possible exception to the rule that a ratio cannot be drawn.)

I used the expression \tr{equally multiple}
in the Book-\textsc{vii} definition of proportion, 
and \tr{equimultiples} in the Book-\textsc v definition;
but these stand for the same Greek phrase \gr{>is'akis pollapl'asios},
which however appears in singular form in Book \textsc{vii}, 
plural in Book \textsc v.
Heath uses ``same multiple'' for my \tr{equally multiple};
but I have followed Heath in using the word ``equimultiple''
in the other case.
Like ``unit,''
the word ``equimultiple'' seems to have been coined for translating Euclid:
the earliest example in the \emph{Oxford English Dictionary}
is again from Billingsley's 1570 translation.
In any case,
Euclid's \gr{>is'akis} is an adverb
derived from the adjective \gr{>is'os} ``equal'';
it is not the adjective itself.
The definitions of proportionality do not describe things that are equal,
though they may describe multiplying two things equally.
In Greek as in English, it appears there is no adverb ``samely.''

Instead of \eqref{eqn:prop}, much less should we write $A/B=C/D$,
since $A/B$ indicates a fraction,
and none is suggested by Euclid's definition.
Still, the important question 
is what we \emph{mean} by writing \eqref{eqn:prop} or something like it.

\section{Sets}

In addition to distinguishing equality from identity,
we should distinguish measurement from division.
Given twelve apples,
we can describe the same operation in two ways:
we can \emph{measure} the twelve apples by three apples,
or we can \emph{divide} them into four equal parts.
Euclid does refer to dividing, as distinct from measuring,
as for example in the sixth definition of Book \textsc{vii}:
\begin{quote}\centering
\gr{\textbf{>'Artioc >arijm'oc} >estin <o d'iqa diairo'umenoc.}\\
\tr{An \textbf{even number} is one that is divided in twain.}
\end{quote}
I use the archaic ``twain'' here
because it is usually seen only in the phrase ``in twain,''
and this translates the single Greek adverb \gr{d'iqa}.

Euclid's numbers seem to be indistinguishable from our nonempty finite sets.
After the definition of unit or unity in the \emph{Elements}
(quoted in \S\ref{unity}, p.\ \pageref{unity}),
 there comes,
\begin{quote}\centering
\gr{\textbf{>Arijm`oc} d`e t`o >ek mon'adwn sugke'imenon pl~hjoc.}
\\
\tr{And a \textbf{number} is a multitude of unities.}
\end{quote}
In addition to the expression \tr{multitude,} which Heath uses,
other possible translations of \gr{pl~hjos} are ``mass, throng, crowd''
\cite{POCGD}.
We use the word ``number'' in this way too,
as when we say a number of people are marching in the streets.

In this sense, one is not a number.
Thus we have, 
in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth%%%%%
\footnote{In Heiberg's Greek text, they are 12th, 13th, and 14th;
but Heiberg brackets Definition 10
and omits it from his Latin translation,
renumbering the later definitions accordingly.
Heath follows suit.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 
definitions at the head of Book \textsc{vii}:
\begin{quote}
\gr{\textbf{Pr~wtoc >arijm'oc} >estin 
<o mon'adi m'onh| metro'umenoc.
\textbf{Pr~wtoi pr`oc >all'hlouc >arijmo'i} 
e>isin o<i mon'adi m'onh| metro'umenoi koin~w| m'etrw|.
\textbf{S'un\-jetoc >arijm'oc} 
>estin <o >arijm~w| tini metro'umenoc.}
\ldiv
\tr{A \textbf{prime number} is a number measured only by unity.
\textbf{Numbers prime to one another} 
are numbers measured only by unity as a common measure.
A \textbf{composite number} is a number measured by some number.}
\end{quote}
Every number is measured by unity;
if this were a number too, 
then by definition every number would be composite.
Now, we did question the authenticity of the definition of unity;
we may do the same for other definitions.
But consider Proposition 16 of Book \textsc{ix}:
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>E`an d'uo >arijmo`i pr~wtoi pr`oc >all'hlouc >~wsin, 
o>uk >'estai <wc <o pr~wtoc pr`oc t`on de'uteron, 
o<'utwc <o de'uteroc pr`oc >'allon tin'a.}
\ldiv
\tr{If two numbers be prime to one another,
it will not be the case that the first is to the second
as the second is to some other number.}
\end{quote}
\emph{Unity} is prime to every number,
and unity will be to a number as that number is to its product with itself.
Thus unity is not a number in the sense of Proposition \textsc{ix}.16.

The definitions of prime and composite numbers are imprecise:
elsewhere, a number is allowed to measure itself.
For example, Proposition \textsc{vii}.2
is the problem of finding the greatest common measure of two numbers 
that are not prime to one another.
If one of the numbers measures the other,
then it is the greatest common measure, since it also measures itself.
Strictly then, a composite number is a number measured by some number,
\emph{a number of times.}

Throughout the number-theoretic books of the \emph{Elements,}
numbers are diagrammed as line segments,
which are not obviously sets of units.
We shall consider this feature of the \emph{Elements} in \S\ref{sect:music};
for now I note a curious move that Euclid makes in proving Proposition 
\textsc{vii}.8.  The enunciation is,
\begin{quote}

\gr{>E`an >arijm`oc >arijmo~u m'erh >~h|, <'aper >afaireje`ic
>afairej'entoc, ka`i <o loip`oc to~u loipo~u
t`a a>ut`a m'erh >'estai, <'aper <o <'oloc to~u <'olou.}
\ldiv
\tr{If a number be the very parts of a number
that a subtrahend is of a subtrahend,%%%%%
\footnote{Heath uses ``number subtracted'' for my \tr{subtrahend};
but I remember being taught the latter word in third grade,
along with its correlate, ``minuend.''
According to the \emph{OED}, the words go back three centuries in English.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
also the remainder will be the very same parts of the remainder
that the whole is of the whole.}
\end{quote}
In our symbols, if $A:B::C:D$, then $A-C:B-D::A:B$.
In Euclid's proof,
the number \gr{AB} is assumed to be the same parts of \gr{GD}
that the subtrahend \gr{AE} is of the subtrahend \gr{GZ}.
These numbers are drawn out as line segments,
with \gr E lying on \gr{AB}, and \gr Z on \gr{GD}.
We want to break up \gr{AB} into parts,
each equal to the same part of \gr{GD};
and we want to break up \gr{AE} into the equally numerous parts of \gr{GZ}.
Doing this directly makes the diagram complicated;
so Euclid takes \gr{HJ} equal to \gr{AB}
and divides \emph{it} instead.
Here \gr{HJ} is different from \gr{AB} as a set of units;
but the two sets are equipollent,
or as Euclid says, equal.

The above definition of evenness of a number 
is meaningful for an arbitrary set,
possibly infinite:
a set $B$ is even, 
just in case it can be divided in two,
in the sense of having a subset $A$
for which there is a bijection $f$ from $A$ to $B\setminus A$.
Then the collection $\bigl\{\{x,f(x)\}\colon x\in A\}$
partitions $B$ into two-element subsets:
this means $B$ is \emph{measured} by a two-element set, a dyad.

Conversely, being measurable by a dyad implies being even,
but not in bare Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory;
a choice principle is needed,
albeit a principle that is weaker than the full Axiom of Choice
\cite[5.4 \&\ 7.4]{MR0396271}.
Thus there is mathematical reason to distinguish between measuring by two
and dividing in two, as Euclid's language does.

\section{Parts}

If $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are numbers, or possibly units,
and $A$ measures $B$,
then presumably \eqref{eqn:prop} (on p.\ \pageref{eqn:prop}) holds
if and only if $C$ measures $D$ and measures it the same number of times---%
a situation we might describe by saying that for some multiplier $n$,
\begin{equation*}
  nA=B\And nC=D.
\end{equation*}
In this case, also $B:A::D:C$.

In Definition \textsc{vii}.20 then,
it remains to understand what being ``the same parts'' means.
By Definition \textsc{vii}.5, 
if $A$ is less than $B$, but does not measure $B$,
then $A$ is not part of $B$, but is ``parts'' of $B$.
Heath's entire comment on the definition of ``parts'' is the following.
\begin{quote}
  By the expression \emph{parts} 
(\grpor{m'erh}, the plural of \grpor{m'eros})
Euclid denotes what we should call a \emph{proper fraction.}
That is, a \emph{part} being a submultiple,
the rather inconvenient term \emph{parts}
means any number of such submultiples making up a fraction less than unity.
I have not found the word used in this special sense elsewhere,
e.g.\ in Nicomachus, Theon of Smyrna or Iamblichus,
except in one place of Theon (p.\ 79, 26)
where it is used of a proper fraction, of which $\frac23$ is an illustration.
\end{quote}
This note is misguided in two ways.
It ignores the fact that ``parts'' is defined by simple negation,
as when we define an irrational number to be a real number that is not rational.
We might then say that an irrational number 
is one whose decimal expansion is neither finite nor repeating;
but this would have to be proved.
In commenting on the definition of ``parts,''
Heath is probably thinking ahead to
Proposition \textsc{vii}.4,
whose enunciation we saw in \S\ref{prop.7.4} 
(p.\ \pageref{prop.7.4})\label{prop.7.4again}:
``Every number is of every number, the less of the greater,
either a part or parts.''
The demonstration of this proposition 
is not a simple appeal to the definition of ``parts.''
Thus that definition at the head of Book \textsc{vii} 
is not really a definition,
but is a kind of summary of what is to come in the book.

We shall consider the demonstration of Proposition \textsc{vii}.4
in \S\ref{sect:part/s} (page \pageref{sect:part/s}) below.
Meanwhile, let us note that, \emph{pace} Heath,
the proposition is not likely to be about fractions.
According to David Fowler \cite[\S7.1(b), pp.\ 227--9]{MR2000c:01004},
\begin{quotation}
\noindent  We have no evidence for any conception of common fractions $p/q$ 
and their manipulations such as, for example,
 $p/q\times r/s=pr/qs$ and $p/q+r/s=(ps+qr)/qs$, 
in Greek mathematical, scientific, financial, or pedagogical texts 
before the time of Heron and Diophantus; 
and even the fractional notations and manipulations 
found in the Byzantine manuscripts of these late authors 
may have been revised and introduced 
during the medieval modernization of their minuscule script.  
Among the thousands, possibly the tens of thousands, 
of examples of fractions to be found 
in \emph{contemporary} Egyptian (hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic), 
Greek, and Coptic texts, 
all but a few isolated examples in five texts\lips
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
use throughout the following `Egyptian['] 
system for expressing fractions\lips%%%%%
\footnote{Widely spaced dots ``\lips'' are my ellipses;
narrowly spaced dots ``$\dots$'' 
denoting continuations of sequences are Fowler's.}

We take the basic sequence of the \emph{arithmoi}:
\begin{center}
  two, three, four, five, \dots,
\end{center}
represented in Greek by the letters $\beta$, $\gamma,\delta,\epsilon,\dots$,
and convert it to the sequence
\begin{center}
  half, third, quarter, fifth, \dots,
\end{center}
where, after the exceptional cases of the first few terms, 
for which special symbols\lips are assigned, 
the derived symbol is\lips usually transcribed as an accent,
$\gnm{\gamma},\gnm{\delta},
\gnm{\epsilon},\dots$, or a prime, 
$\gamma',\delta',\epsilon',\dots$

The sequence of parts starts with $\gnm{\beta}$,
`the two parts', \gr{t`a d'uo m'erh,} an expression for `two-thirds'.
However extraordinary it may seem to us, it is an incontrovertible fact
that the sequence of parts starts with two-thirds\lips
(This is an additional reason for avoiding the name `unit fractions' 
for the sequence $\gnm{\beta},\angle,\gnm{\gamma},
\gnm{\delta},\dots$)\lips

More complicated fractions than simple parts
are expressed as sums of an integer and \emph{different} simple parts\lips
\end{quotation}
Fowler goes on to describe ``division tables''  
\cite[\S7.2(a), pp.\ 234 f.]{MR2000c:01004}:
\begin{quote}
our common fraction $\frac{12}{17}$\lips
would be expressed in a division table\lips as
\begin{center}\label{Fowler-Greek}
  \begin{tabular}{ccc*{10}{c@{}}c}
    \grpor{t~wn}&$\iota\beta$&[\grpor{t`o} $\gnm{\iota}\gnm{\zeta}$]&
$\angle$&$\gnm{\iota}$&$\gnm{\beta}$&$\gnm{\iota}$&$\gnm{\zeta}$&$\gnm{\lambda}$&$\gnm{\delta}$&$\gnm{\nu}$&$\gnm{\alpha}$&$\gnm{\xi}$&$\gnm{\eta}$\\
of the & $12$ & [the $17$th is] & 
$\gnm2$&$\gnm1$&$\gnm2$&$\gnm1$&$\gnm7$&$\gnm3$&$\gnm4$&$\gnm5$&$\gnm1$&$\gnm6$&$\gnm8$
  \end{tabular}
\end{center}
for what we would write as
\begin{center}
\begin{math}
  \frac{12}{17}=\frac12+\frac1{12}+\frac1{17}+\frac1{34}+\frac1{51}+\frac1{68}.
\end{math}
\end{center}
\end{quote}
I think a better ``translation''
of the Greek
$\angle\gnm{\iota}\gnm{\beta}\gnm{\iota}\gnm{\zeta}\gnm{\lambda}\gnm{\delta}\gnm{\nu}\gnm{\alpha}\gnm{\xi}\gnm{\eta}$
would be something like
\begin{equation*}
%\gnm2\;\gnm{1\!0}\;\gnm2\;\gnm{1\!0}\;\gnm7\;\gnm{3\!0}\;\gnm4\;\gnm{5\!0}\;\gnm1\;\gnm{6\!0}\;\gnm8.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\gnm2\;\gnm{\overline{10}}\;\gnm2\;\gnm{\overline{10}}\;\gnm7\;\gnm{\overline{30}}\;\gnm4\;\gnm{\overline{50}}\;\gnm1\;\gnm{\overline{60}}\;\gnm8.
\gnm2\;\gnm{{10}}\;\gnm2\;\gnm{{10}}\;\gnm7\;\gnm{{30}}\;\gnm4\;\gnm{{50}}\;\gnm1\;\gnm{{60}}\;\gnm8.
\end{equation*}
Possibly the definition of ``parts'' in the \emph{Elements}
serves as a reminder to the reader that,
even though 12 is not a \emph{part} of 17,
it is still \emph{parts} of 17,
namely the half, and the twelfth, and the seventeenth, 
and the thirty-fourth, and the fifty-first,%%%%%
\footnote{I note the oddity of English 
in using the exceptional form ``first'' here,
rather than ``oneth.''}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
and the sixty-eighth.
In this case,
Euclid's Proposition \textsc{vii}.4 
will give a new meaning to the notion of ``parts.''

\section{Music}\label{sect:music}

In the diagrams of the propositions in Books \textsc{vii--ix,}
numbers are bounded straight lines (what are also called today line segments).
Heath remarks on this after Proposition \textsc{vii}.1:
\begin{quote}
the representation in Books \textsc{vii}.\ to \textsc{ix}.\ 
of numbers by straight lines
is adopted by Heiberg from the \textsc{mss}.
The method of those editors who substitute \emph{points} for lines
is open to objection because it practically necessitates,
in many cases, the use of specific numbers,
which is contrary to Euclid's manner.
\end{quote}
Heath is right that points should not be used,
but if I understand him correctly, he is wrong about the reason.
I think he means that Euclid's propositions are \emph{general,}
but that this would be belied by diagrams that indicated specific numbers.
However, as they are, Euclid's proofs are often \emph{not} general in form,
regardless of the diagram.
For example, in the proof of Proposition \textsc{vii}.1,
showing one use of what we call the Euclidean algorithm,
there are \emph{three} alternations of subtractions,
not some unspecified number of them.
One must simply understand that there is nothing special 
about three alternations as being three.
Likewise, throughout Book \textsc i of the \emph{Elements,}
specific triangles in the diagrams
are to be understood as general.
Specific numbers of dots in a diagram could be understood as general.

However, if unities could always be thought of as points,
then it would be obvious that multiplication was commutative.
Four rows of dots, of three dots each,
obviously have as many dots as three rows, 
of four dots each (Figure \ref{fig:dots}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\psset{unit=5mm}
\mbox{}\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(2,3.2)
    \psdots(0,0)(1,0)(2,0)(0,1)(1,1)(2,1)(0,2)(1,2)(2,2)(0,3)(1,3)(2,3)
  \end{pspicture}
\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(0,-0.5)(3,2)
    \psdots(0,0)(1,0)(2,0)(3,0)(0,1)(1,1)(2,1)(3,1)(0,2)(1,2)(2,2)(3,2)
  \end{pspicture}
\hfill\mbox{}
  \caption%[Mult.\ of points]
{Multiplication of points}\label{fig:dots}
  
\end{figure}
With diagrams of dots,\label{obvious} 
there would be no need to prove commutativity of multiplication,
which is Proposition \textsc{vii}.16.
But it is \emph{not} obvious that four straight lines, of 3 units each,
have together the same length as three straight lines, of 4 units each
(Figure \ref{fig:lines}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\psset{unit=5mm}
  \centering
  \begin{pspicture}(12,1.2)
    \psline(0,0)(12,0)
    \psline(0,1)(12,1)
\psdots(0,1)(3,1)(6,1)(9,1)(12,1)
\psdots[dotstyle=|](1,1)(2,1)(4,1)(5,1)(7,1)(8,1)(10,1)(11,1)
\psdots(0,0)(4,0)(8,0)(12,0)
\psdots[dotstyle=|](1,0)(2,0)(3,0)(5,0)(6,0)(7,0)(9,0)(10,0)(11,0)
  \end{pspicture}
  \caption%[Mult.\ of lines]
{Multiplication of straight lines}\label{fig:lines}
  
\end{figure}

Another possible reason why Euclid's numbers are straight lines
is that lyre strings are like straight lines,
and Euclid's study of numbers is inspired by music.
According to Andrew Barker in \emph{Greek Musical Writings} 
\cite[p.\ 190]{Barker-writings-2},
the ancient work called \emph{Sectio Canonis} (\gr{Katatom`h kan'onos}) is
\begin{quote}
  attributed to Euclid in the manuscripts,
and by Porphyry, who quotes from it at length\lips
Parts of the treatise are also quoted by Boethius\lips
[T]he attribution has been debated\lips
There are no good reasons, however,
for denying Euclid's authorship of the main part of the treatise,
at least as much as Porphyry quotes\lips
\end{quote}
Fowler is more skeptical.
He discusses the \emph{Sectio Canonis} thoroughly 
\cite[pp.\ 138--46]{MR2000c:01004};
I would just note that the chief burden of the treatise 
seems to be the following.
An interval of musical notes somehow corresponds to a ratio of numbers,
and those ratios are of three possible kinds,
as in the \emph{Elements.}
Indeed, according to the \emph{Sectio Canonis} \cite[p.\ 149]{von-Jan},
\begin{quote}
\gr{p'anta d`e t`a >ek mor'iwn sugke'imena 
>arijmo~u l'ogw| l'egetai pr`os >'allhla, 
<'wste ka`i to`us fj'oggous >anagka~ion 
>en >arijmo~u l'ogw| l'egesjai pr`os >all'hlous;
t~wn d`e >arijm~wn o<i m`en \textbf{>en pollaplas'iw| l'ogw|} l'egontai, 
o<i d`e \textbf{>en >epimor'iw|,} 
o<i d`e \textbf{>en >epimere~i,}
<'wste ka`i to`us fj'oggous >anagka~ion 
>en to~is toio'utois l'ogois l'egesjai pr`os >all'hlous.}
\ldiv
\tr{All things composed of parts are said to be to one another
in the ratio of a number [to a number];
so notes too must be said to be to one another in the ratio of a number.
Some numbers are said to be \textbf{in multiple ratio,}
others in \textbf{part-again,}
still others in \textbf{parts-again} [ratio];
so notes too must be said to be in in these ratios to one another.}
\end{quote}
Numbers $A$ and $B$ are in
\begin{compactenum}[1)]
  \item
multiple ratio, if $A$ is a multiple of $B$;
\item
part-again ratio,
if $A-B$ measures $B$,
so that $A$ is the whole of $B$ with a part added;
\item
parts-again ratio, otherwise.
\end{compactenum}
The latter two kinds of ratio---%
\gr{>epim'orios} and \gr{>epimer'hs}---%
are also called in English
``superparticular'' and ``superpartient,''
as in D'Ooge's translation of Nicomachus 
\cite[pp.\ 52--3, 215, \&\ 220]{Nicomachus};
but Barker uses the words ``epimoric'' and ``epimeric'' 
\cite[p.\ 192, p.\ 43 n.\ 63]{Barker-writings-2}.
The quoted passage from the \emph{Sectio Canonis}
is given in the big Liddell--Scott--Jones lexicon \cite{LSJ}
as an example of the use of \gr{>epim'orios}.
This word is derived from \gr{m'orion} rather than \gr{m'eros};
but either of these means ``part.''

The passage continues somewhat obscurely.
\begin{quote}
\gr{to'utwn d`e o<i m`en pollapl'asioi ka`i >epim'orioi 
<en`i >om'omati l'egontai pr`os >all'hlous.}
  \ldiv
\tr{Of these, the multiple [ratios] and the part-again [ratios]
to one another
are said with a single name.}
\end{quote}
Barker's translation is, 
``of these, the multiple and the epimoric 
are spoken of in relation to one another under a single name'';
Fowler changes ``in relation'' to ``with respect.''
Barker suggests that ``single name'' refers to the single words like 
\gr{tripl'asios} (``triple'') and
\gr{>ep'itritos} (``third-again'')
that name specific multiple and part-again ratios.
Fowler goes further, suggesting that ``single name''
alludes to the single number that specifies one of these ratios,
as the number three specifies the triple and third-again ratios.
Fowler's suggestion would seem to be partially corroborated 
by the last three propositions of Book \textsc{vii} of the \emph{Elements,}
which we shall consider at the end, 
in \S\ref{sect:symb} (p.\ \pageref{sect:symb}).

Meanwhile, suppose the strings of an eight-stringed lyre%%%%
\footnote{Apparently such lyres existed,
although the traditional lyre had seven strings 
\cite[pp.\ 15 \&\ 276]{Barker}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
are represented by the numbers $A$ through $H$, as in Figure \ref{fig:lyre}.
\begin{figure}
  \centering
\psset{unit=5mm}
  \begin{pspicture}(-0.5,0)(11.52,8)
    \psline(0,7.5)(11.52,7.5)
    \psline(0,6.5)(10.24,6.5)
    \psline(0,5.5)(09.72,5.5)
    \psline(0,4.5)(08.64,4.5)
    \psline(0,3.5)(07.68,3.5)
    \psline(0,2.5)(07.29,2.5)
    \psline(0,1.5)(06.48,1.5)
    \psline(0,0.5)(05.76,0.5)
\uput[l](0,7.5){$A$}
\uput[l](0,6.5){$B$}
\uput[l](0,5.5){$C$}
\uput[l](0,4.5){$D$}
\uput[l](0,3.5){$E$}
\uput[l](0,2.5){$F$}
\uput[l](0,1.5){$G$}
\uput[l](0,0.5){$H$}
  \end{pspicture}
\caption[Lyre strings]{Lyre strings as numbers}\label{fig:lyre}
\end{figure}
As I understand Barker in \emph{The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece}
\cite[p.\ 13]{Barker},
we can consider $A$, $D$, $E$, and $H$ as fixed,
while the other strings can vary according to the chosen musical mode.
The interval $AD$ or $EH$ is a fourth or diatesseron (\gr{di`a tess'arwn}),
spanning, as it does, four strings;
$AE$ or $EH$ is a fifth or diapente (\gr{di`a p'ente});
$AH$, an octave or diapason (\gr{di`a pas~wn}).
These intervals are all \emph{concords,}
and the octave is composed of a fourth and a fifth.
The double octave is also a concord,
but the double fourth and the double fifth are not.

So much is observed or at least assumed.
Then we propose the axiom that a concord corresponds 
to a ratio of numbers
that is either multiple or part-again.
As the commentators point out, 
this axiom does not correspond exactly to the observed reality.
Nonetheless,
be he Euclid or somebody else,
the author of the \emph{Sectio Canonis} 
uses the axiom to argue as follows.
Since the double octave has a mean (namely the octave),
it cannot be part-again; so it must be multiple,
and therefore the octave itself must be multiple.
Similarly, the fifth and the fourth cannot be multiple,
so they are part-again.
The least multiple ratio, namely the double,
is composed of the two greatest part-again ratios,
namely the half-again (\gr{<hmi'olios}, half-whole or ``hemiolic'') 
and the third-again (\gr{>ep'itritos}, ``epitritic'').
Therefore these three ratios must correspond respectively
to the octave, the fifth, and the fourth.

Again, it may be questioned whether there is a purely mathematical proof
of this correspondence between musical intervals and numerical ratios.
The point for now is the importance given to two kinds of numerical ratios:
the ratio that obtains between the greater $A$ and the less $B$ when
$B$ measures $A$, or when $B$ is almost equal to $A$,
but the difference measures $B$.
These are situations when the \emph{Euclidean Algorithm} 
concludes in one or two steps.

\section{The Euclidean Algorithm}

The first proposition of Book \textsc{vii} of the \emph{Elements}
is a theorem in the sense of Pappus (page \pageref{th-pr});
the next two are problems.
All three involve the so-called Euclidean Algorithm.
The enunciation of the theorem is,

\begin{quote}
\gr{D'uo >arijm~wn >an'iswn >ekkeim'enwn, \textbf{>anjufairoum'enou} d`e >ae`i
to~u >el'assonoc >ap`o to~u me'izonoc, >e`an <o leip'omenoc
mhd'epote katametr~h| t`on pr`o <eauto~u, <'ewc o<~u leifj~h|
mon'ac, o<i >ex >arq~hc >arijmo`i pr~wtoi pr`oc >all`hlouc
>'esontai.}
\ldiv
\tr{Two numbers being given,
and the less \textbf{being alternately subtracted} from the greater continually,
if the remainder never measures the previous number
until unity is left,
the original numbers will be prime to one another.}
\end{quote}
In the Greek,
the phrase \tr{being alternately subtracted} is one word,
which is a passive participle of the verb \gr{>anjufair'e-w}.
This is the source of the feminine noun \gr{>anjufa'iresis},
which I shall render as \textbf{anthyphaeresis.}%%%%%
\footnote{Other writers use the transliteration ``anthyphairesis,''
but I follow the tradition of writing the Latin diphthong \emph{ae}
for the Greek diphthong \gr{ai}.
Presumably one will pronounce the word as something like
``An thigh FEAR iss iss.''}
%%%%%%
In the exposition of the proposition, 
unequal numbers \gr{AB} and \gr{GD} are given,
as in Figure \ref{fig:vii.1},
\begin{figure}
  \centering
\psset{yunit=8mm}
  \begin{pspicture}(5,3)
\psline(0,0.5)(5.3,0.5)
\psline(1.4,1.5)(5.3,1.5)
\psline(3.3,2.5)(5.3,2.5)
\rput(0.0,0.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(0.5,0.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(1.4,0.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(5.3,0.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(1.4,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(2.3,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(5.3,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(3.3,2.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(5.3,2.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\uput[d](0.0,0.5){\gr A}
\uput[u](0.5,0.5){\gr J}
\uput[d](1.4,0.5){\gr Z}
\uput[d](5.3,0.5){\gr B}
\uput[u](1.4,1.5){\gr G}
\uput[u](2.3,1.5){\gr H}
\uput[u](5.3,1.5){\gr D}
\uput[u](4.3,2.5){\gr E}
  \end{pspicture}
  \caption{Proposition \textsc{vii}.1}%%
\label{fig:vii.1}
  
\end{figure}
which is Heiberg's diagram
rotated counterclockwise through a right angle.
In the demonstration, which depends on the diagram,
\begin{quote}
  \gr{<o m`en GD t`on 
BZ metr~wn leip'etw <eauto~u >el'assona t`on ZA, <o d`e AZ t`on
DH metr~wn leip'etw <eauto~u >el'assona t`on HG, <o d`e HG
t`on ZJ metr~wn leip'etw mon'ada t`hn JA.}
\ldiv
\tr{Let \gr{GD}, measuring \gr{BZ}, leave less than itself, \gr{ZA};
then let \gr{AZ}, measuring \gr{DH}, leave less than itself, \gr{HG};
then let \gr{HG}, measuring \gr{ZJ}, leave a unit, \gr{JA}.}
\end{quote}
It is not mentioned how many times 
\gr{GD} measures \gr{BZ};
or \gr{AZ}, \gr{DH};
or \gr{HG}, \gr{ZJ};
but by definition, the unit \gr{JA} measures \gr{HG}, \emph{that} many times.
The four \emph{numbers of times} here form a sequence, $[n_0,n_1,n_2,n_3]$,
which we we may call the \textbf{anthyphaeretic sequence}
of \gr{AB} and \gr{GD}.

Fowler
calls the anthyphaeretic sequence a ``ratio,''
or more precisely ``anthyphairetic ratio''
 \cite[\S1.3, p.\ 24, \&\ \S10.1, p.\ 367]{MR2000c:01004}.
He does this,
because by one possible definition, 
$A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are proportional
just in case the pairs $(A,B)$ and $(C,D)$ 
have the same anthyphaeretic sequence.
It does not matter whether $A$, $B$, $C$, 
and $D$ are numbers or arbitary magnitudes.
In modern terms, if we compute
\begin{equation*}
  n_0+\cfrac1{n_1+\cfrac1{n_2+\cfrac1{n_3}}}=\frac ab,
\end{equation*}
then the ratio of \gr{AB} to \gr{GD} above is that of $a$ to $b$.
Moreover, $a$ and $b$ will automatically be relatively prime
(assuming we compute them in the obvious way,
replacing $n_2+1/n_3$ with $(n_2n_3+1)/n_3$ and so forth).
For arbitary magnitudes, the anthyphaeretic sequence might be infinite;
however, if the magnitudes are lengths 
constructible with straightedge and compass, 
then the anthyphaeretic sequence will be periodic.

The historical situation is laid out by Thomas
at the end of the first of the two Loeb Classical Library volumes,
\emph{Selections Illustrating the History of Greek Mathematics} 
\cite[pp.~504--9]{MR13:419a}.
According to the first proposition of Book \textsc{vi} of the \emph{Elements,}
\begin{quote}
  \gr{T`a tr'igwna ka`i t`a parallhl'ogramma 
t`a <up`o t`o a>ut`o <'uyoc >'onta
pr`oc >'allhl'a >estin <wc a<i b'aseic.}
\ldiv
\tr{Triangles and parallelograms 
that are under the same height
are to one another as their bases.}
\end{quote}
In the \emph{Topics,} Aristotle uses this result 
(or at least the part about parallelograms)
as an example of something that is immediately clear,
once one has the correct definition;
and the definition of ``same ratio'' is
``having the same \emph{antanaeresis} (\gr{>antana'iresis}).''
In a comment on the passage, 
Alexander of Aphrodisias observes
that Aristotle uses the word ``antanaeresis'' for anthyphaeresis.
In 1933, Oskar Becker observed
that Aristotle and Alexander could be alluding 
to the anthyphaeretic definition of proportion described above.
It is thus reasonable to suppose 
that Euclid was aware of the possibility 
of an anthyphaeretic theory of proportion.

Proposition \textsc{vii}.2 is a \emph{problem}:
\begin{quote}
\gr{D'uo >arijm~wn doj'entwn m`h pr'wtwn pr`oc >all'hlouc 
t`o m'egiston a>ut~wn koin`on m'etron e<ure~in.}
\ldiv
\tr{Two numbers not prime to one another being given,
to find their greatest common measure.}
\end{quote}
We may ask why this proposition is separated from Proposition 1,
since each of these propositions 
involves an application of the Euclidean Algorithm,
that is, anthyphaeresis.
But Proposition 2 itself considers two cases:
when the the less of given numbers measures the greater,
and when it does not.
We see here the practice of using language as precisely as possible---a
practice often abjured today in mathematics, in favor of simplicity.
If a straight line is erected on another straight line,
forming two angles, 
today we should say that the sum of the angles is two right angles;
for Euclid, in Proposition \textsc i.13,
either this is so, \emph{or} each of the angles is already a right angle.
Today we have an algorithm, the Euclidean Algorithm, 
for finding greatest common divisors;
Euclid has an algorithm for verifying that two numbers are relatively prime,
\emph{and} for finding their greatest common measure when they are not.

There is now a break in the usual pattern of exposition.
Proposition \textsc{vii}.2 has a \gr{por'isma}, a porism:
in the words of Proclus, 
``a kind of windfall or bonus in the investigation''
\cite[p.\ 481]{MR13:419a},
namely:\marginpar{I think we are not going to need this porism}
\begin{quote}  
\gr{>Ek d`h to'utou faner'on, 
<'oti >e`an >arijm`oc d'uo >arijmo`uc metr~h|, 
ka`i t`o m'egiston a>ut~wn koin`on m'etron metr'hsei%
%; <'oper >'edei de~ixai.
.}
\ldiv
\tr{From this then it is clear that, if a number measure two numbers,
it will also measure their greatest common measure.}
\end{quote}
As a corollary follows from the enunciation of a theorem,
a porism follows from the proof.
The term could be used more widely today,
as for example to label a generalization of a theorem,
when it turns out that the same proof yields the generalization.

Proposition \textsc{vii}.3 
is to find the greatest common measure of three given numbers.
There seems to be no reason to look further at this 
before moving on to Proposition 4.

\section{Part or Parts}\label{sect:part/s}

We have seen the enunciation of Proposition \textsc{vii}.4 
in \S\S\ref{prop.7.4} \&\ \ref{prop.7.4again} 
(pp.\ \pageref{prop.7.4} \&\ \pageref{prop.7.4again});
it is that the less number is part or parts of the greater number.
If being \emph{parts} of a number just meant not being 
\emph{part} of the number,
that is, not measuring the number,
then Proposition 4 would be immediate.
Euclid does not treat it as immediate,
and so the real meaning of \emph{parts} must be more subtle.
We should consider what Euclid actually says.
After the enunciation of Proposition 4
come the exposition and specification:
\begin{quote}  
\gr{>'Estwsan d'uo >arijmo`i o<i A, BG, ka`i >'estw >el'asswn <o BG;
l'egw, <'oti <o BG to~u A >'htoi m'eroc >est`in >`h m'erh.}
\ldiv
\tr{Let the two numbers be \gr A and \gr{BG},
and let the less be \gr{BG}.
I say that \gr{BG} is, of \gr A, either part or parts.}
\end{quote}
The demonstration then considers two cases:
\begin{quote}
\gr{O<i A, BG g`ar >'htoi pr~wtoi pr`oc >all'hlouc e>is`in >`h o>'u.}
\ldiv
\tr{For \gr A and \gr{BG} are either prime to one another, or not.}
\end{quote}
The two cases thus correspond to Propositions 
\textsc{vii}.1 and \textsc{vii}.2.
Here is the first case:
\begin{quote}
\gr{>'estwsan pr'oteron o<i A, BG pr~wtoi pr`oc >all'hlouc. 
diairej'entoc d`h to~u BG e>ic t`ac >en a>ut~w| mon'adac 
>'estai <ek'asth mon`ac t~wn >en t~w| BG m'eroc ti to~u A; 
<'wste m'erh >est`in <o BG to~u A.}
\ldiv
\tr{First suppose \gr A and \gr{BG} are prime to one another.
\gr{BG} being divided into the units in itself,
each unit of those that are in \gr{BG}
will be some part of \gr A.
Thus \gr{BG} is parts of \gr A.}
\end{quote}
The word \tr{thus} here translates Euclid's \gr{<'wste}.
As ``thus'' can mean either \emph{therefore} or \emph{in this way,}
so can \gr{<'wste}.
I propose that in the present instance it has the latter meaning.
That is, since \gr A and \gr{BG} are coprime,
\gr{BG} is \emph{parts} of \gr A,
\emph{in the sense that} each of its units is a part of \gr A.

Sometimes, indeed, \gr{<'wste} simply means \emph{therefore,}
only less emphatically;
Heath translates it as ``so that.''
Euclid's usual word to indicate a logical conclusion is \gr{>'ara},
used \emph{postpositively}---not at the beginning of a clause;
but occasionally \gr{<'wste} is used in place of this,
only \emph{prepositively}---at the beginning.
For example, Proposition \textsc{vii}.34 is to find the least common multiple
of two numbers,
and Proposition \textsc{vii}.35 is that this least common multiple 
measures every common multiple.
Proposition \textsc{vii}.36 is to find the least common multiple
of three numbers, given as \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.
One lets \gr D be the least common multiple of \gr A and \gr B.
In case \gr G does not measure this,
one lets \gr E be the least common multiple of \gr G and \gr D,
so that \gr E is a common multiple of \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.
If it is not the least such, one lets \gr Z be less.
Euclid's argument continues as follows.
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>epe`i o<i A, B, G t`on Z metro~usin, 
ka`i o<i A, B \textbf{>'ara} t`on Z metro~usin; 
ka`i <o >el'aqistoc \textbf{>'ara} <up`o t~wn A, B metro'umenoc 
t`on Z metr'hsei.
>el'aqistoc d`e <up`o t~wn A, B metro'umen'oc >estin <o D; 
<o D \textbf{>'ara} t`on Z metre~i. 
metre~i d`e ka`i <o G t`on Z; 
o<i D, G \textbf{>'ara} t`on Z metro~usin; 
\textbf{<'wste} ka`i <o >el'aqistoc <up`o t~wn D, G metro'umenoc 
t`on Z metr'hsei.}
\ldiv
\tr{Since \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G measure \gr Z,
\textbf{therefore} also \gr A and \gr B measure \gr Z;
\textbf{therefore} also the least [number] measured by \gr A and \gr B 
will measure \gr Z.
But the least [number] measured by \gr A and \gr B is \gr D.
\textbf{Therefore} \gr D measures \gr Z.
But also \gr G measures \gr Z;
\textbf{therefore} \gr D and \gr G measure \gr Z;
\textbf{thus} also the least [number] measured by \gr D and \gr G 
will measure \gr Z.}
\end{quote}
The last \gr{<'wste} replaces \gr{>'ara},
perhaps because a pattern has already been established.
Then \gr{<'wste} indicates an easy result.
This is seen also in Book \textsc i, 
where \gr{<'wste} is used three times, in Propositions 3, 35, and 36,
to indicate a result of the form
\begin{quote}\centering
  $A=C$ and $B=C$, \textbf{thus} $A=B$;
\end{quote}
and in Propositions 7, 41, and 48, for similarly easy results.

But in Proposition \textsc i.4,
which we looked at in \S\ref{sect:=},
\gr{<'wste} is used to indicate the conclusions that \gr G falls on \gr Z,
and \gr{BG} on \gr{EZ}, and triangle \gr{ABG} on \gr{DEZ};
and in Proposition \textsc i.8,
\gr{<'wste} indicates again that \gr{ABG} coincides with \gr{DEZ}.
In short, \gr{<'wste} indicates that something happens, \emph{thus.}

We see \gr{<'wste} again
in the second case of Proposition \textsc{vii}.4,
or at least in its second subcase
(corresponding to the second case of Proposition \textsc{vii}.2):
\begin{quote}
\gr{M`h >'estwsan d`h o<i  A, BG pr~wtoi pr`oc >all'hlouc;
<o d`h BG t`on A >'htoi metre~i >`h o>u metre~i.}
\ldiv
\tr{Now suppose \gr A and \gr{BG} are not prime to one another.
Then \gr{BG} either measures \gr A or does not measure.}

\gr{e>i m`en o>~un <o BG t`on A metre~i, m'eroc >est`in <o BG to~u A.}
\ldiv
\tr{If \gr{BG} measures \gr A, \gr{BG} is a part of \gr A.}
\end{quote}
The second subcase is diagrammed in Figure \ref{fig:vii.4}.
\begin{quote}
\gr{e>i d`e o>'u, e>il'hfjw t~wn A, 
BG m'egiston koin`on m'etron <o D, 
ka`i dih|r'hsjw <o BG e>ic to`uc t~w| D >'isouc to`uc BE, EZ, ZG. 
ka`i >epe`i <o D t`on A metre~i, m'eroc >est`in <o D to~u A; 
>'isoc d`e <o D <ek'astw| t~wn BE, EZ, ZG; 
ka`i <'ekastoc \textbf{>'ara} t~wn BE, EZ, ZG to~u A m'eroc >est'in; 
\textbf{<'wste} m'erh >est`in <o BG to~u A.}
\ldiv
\tr{If not,
let the greatest common measure \gr D of \gr A and \gr{BG} be taken,
and let \gr{BG} be divided into \gr{BE, EZ,} and \gr{ZG}, equal to \gr D.
\begin{figure}
  \centering
\psset{yunit=8mm}
  \begin{pspicture}(4.8,3)
    \psline(0.0,0.5)(4.8,0.5)
    \psline(0.6,1.5)(4.8,1.5)
    \psline(3.4,2.5)(4.8,2.5)
\rput(0.0,0.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(4.8,0.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(0.6,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(2.0,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(3.4,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(4.8,1.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(3.4,2.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\rput(4.8,2.5){\psline(0,-0.12)(0,0.12)}
\uput[d](2.4,0.5){\gr A}
\uput[d](0.6,1.5){\gr B}
\uput[d](2.0,1.5){\gr E}
\uput[d](3.4,1.5){\gr Z}
\uput[d](4.8,1.5){\gr G}
\uput[u](4.1,2.5){\gr D}
  \end{pspicture}
  \caption{Proposition \textsc{vii}.4}%%
\label{fig:vii.4}
  
\end{figure}
Since \gr D measures \gr A, \gr D is a part of \gr A.
And \gr D is equal to each of \gr{BE, EZ,} and \gr{ZG}.
\textbf{Therefore} each of \gr{BE, EZ,} and \gr{ZG}
is a part of \gr A;
\textbf{thus} \gr{BG} is parts of \gr A.}
\end{quote}
The conclusion of the proposition repeats the enunciation,
with---as is usual---the addition of \gr{>'ara}
and a \textsc{qed}:
\begin{quote}
\gr{<'Apac \textbf{>'ara} >arijm`oc pant`oc >arijmo~u <o >el'asswn
to~u me'izonoc >'htoi m'eroc >est`in >`h m'erh; 
<'oper >'edei de~ixai.}
\ldiv
\tr{\textbf{Therefore} every number is of every number, 
the less of the greater,
either a part or parts;
which is just what was to be shown.}
\end{quote}
The last verb, \gr{de~ixai}, is the normal ending for a \emph{theorem,}
as opposed to a \emph{problem}, 
which would end with \gr{poi~hsai} ``to be done.''
Nonetheless, strictly speaking,
Proposition \textsc{vii}.4
is neither a theorem nor a problem in the usual sense,
because its enunciation alone 
gives us nothing that we can either contemplate or use.
The whole proposition is an explanation of the definition of proportion.
It tacitly explains how to tell when a number $A$ is the 
\emph{same parts} of $B$ that $C$ is of $D$.
Assuming that $A$ is not in fact \emph{part} of $B$,
and $C$ is not part of $D$,
we may conclude that $A$ is the \textbf{same parts} of $B$
that $C$ is of $D$,
just in case $A$ and $B$ are, respectively,
the same multiples of their greatest common measure
that $C$ and $D$ are of \emph{their} greatest common measure.

If Euclid spelled out this definition,\label{spell}
he might distinguish the case where, say, $A$ and $B$ are prime to one another.
In this case, $A$ is the same parts of $B$ that $C$ is of $D$,
just in case $C=A\times E$ and $D=B\times E$,
where $E$ is the greatest common measure of $C$ and $D$.

Euclid does \emph{not} spell out the details 
of the definition of having the same parts.
This need not be considered unusual.
In Book \textsc i of the \emph{Elements,}
there are several propositions 
where a thorough account of all possible cases is lacking.
Euclid does not even bother to mention that there are other cases
than the one he considers.
We have no reason to think that he is not aware of the other cases.
For example,
Proposition \textsc i.5 is that, in an isosceles triangle,
not only 
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
  \item
the base angles, but also
\item
the exterior angles at the base,
\end{inparaenum}
are equal to one another.
A consequence of this is Proposition 7,
which is that two different points on the same side of a straight line
cannot have the same respective distances from its endpoints.
In his proof by contradiction,
Euclid considers only the case shown on the left of Figure \ref{fig:I.7},
\begin{figure}
  \mbox{}\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(0,-0.5)(2,2)
\pspolygon(0,0)(2,0)(0.5,1.8)
\psline(0,0)(1.2,2)(2,0)
\psline(1.2,2)(0.5,1.8)
\uput[d](0,0){\gr A}
\uput[d](2,0){\gr B}
\uput[ul](0.5,1.8){\gr G}
\uput[ur](1.2,2){\gr D}
  \end{pspicture}
\hfill
  \begin{pspicture}(0,-0.5)(2,2.4)
\pspolygon(0,0)(2,0)(1,2)
\psline(0,0)(1.1,1.4)(2,0)
\psline(1,2)(1.1,1.4)
\psline(1.1,1.4)(1.65,2.1)
\psline(1,2)(1.2,2.4)
\uput[d](0,0){\gr A}
\uput[d](2,0){\gr B}
\uput[ul](1,2){\gr G}
\uput[d](1.1,1.4){\gr D}
  \end{pspicture}
\hfill\mbox{}
  \caption[Proposition \textsc i.7]%
{Proposition \textsc i.7, with the missing case}%%
\label{fig:I.7}
  
\end{figure}
where neither of the two points \gr G and \gr D
lies inside the triangle determined by the other point 
and the given straight line \gr{AB}.
The proof of this case needs only the first conclusion of Proposition 5.
The other case goes unmentioned, 
but is proved by means of the second conclusion of Proposition 5.

As discussed in \S\ref{sect:prop}, by definition, 
a number $A$ is to $B$ as $C$ is to $D$,
provided $A$ is
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
  \item
the same multiple or 
\item
part or 
\item
parts of $B$
that $C$ is of $D$.
\end{inparaenum}
Symbolically, this means,
\begin{compactenum}[1)]
  \item
for some multiplier $n$, both $A=nB$ and $C=nD$, or
\item
for some multiplier $n$, both $nA=B$ and $nC=D$, or
\item
for some multipliers $k$ and $\ell$, and some numbers $E$ and $F$, 
\begin{align*}
  A&=kE,&B&=\ell E,&C&=kF,&D&=\ell F,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{eqn:gcm}
  E&=\gcm(A,B),&F&=\gcm(C,D)
\end{align}
\end{compactenum}
(where $\gcm$ means greatest common measure).
Condition \eqref{eqn:gcm} is made as explicit as need be by Proposition 4.

Pengelley and Richman \cite[p.\ 199]{MR2204484}
leave out Condition \eqref{eqn:gcm} 
when they formulate Euclid's definition of proportion.
Then they observe that later proofs 
make use of the transitivity of ``equality'' 
of ratios without having proved it.
However, the transitivity of this ``equality''
is immediate from the definition of proportion,
properly understood.
By definition, $A$ is to $B$ as $C$ is to $D$,
provided that something about pairs $(X,Y)$ of numbers is the \emph{same,}
whether the pair be $(A,B)$ or $(C,D)$.
That ``something'' cannot be mere existence of a number $Z$
and multipliers $k$ and $\ell$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eqn:Z}
  X&=kZ,&Y&=\ell Z.
\end{align}
For, such $Z$, $k$, and $\ell$ exist for all pairs of numbers $X$ and $Y$.
The desired ``something'' could however be the set of 
\emph{all} pairs $(k,\ell)$ of multipliers such that, for some number $Z$,
\eqref{eqn:Z} holds.
For Euclid however, as he shows in Proposition \textsc{vii}.4,
the ``something'' is the one pair $(k,\ell)$ such that
\begin{align*}
  X&=k\cdot\gcm(X,Y),&Y&=\ell\cdot\gcm(X,Y).
\end{align*}
To a modern reader accustomed to manipulating and reducing fractions,
Euclid's meaning may not be entirely clear.
But I think it is clear enough to his intended audience.

Euclid is aware that proportionality---sameness of ratio---%
can be defined by anthyphaeresis.
He prefers to avoid this,
perhaps in order to make proofs easier.
For the arbitrary magnitudes considered in Book \textsc v, 
he uses the definition quoted in \S\ref{sect:prop}.
Looking at arbitrary equimultiples is conceptually easier
than looking at the potentially infinite sequences of numbers 
generated by anthyphaeresis.
For one thing, even if we say $A$ measures $B$, $k$ times, with remainder $C$,
Euclid has no notation for the multiplier $k$.
Indeed, $k$ here is not a \emph{thing.}
It is not, strictly speaking, a \emph{number,} 
but a \emph{numeral}; not a noun, but an adjective.
It can be turned into a noun, as it will be in Book \textsc{vii,}
when multiplication of numbers is defined;
but there is no need to do this in Book \textsc v.

When anthyphaeresis is applied to \emph{numbers,}
finite sequences are generated.
We apply anthyphaeresis to numbers $A$ and $B$, 
we get a greatest common measure $C$.
Then $A=kC$ and $B=\ell C$ for some $k$ and $\ell$, as Euclid knows.
He does not say much about $k$ and $\ell$ directly though.
He does not say, for example, that they are relatively prime.
He does not have good notation for them.
We can write multipliers with minuscules, for example; Euclid cannot.

Now, good notation 
is not like house-building supplies.
You cannot will bricks and mortar into existence;
but if you find your notation inadequate, you just improve it.
If Euclid was inhibited by a lack of good notation,
it would seem the fault was his own.

On the other hand,
Euclid's concern was not written expression as such.
Writing supplies \emph{are} like house-building supplies.
Even if Euclid had as much scratch paper (or papyrus) to work with as we do,
he could not easily have distributed a copy of his lectures
to everybody who attended.
I think of Phaedrus, in the eponymous dialogue of Plato,
borrowing the text of a speech of Lysias,
not so that he can copy it, but so that he can memorize it
\cite[228b, p.\ 417]{Plato-Loeb-I}.
Evidently Euclid wrote things out, and that is why we have his work;
but his aim was not to come up with correct \emph{written} expressions as such.
See however \S\ref{sect:symb}.

\section{Multiplication}\label{sect:mult}

In the \emph{Elements,}
addition of numbers is implicitly understood to be what we call a commutative,
associative operation.
Thus numbers compose an additive semigroup.
Each number is a sum or combination of units,
all of these units being equal to one another.

\emph{Multiplication} is explicitly defined.
The fifteenth of the definitions at the head of Book \textsc{vii} reads,
\begin{quote}
\gr{>Arijm`oc >arijm`on \textbf{pollaplasi'azein} l'egetai, 
<'otan, <'osai e>is`in >en a>ut~w| mon'adec, 
tosaut'akic suntej~h| <o pollaplasiaz'omenoc,
ka`i g'enhta'i tic.}
\ldiv
\tr{A number is said to \textbf{multiply} a number when,
however many units are in it,
so many times is the multiplied number composed,
and some number comes to be.}
\end{quote}
I use the verb \tr{to be composed} 
here for Euclid's \gr{sunt'ijhmi}\marginpar{Parse Euclid's form},
because from this verb is derived the adjective \gr{s'unjetos},
and we translate this (as in Definition \textsc{vii}.13)
as \tr{composite.}
Heath uses ``to be added to itself'' for Euclid's \gr{sunt'ijhmi};
but taken literally, this is misleading.\marginpar{Reference to\lips somebody?}
To multiply $B$ by $A$ means to lay down a copy of $B$ for each unit in $A$;
it does \emph{not} 
mean to add all of those copies to the $B$ that already exists.
If we multiply $B$ by $A$---%
or as Euclid says, if $A$ multiplies $B$---,
we can describe the result as ``$B$, $A$ times,'' or ``$A$ times $B$.''
We can write the result as
\begin{equation*}
  A\times B,
\end{equation*}
although Euclid has no such notation.
As we noted in \S\ref{obvious} (p.\ \pageref{obvious}),
it is not obvious that $A\times B=B\times A$,
and this will actually be the result of Proposition 16.
Nonetheless, the definition of multiplication
is followed by:
\begin{quote}  
\gr{<'Otan d`e d'uo >arijmo`i pollaplasi'asantec >all'hlouc 
poi~ws'i tina, <o gen'omenoc \textbf{>ep'ipedoc} kale~itai, 
\textbf{pleura`i} d`e a>uto~u o<i pollaplasi'asantec >all'hlouc >arijmo'i.}
\ldiv
\tr{And whenever two numbers, multiplying one another, make some [number],
the [number] produced is called \textbf{plane,}
and its \textbf{sides} are the numbers multiplying one another.}
\end{quote}
This suggests an understanding that multiplication is indeed commutative.
\emph{This} contributes to the feeling that the ``definitions''
at the head of Book \textsc{vii} are more of a summary or introduction
than a list of formal definitions.

Given numbers $A$ and $B$, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:AB}
  A\times B=nB,
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the number or rather \emph{numeral} of units in $A$.
Here $A$ is a noun, but $n$ is an adjective.
We can draw $A$ in a diagram, but not $n$ itself.
Rather, $n$ would be a feature of the diagram.
Instead of \eqref{eqn:AB}, we could write
\begin{equation*}
  A\times B=B+\dots+B.
\end{equation*}
Another way to say this is that $A\times B$
belongs to the semigroup generated by $B$.

Euclid distinguishes between products $A\times B$ 
and multiples $nB$ in his propositions.
The enunciation of Proposition 5 is:
\begin{quote}
\gr{>E`an >arijm`oc >arijmo~u m'eroc >~h|, 
ka`i <'eteroc <et'erou t`o a>ut`o m'eroc >~h|, 
ka`i sunamf'oteroc sunamfot'erou t`o a>ut`o m'eroc >'estai, 
<'oper <o e<~ic to~u <en'oc.}
\ldiv
\tr{If a number be part of a number,
and another be the same part of another,
then the combination will be the very same part of the combination
that the one is of the one.}
\end{quote}
%In the translation, \tr{very} stands for the \gr{per} in \gr{<'oper}.
Heath has ``sum'' instead of my \tr{combination;}
but the latter seems closer to Euclid's \gr{sun\-amf'oteros},
both in meaning and etymology:
the Latin \emph{com-} (for \emph{con-}) corresponds to \gr{sun-},
while the B of \emph{bin-} seems to be related to the \gr F in \gr{amf-}.
If the numbers in question are respectively $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$,
we assume that, for some $n$, both $nA=B$ and $nC=D$;
the conclusion is that $n(A+C)=B+D$.
In one line then,
\begin{equation*}
  n(A+C)=nA+nC;
\end{equation*}
this can be understood as a consequence of the commutativity of addition.

Proposition 6 is the same as 5, but with ``part'' replaced by ``parts.''
If $A=kE$, $B=nE$, $C=kF$, and $D=nF$, then $A+C=k(E+F)$, while $B+D=n(E+F)$.
There is no need here to assume that $k$ and $n$ are relatively prime,
or equivalently that $E$ is the greatest common measure of $A$ and $B$.
Nonetheless,
from Propositions 5 and 6, Euclid immediately obtains Proposition 12:
\begin{equation*}
  A:B::C:D\implies A:B::A+C:B+D,
\end{equation*}
or more generally
\begin{equation*}
  A_1:B_1::\dots::A_n:B_n\implies A_1:B_1::A_1+\dots+A_n:B_1+\dots+B_n.
\end{equation*}
Note that this hardly needs proof,
if one understands and accepts the anthyphaeretic definition of proportion.
Meanwhile,
Euclid has already used the idea of the general form of Proposition 12 
in Proposition 9:
\begin{quote}
\gr{>E`an >arijm`oc >arijmo~u m'eroc >~h|, 
ka`i <'eteroc <et'erou t`o a>ut`o m'eroc >~h|, 
ka`i >enall'ax, <`o m'eroc >est`in >`h m'erh <o pr~wtoc to~u tr'itou, 
t`o a>ut`o m'eroc >'estai 
>`h t`a a>ut`a m'erh ka`i <o de'uteroc to~u tet'artou.}
\ldiv
\tr{If a number be a part of a number,
and another be the same part of another,
also alternately,
what part or parts the first is of the third,
the same part or parts will also the second be of the fourth.}
\end{quote}
Thus if the four numbers are $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$,
and $nA=B$ and $nC=D$,
then whatever part or parts $A$ is of $C$,
the combination $B$ will be the same part or parts of the combination $D$,
that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ACBD}
  A:C::B:D.
\end{equation}
Without specifying any hypotheses, we could write this as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:AC}
  A:C::nA:nC.
\end{equation}
The possibility that $A$ is a \emph{multiple} of $C$ is ignored,
presumably because, without loss of generality, we may assume $A<C$
(the case $A=C$ being trivial).

Proposition 10 is the same as 9,
but again with the first two instances of ``part'' replaced with ``parts.''
Thus if the four numbers again are $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$,
but now
$kE=A$ and $B=nE$ for some $E$, while $kF=C$ and $D=nF$ for some $F$,
then \eqref{eqn:ACBD} still holds, that is,
\begin{equation*}
  kE:nF::nE:nF.
\end{equation*}
Then Proposition 13 expresses 9 and 10 in the language of proportion:
\begin{quote}\centering
\gr{>E`an t'essarec >arijmo`i >an'alogon >~wsin, 
ka`i >enall`ax >an'alogon >'esontai.}
%\ldiv
\tr{If four numbers be proportional,
they will also be proportional alternately.}
\end{quote}
That is, if $A:B::C:D$, then,
both possible relations of $A$ to $C$ having been covered in 9 and 10,
we conclude \eqref{eqn:ACBD}.  Thus
\begin{equation*}
  A:B::C:D\implies A:C::B:D.
\end{equation*}
Unlike Proposition 12,
this is \emph{not} immediate from the anthyphaeretic definition of proportion.
But we shall need it to establish commutativity of multiplication.
To this end, there is Proposition 15,
which is nearly the same as a special case of 9,
but in the language of proportion and products,
instead of parts:
\begin{equation*}
  1:B::A:A\times B.
\end{equation*}
Then also $1:A:B:B\times A$, so by alternation $1:B:A:B\times A$;
and therefore
\begin{equation*}
  A\times B=B\times A.
\end{equation*}
This is Proposition 16, whose enunciation is
\begin{quote}\centering
  \gr{E`an d'uo >arijmo`i pollaplasi'asantec >all'hlouc poi~ws'i tinac,\\
o<i gen'omenoi >ex a>ut~wn >'isoi >all'hloic >'esontai.}\\
%\ldiv
\tr{If two numbers, multiplying one another, make some [number],\\
the products will be equal to ane another.}
\end{quote}
This would indeed appear to be a ``real'' theorem.

We can understand Euclid's situation as follows.
His numbers compose a set $\mathscr S$ that is equipped with
\begin{inparaenum}[(1)]
\item 
a commutative, associative operation of addition,
which we denote by $+$;
\item
an associative multiplication, $\times$,
which distributes over addition;
\begin{comment}
  , so that
\begin{gather*}
  (A+B)\times C=A\times C+B\times C,\\
  A\times(B+C)=A\times B+A\times C;
\end{gather*}
\end{comment}
\item
a multiplicative identity, $1$;
\item
a linear ordering, $<$, such that
\begin{equation*}
  A<B\iff\Exists XA+X=B.
\end{equation*}
\end{inparaenum}
We may define
\begin{equation*}
  \mathscr R=\mathscr S\sqcup\{0\}\sqcup\{-X\colon X\in \mathscr S\},
\end{equation*}
a disjoint union,
where $X\mapsto-X$ is just some injection on $\mathscr S$.
Then we can turn $\mathscr R$ into an ordered ring, 
just as, in school, one obtains the integers from the natural numbers.
However, not every ordered ring is commutative like the ring of integers.
For example, 
the free group $F_2$ on two letters can be made into an ordered group,
and then the noncommutative group-ring $\Z F_2$ can be ordered.%%
\footnote{Textbook references are 
Lam \cite[Exercise 17.1, p.\ 269]{MR1838439} and
 Botto Mura and Rhemtulla \cite[Thm 2.3.1, pp. 33 f.]{MR0491396}.
Every free product of ordered groups is orderable.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

To apply the Euclidean Algorithm,
Euclid tacitly assumes what we call the Well Ordering Property of $\mathscr S$.
I think Euclid \emph{also} tacitly assumes that 
$A\times B$ always belongs to the semigroup generated by $B$.
Either of these assumptions implies the other,
although Euclid does not prove this or perhaps even contemplate a proof.

Nonetheless, 
Euclid does not assume commutativity of multiplication.
He proves it.
This would seem to be more than number-theory textbooks do today.
Landau \cite{MR0092794} and Hardy \&\ Wright \cite{MR568909}
do not discuss foundations, 
but start right in, proving theorems about divisibility.
I suppose they expect the reader to understand the natural numbers
and all of the integers
as lying among the so-called real numbers,
whose algebraic properties, at least, are familiar.
As far as the integers themselves are concerned,
the authors evidently take for granted the axioms that LeVeque 
\cite[pp.\ 8--10]{LeVeque} makes explicit: 
in effect, the integers compose an ordered commutative ring
whose positive elements are well-ordered.
LeVeque has an additional axiom, that $c\neq0$ and $ca=cb$ imply $a=b$,
but this is true in every ordered ring.

Leveque observes that the well-ordering axiom
can be replaced with the induction axiom,
once the axioms of a commutative ordered ring are assumed.
Burton \cite[pp.\ 1--2]{Burton}
proves the ``Archimedean property'' 
and the ``First Principle of Finite Induction,''
using the ``Well-Ordering Principle'' 
as the only explicit property of the natural numbers;
otherwise, he says, 
\begin{quote}
We shall make no attempt to construct the integers axiomatically,
assuming instead that they are already given 
and that any reader of this book 
is familiar with many elementary facts about them.
\end{quote}
It is presently asserted \cite[p.\ 5]{Burton}
that ``Mathematical induction is often used as a method of definition
as well as a method of proof.''
This suggests that recursive definitions are justified by induction alone.
They are not, and clarifying this point is of value to number theory itself,
as we discussed above (page \pageref{induction}).

Again, in our terms,
Euclid proves that every ordered ring whose positive elements are well-ordered
is commutative.
Thus he would appear to be more sensitive to rigor and logical economy
than are the corresponding texts of today.
%\label{sect:mult-end}

\section{Euclid's Lemma}

``Euclid's Lemma'' now follows from some straightforward manipulations.
Thus Proposition \textsc{vii}.17 is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:BC}
  C:D::A\times C:A\times D,
\end{equation}
which looks like a restatement of Proposition 9,
when this is written as \eqref{eqn:AC};
but Euclid derives the result afresh,
using that, by definition,
\begin{align*}
  1:A&::C:A\times C,&1:A&::D:A\times D,
\end{align*}
so that $C:A\times C::D:A\times D$
(since sameness of ratio is immediately transitive),
and therefore, alternately, \eqref{eqn:BC}.
By applying Proposition 16 to this, we obtain Proposition 18,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:18}
  A:B::A\times C:B\times C.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eqn:BC} and \eqref{eqn:18},
along with the rule
\begin{equation*}
  E:F::E:F'\implies F=F',
\end{equation*}
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:19}
  A:B::C:D\iff A\times D=B\times C,
\end{equation}
which is Proposition 19.
Euclid's argument is as we have put it,
although, when we writes out Propositions 17 and 18,
he does \emph{not} do as we have done,
choosing the letters in \eqref{eqn:BC} and \eqref{eqn:18}
so that Proposition 19 follows almost visually
as \eqref{eqn:19}.

In Proposition 20,
we suppose $C$ and $D$ are the least $X$ and $Y$ such that $X:Y::A:B$.
If $C$ is \emph{parts} of $A$,
then for some part $E$ of $A$ and $F$ of $B$,
we have $C=kE$ and $D=kF$;
but then by Proposition 12,
\begin{equation*}
  E:F::C:D::A:B,
\end{equation*}
contrary to the minimality of $C$ and $D$.
Thus $C$ is not \emph{parts,} but is a \emph{part} of $A$, 
and $D$ is the same part of $B$;
or as Euclid says, $C$ measures $A$ and $D$ measures $B$
\emph{equally} (\gr{>is'akis}).

There is no claim in Proposition 20
that numbers that are minimal as described must exist.
Proposition 21 establishes a sufficient condition for their existence.
If \gr A and \gr B are prime to one another,
then they must be the least \gr{X} and \gr U such that 
$\grm{X}:\grm U::\grm A:\grm B$.
For, suppose not, but $\grm G$ and $\grm D$ are least.
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>is'akic >'ara <o G t`on A metre~i ka`i <o D t`on B. 
<os'akic d`h <o G t`on A metre~i, tosa~utai mon'adec >'estwsan >en t~w| E.
ka`i <o D >'ara t`on B metre~i kat`a t`ac >en t~w| E mon'adac.
ka`i >epe`i <o G t`on A metre~i kat`a t`ac >en t~w| E mon'adac, 
ka'i <o E >'ara t`on A metre~i kat`a t`ac >en t~w| G mon'adac.}
\ldiv
\tr{Therefore \gr G measures \gr A and \gr D measures \gr B equally.
Then as many times as \gr G measures \gr A,
so many units let there be in \gr E.
Therefore also \gr D measures \gr B according to the units in \gr E.
And since \gr G measures \gr A according to the units in \gr E,
also therefore \gr E measures \gr A according to the units in \gr G.}
\end{quote}
This is not the language of the \emph{enunciation} of Proposition 16,
but is the language of its demonstration.
At present, for some \gr E we have $\grm E\times\grm G=\grm A$,
and therefore $\grm G\times\grm E=\grm A$,
that is, \gr E measures \gr A; 
and similarly the same \gr E measures \gr B,
which is absurd.

We jump ahead to Proposition 29,
which is immediate from the definitions:
\begin{quote}
  \gr{<'Apac pr~wtoc >arijm`oc pr`oc <'apanta >arijm'on, 
<`on m`h metre~i, pr~wt'oc >estin.}
\ldiv
\tr{Every prime number, to every number that it does not measure, is prime.}
\end{quote}
Finally then, in Proposition 30,
we suppose $P$ is prime and measures $A\times B$, but does not measure $A$,
so that $P$ is prime to $A$ by Proposition 29.
By hypothesis, for some $C$, $C\times P=A\times B$,
so by Proposition 19,
\begin{equation*}
  P:A::B:C.
\end{equation*}
By Proposition 21, $P$ and $A$ are minimal;
then by Proposition 20, $P$ measures $B$.

\section{Symbolic mathematics}\label{sect:symb}

The last three propositions of Book \textsc{vii} of the \emph{Elements}
are hints of a \emph{symbolic} mathematics,
a mathematics of manipulating symbols that do not, or do not yet, have meaning.
Such mathematics might be called \emph{analytic,}
as Descartes's geometry is called;
but it certainly did not originate with Descartes.
Pappus describes it \cite[pp.\ 596--7]{MR13:419b}:
\begin{quote}
 \gr{>en m`en g`ar t~h| >anal'usei t`o zhto'umenon <ws gegon`os <upoj'emenoi t`o >ex o<~u to~uto sumba'inei skopo'umeja.}
\ldiv
\tr{For in analysis we suppose that which is sought to be already done, 
and we inquire what it is from which this comes about.}
\end{quote}
Pappus attributes the work of analysis that he describes to
``Euclid the writer of the \emph{Elements,} Apollonius of Perga
and Aristaeus the elder.''

Proposition \textsc{vii}.37 of the \emph{Elements} has the enunciation,
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>E`an >arijmos <up'o tinos >arijmo~u metr~htai,
<o metro'umenos <om'wnumon m'eros <'exei t~w| metro~unti.}
\ldiv
\tr{If a number be measured by some number,
the measured number has a part having the same name with the measuring number.}
\end{quote}
Instead of \tr{having the same name,} we could use ``homonymous''
for Euclid's \gr{<om'wnumos}.
If $A$ is measured by the number three, that is, by a triad $B$,
then $A=C\times B$ for some number $C$; but then also,
by commutativity of multiplication,
$A=B\times C$, or $A=3C$, so $C$ is the third part of $A$.
Here the triad and the third are said to have the same name,
or to be homonymous.

Proposition \textsc{vii}.38 is the converse of 37:
\begin{quote}
\gr{>E`an >arijmoc m'eroc >'eqh| <otio~un, <up`o <omwn'umou >arijmo~u
metrhj'hsetai t~w| m'erei.}
\ldiv
\tr{If a number have any part whatever,
it will be measured by a [number] having the same name with the part.}
\end{quote}
Proposition \textsc{vii}.39 is then a complement to 36,
which is to find the least common multiple of given numbers:
so 39 is to find the least number having given parts.
The argument is thus:
\begin{quote}
 \gr{>'Estw t`a doj'enta m'erh t`a A, B, G; de~i d`h >arijm`on e<ure~in,
<`oc >el'aqistoc >`wn <'exei t`a A, B, G m'erh.
>'Estwsan g`ar to~ic A, B, G m'eresin <om'wnumoi >arijmo`i o<i D, E, Z,
ka`i e>il'hfjw <up`o t~wn D, E, Z >el'aqistoc metro'umenoc >arijm`oc <o H.
<O H >'ara <om'wnuma m'erh >'eqei to~ic D, E, Z. 
to~ic d`e D, E, Z <om'wnuma m'erh >est`i t`a A, B, G; 
<o H >'ara >'eqei t`a A, B, G m'erh.}
\ldiv
\tr{Let the given parts  be \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.
We must find a number that will \emph{minimally} 
have parts \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.
So let the numbers having the same names as \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G
be \gr D, \gr E, and \gr Z;
and let the least number measured by \gr D, \gr E, and \gr Z have been taken,
namely \gr H.
Then \gr H has parts having the same names as \gr D, \gr E, and \gr Z.
But the parts having the same names as \gr D, \gr E, and \gr Z
are \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.
Therefore \gr H has the parts \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.}
\end{quote}
Moreover, \gr H must be the least number having these parts;
for, if \gr J has these parts and is less,
then it also is measured by \gr{D, E,} and \gr Z, which is absurd.
Such is the argument of the last proposition of Book \textsc{vii}.

The diagram for this proposition consists of eight separate line segments,
labelled \gr A through \gr J.
What can the first three of these be---%
the ones that are called the given parts?
At the beginning,
they are not known to be parts \emph{of} anything;
they are just parts, simply, like a half or a third or a fourth.
Should they be thought of as segments having fractional length?
Are they ratios as such, rendered concrete for the moment
so that they can be talked about,
but not intended for comparison with particular numbers?
In the latter case,
this would be the only instance I know of\label{ratio-in-diagram}
where a ratio can actually be pointed to in a diagram;
elsewhere, a ratio is a relation between \emph{two} things in a diagram.

Thus I have to wonder whether Proposition 39 
is not a later addition to Book \textsc{vii},
by somebody thinking there should be a formal correlate to Proposition 36.
Compare the exposition of Proposition 38:
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>Arijm`oc g`ar <o A m'eroc >eq'etw <otio~un t`on B,
ka`i t~w| B m'erei <om'wnumoc >'estw [>arijm`oc] <o G.}
\ldiv
\tr{For let \gr A have whatsoever part, \gr B;
and let the number having the same name as \gr B be \gr G.}
\end{quote}
Here \gr B is not a ratio; it is a part of a given number, namely \gr A.
At the beginning of Proposition 39, again,
there is nothing for \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G to be part of:
they are just ``parts,''
or rather each of them is just a ``part.''
What then can it mean 
to speak of numbers \gr D, \gr E, and \gr Z
having the same name with \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G?

One might understand \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G as \emph{divisors,}
so that the point of Proposition \textsc{vii}.39
is to find the least number \emph{divided} by \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G.
But in that case, \gr D, \gr E, and \gr Z would be respectively \emph{equal}
to \gr A, \gr B, and \gr G; and they are not said to be equal.
Neither do they appear equal in Heiberg's diagram,
though we do not know 
how well Heiberg's diagrams conform with those of the manuscripts.

The position of Proposition 39 at the end of Book \textsc{vii}
may contribute to the plausibility 
of its being a later addition to the \emph{Elements.}
Perhaps 37 and 38 are also later additions.
All three propositions follow easily by means 
of the commutativity of multiplication,
and this commutativity is relied on implicitly
throughout the ensuing Books \textsc{viii} and \textsc{ix}.
Again, Proposition \textsc{vii}.39 in particular
seems to be due to somebody who is thinking ``formally'':
since measuring is correlated with dividing 
by means of Proposition \textsc{vii}.16,
for every proposition like 36 about measuring,
a proposition like 39 about dividing can be written.
Similar additions to \emph{Wikipedia} are inserted today
by people who want to make their contribution:
these contributions 
do not always reflect a full understanding of the surrounding text.

\begin{comment}
  


\section{Last is First}

I shall end by noting that,
as the Latin \emph{primus} means first,
so does Euclid's word \gr{pr~wtos} for prime;
but Euclid also uses the word in the original nontechnical sense.
Thus half of the enunciation of Proposition 19 reads:
\begin{quote}
  \gr{>E`an t'essarec >arijmo`i >an'alogon >~wsin, 
<o >ek pr'wtou ka`i tet'artou gen'omenoc >arijm`oc >'isoc >'estai 
t~w| >ek deut'erou ka`i tr'itou genom'enw| >arijm~w|.}
\ldiv
\tr{If four numbers be proportional,
the number produced from the prime and fourth
will be equal to the number produced from the second and third.}
\end{quote}
Or we could write the enunciation of Proposition 29 as,
\begin{quote}
  \tr{Every first number, to every number that it does not measure, is first.}
\end{quote}
But then \gr{pr~wtos} did also have the nonmathematical senses 
that ``prime'' has in English, though ``first'' does not so much.
Heath mentions the explanation of Nicomachus 
\cite[I.\textsc{xi}.3, p.\ 202]{Nicomachus}:
\begin{quote}
  [The prime number] has received this name because it can be measured only by the number which is first and common to all, unity, and by no other;
moreover, because it is produced by no other number combined with itself 
save unity alone.
\end{quote}
In the ordering of the numbers proper (that is, integers greater than $1$)
induced by the measuring relation,
the primes are first in the sense of being minimal.
But perhaps calling them first in Greek 
is like referring to gasses like helium and argon as ``noble.''

\end{comment}

%\bibliographystyle{plain} 
%\bibliography{../references}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

\bibitem{MR2093668}
Archimedes.
\newblock {\em The Two Books \emph{{O}n the Sphere and the Cylinder}}, volume~I
  of {\em The Works of {A}rchimedes}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
\newblock Translated into English, together with Eutocius' commentaries, with
  commentary, and critical edition of the diagrams, by Reviel Netz.

\bibitem{Aristotle-LI}
Aristotle.
\newblock {\em Categories, On Interpretation, and Prior Analytics}.
\newblock Number 325 in Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press and
  William Heinemann Ltd, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1973.
\newblock With English translation by H. P. Cooke and H. Tredennick.

\bibitem{MR2583927}
Jeremy Avigad, Edward Dean, and John Mumma.
\newblock A formal system for {E}uclid's \emph{{E}lements}.
\newblock {\em Rev. Symb. Log.}, 2(4):700--768, 2009.

\bibitem{Bahn}
Paul Bahn.
\newblock {\em Archaeology: {A} very short introduction}.
\newblock Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
\newblock Fully updated new edition. First edition, 1996.

\bibitem{Barker-writings-2}
Andrew Barker, editor.
\newblock {\em Greek Musical Writings. {V}olume {II}. {H}armonic and Acoustic
  Theory}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 1989.
\newblock First paperback edition 2004.

\bibitem{Barker}
Andrew Barker.
\newblock {\em The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 2007.

\bibitem{Beard}
Mary Beard.
\newblock No more scissors and paste.
\newblock {\em London Review of Books}, 25 March 2010.
\newblock Review of \emph{History Man: The Life of R.G. Collingwood} by Fred
  Inglis.

\bibitem{Bertrand}
Joseph Bertrand.
\newblock {\em Trait{\'e} d'Arithm{\'e}tique}.
\newblock Hachette, Paris, 1849.
\newblock Electronic version from Gallica Bibiot{\`e}que Num{\'e}rique
  (\url{http://gallica.bnf.fr}).

\bibitem{Blackburn-Coll-REP}
Simon Blackburn.
\newblock Collingwood, {R}obin {G}eorge (1889--1943).
\newblock In {\em Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy}. Routledge, London and
  New York, 1998.
\newblock Version 1.0.

\bibitem{Blackburn}
Simon Blackburn.
\newblock Being and time.
\newblock {\em The New Republic}, 3 April 2010.
\newblock Review of \emph{History Man: The Life of R.G. Collingwood} by Fred
  Inglis. Available from \url{http://lclane2.net/collingwood.html}, accessed
  October 30, 2014.

\bibitem{MR0491396}
Roberta Botto~Mura and Akbar Rhemtulla.
\newblock {\em Orderable Groups}.
\newblock Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel, 1977.
\newblock Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 27.

\bibitem{Burton}
David~M. Burton.
\newblock {\em Elementary Number Theory}.
\newblock McGraw-Hill, Boston, sixth edition, 2007.

\bibitem{Chantraine}
Pierre Chantraine.
\newblock {\em Dictionnaire {\'e}tymologique de la langue grecque. {H}istoire
  des mots}.
\newblock Klincksieck, Paris, 1968--1980.
\newblock In four volumes.

\bibitem{Collingwood-SM}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em Speculum Mentis or {T}he Map of Knowledge}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1924.
\newblock Reprinted photographically in Great Britain at the University Press,
  Oxford, 1946.

\bibitem{Collingwood-PA}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em The Principles of Art}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, London, Oxford, and New York, paperback
  edition, 1958.
\newblock First published 1938.

\bibitem{Collingwood-IN}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em The Idea of Nature}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, London, Oxford, and New York, paperback
  edition, 1960.
\newblock First published 1945.

\bibitem{Collingwood-Auto}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em An Autobiography}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978.
\newblock First published 1939. With a new introduction by Stephen Toulmin.
  Reprinted 2002.

\bibitem{Collingwood-IH}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em The Idea of History}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, revised edition, 1994.
\newblock With Lectures 1926--1928. Edited with an introduction by Jan van der
  Dussen.

\bibitem{Collingwood-EM}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em An Essay on Metaphysics}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, revised edition, 1998.
\newblock With an Introduction and additional material edited by Rex Martin.
  Published in paperback 2002. First edition 1940.

\bibitem{Collingwood-PH}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em The Principles of History and other writings in philosophy of
  history}.
\newblock Oxford, 2001.
\newblock Edited and with an introduction by W. H. Dray and W. J. van der
  Dussen.

\bibitem{Collingwood-EPM}
R.~G. Collingwood.
\newblock {\em An Essay on Philosophical Method}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, new edition, 2005.
\newblock With an Introduction and additional material edited by James Connelly
  and Giuseppina D'Oro. First edition 1933.

\bibitem{MR0159773}
Richard Dedekind.
\newblock {\em Essays on the Theory of Numbers. {I}: {C}ontinuity and
  Irrational Numbers. {II}: {T}he Nature and Meaning of Numbers}.
\newblock authorized translation by Wooster Woodruff Beman. Dover Publications
  Inc., New York, 1963.

\bibitem{Descartes-Geometry}
Ren{\'e} Descartes.
\newblock {\em The Geometry of {R}en{\'e} {D}escartes}.
\newblock Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1954.
\newblock Translated from the French and Latin by David Eugene Smith and Marcia
  L. Latham, with a facsimile of the first edition of 1637.

\bibitem{LDE}
Jean Dubois, Henri Mitterand, and Albert Dauzat.
\newblock {\em Dictionnaire d'{\'E}tymologie}.
\newblock Larousse, Paris, 2001.
\newblock First edition 1964.

\bibitem{Sextus}
Sextus Empiricus.
\newblock {\em Sextus Empiricus}.
\newblock Ge.\ Reimer, Berlin, 1842.
\newblock Ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri.

\bibitem{Sextus-Loeb-IV}
Sextus Empiricus.
\newblock {\em Against the Professors}.
\newblock Number 382 in Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press,
  Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 1949.
\newblock With English translation by R. G. Bury.

\bibitem{Euclid-Heiberg}
Euclid.
\newblock {\em Euclidis {E}lementa}, volume~I of {\em Euclidis Opera Omnia}.
\newblock Teubner, Leipzig, 1883.
\newblock Edited with Latin interpretation by I. L. Heiberg. Books I--IV.

\bibitem{MR17:814b}
Euclid.
\newblock {\em The Thirteen Books of {E}uclid's {E}lements}.
\newblock Dover Publications, New York, 1956.
\newblock Translated from the text of {H}eiberg with introduction and
  commentary by Thomas L. Heath. Republication of the second edition of 1925.

\bibitem{Euclid-homepage}
Euclid.
\newblock \gr{Stoiqe'ia E>ukle'idou}.
\newblock \url{http://users.ntua.gr/dimour/euclid/}, 1999.
\newblock Edited by Dimitrios E. Mourmouras. Accessed December 24, 2014.

\bibitem{Oklid-2014}
Euclid.
\newblock {\em {\"O}klid'in {\"O}{\u g}elerinin 13 Kitab{\i}ndan Birinci
  Kitap}.
\newblock Mathematics Department, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul,
  4th edition, September 2014.
\newblock The first of the 13 books of Euclid's Elements. Greek text, with
  Turkish version by {\"O}zer {\"O}zt{\"u}rk \&\ David Pierce.

\bibitem{MR2000c:01004}
David Fowler.
\newblock {\em The Mathematics of {P}lato's Academy}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, second edition, 1999.
\newblock A new reconstruction.

\bibitem{Fowler}
H.~W. Fowler.
\newblock {\em A Dictionary of Modern {E}nglish Usage}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, London, 1926.
\newblock Corrected reprint of 1954.

\bibitem{Gauss-Latin}
Carl~Friedrich Gauss.
\newblock {\em Disquisitiones Arithmeticae}.
\newblock Carl Friedrich Gauss Werke. Gerh.\ Fleischer Jun., Leipzig, 1801.
\newblock Electronic version of the original Latin text from Goettingen State
  and University Library.

\bibitem{Gauss}
Carl~Friedrich Gauss.
\newblock {\em Disquisitiones Arithmeticae}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
\newblock Translated into English by Arthur A. Clarke, revised by William C.
  Waterhouse.

\bibitem{MR2147526}
Timothy Gowers.
\newblock {\em Mathematics: {A} very short introduction}.
\newblock Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.

\bibitem{Gunay-sinan}
Reha G{\"u}nay.
\newblock {\em A Guide to the Works of {S}inan the {A}architect in {I}stanbul}.
\newblock YEM, Istanbul, July 2006.

\bibitem{MR92j:01070}
G.~H. Hardy.
\newblock {\em A Mathematician's Apology}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
\newblock With a foreword by C. P. Snow. Reprint of the 1967 edition. First
  edition 1940.

\bibitem{MR568909}
G.~H. Hardy and E.~M. Wright.
\newblock {\em An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, fifth edition, 1979.
\newblock First edition 1938. Reprinted 1990.

\bibitem{MR654679}
Thomas Heath.
\newblock {\em A History of {G}reek mathematics. {V}ol. {I}}.
\newblock Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1981.
\newblock From Thales to Euclid. Corrected reprint of the 1921 original.

\bibitem{Heffner}
Richard~D. Heffner.
\newblock {\em A Documentary History of the United States}.
\newblock New American Library, New York, 3rd edition, 1976.
\newblock Expanded and Revised Bicentennial Edition.

\bibitem{Hero-Heiberg-IV}
Hero.
\newblock {\em Heronis {A}lexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia. {V}olumen IV.
  {H}eronis definitiones cum variis collectionibus. Heronis quae feruntur
  geometrica}.
\newblock Teubner, Stuttgart, 1976.
\newblock Copiis Guilelmi Schmidt usus edidit J. L. Heiberg. Facsimile
  reproduction of 1912 edition. Electronic version created at Gallica,
  downloaded from \url{wilbourhall.org}.

\bibitem{MR0116216}
David Hilbert.
\newblock {\em The Foundations of Geometry}.
\newblock Authorized translation by E. J. Townsend. Reprint edition. The Open
  Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Ill., 1959.
\newblock Based on lectures 1898--99. Translation copyrighted 1902. Project
  Gutenberg edition released December 23, 2005 (\url{www.gutenberg.net}).

\bibitem{CODEE}
T.~F. Hoad, editor.
\newblock {\em The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.

\bibitem{Iamblichus}
Iamblichus.
\newblock {\em In {N}icomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem Liber}.
\newblock Teubner, Leipzig, 1894.
\newblock Ad fidem Codicis Florentini edidit Hermenegildus Pistelli.

\bibitem{MR0396271}
Thomas~J. Jech.
\newblock {\em The Axiom of Choice}.
\newblock North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London; American Elsevier
  Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1973.
\newblock Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 75.

\bibitem{Brit-Hist}
J.~P. Kenyon, editor.
\newblock {\em Dictionary of {B}ritish History}.
\newblock Wordsworth, Ware, Hertfordshire, 1994.
\newblock First published 1981 by Market House Books.

\bibitem{MR1838439}
T.~Y. Lam.
\newblock {\em A First Course in Noncommutative Rings}, volume 131 of {\em
  Graduate Texts in Mathematics}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2001.

\bibitem{MR0092794}
Edmund Landau.
\newblock {\em Elementary Number Theory}.
\newblock Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, N.Y., 1958.
\newblock Originally part of \emph{Vorlesungen {\"u}ber Zahlentheorie}
  (Leipzig, 1927). Translated by J. E. Goodman.

\bibitem{MR12:397m}
Edmund Landau.
\newblock {\em Foundations of Analysis. {T}he Arithmetic of Whole, Rational,
  Irrational and Complex Numbers}.
\newblock Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, N.Y., third edition, 1966.
\newblock Translated by F. Steinhardt; first edition 1951; first German
  publication, 1929.

\bibitem{Lang-alg}
Serge Lang.
\newblock {\em Algebra}.
\newblock Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, third edition, 1993.
\newblock Reprinted with corrections, 1997.

\bibitem{LeVeque}
William~J. LeVeque.
\newblock {\em Elementary Theory of Numbers}.
\newblock Dover, New York, 1990.
\newblock Original published by Addison-Wesley in 1962. Slightly corrected.

\bibitem{LSJ}
Henry~George Liddell and Robert Scott.
\newblock {\em A {G}reek-{E}nglish Lexicon}.
\newblock Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
\newblock Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the
  assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with the cooperation of many scholars.
  With a revised supplement.

\bibitem{Mazur-Th-pub}
Barry Mazur.
\newblock How did {T}heaetetus prove his theorem?
\newblock In P.~Kalkavage and E.~Salem, editors, {\em The Envisioned Life:
  {E}ssays in honor of {E}va {B}rann}. Paul Dry Books, 2007.
\newblock \url{http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/preprints/Eva.pdf}, accessed
  September 20, 2012.

\bibitem{MR2452082}
Barry Mazur.
\newblock When is one thing equal to some other thing?
\newblock In {\em Proof and other dilemmas}, MAA Spectrum, pages 221--241.
  Math. Assoc. America, Washington, DC, 2008.

\bibitem{POCGD}
James Morwood and John Taylor, editors.
\newblock {\em Pocket {O}xford Classical {G}reek Dictionary}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.

\bibitem{MR1631396}
David Mumford.
\newblock Trends in the profession of mathematics.
\newblock {\em Mitt. Dtsch. Math.-Ver.}, (2):25--29, 1998.

\bibitem{OED}
Murray et~al., editors.
\newblock {\em The Compact Edition of the {O}xford {E}nglish {D}ictionary}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, 1973.

\bibitem{MR1683176}
Reviel Netz.
\newblock {\em The Shaping of Deduction in {G}reek Mathematics}, volume~51 of
  {\em Ideas in Context}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
\newblock A study in cognitive history.

\bibitem{Nicomachus}
{Nicomachus of Gerasa}.
\newblock {\em Introduction to Arithmetic}, volume XVI of {\em University of
  Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series}.
\newblock University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1938.
\newblock Translated by Martin Luther D'Ooge. With studies in Greek arithmetic
  by Frank Egleston Robbins and Louis Charles Karpinski. First printing, 1926.

\bibitem{MR2204484}
David Pengelley and Fred Richman.
\newblock Did {E}uclid need the {E}uclidean algorithm to prove unique
  factorization?
\newblock {\em Amer. Math. Monthly}, 113(3):196--205, 2006.

\bibitem{MR2505433}
David Pierce.
\newblock Model-theory of vector-spaces over unspecified fields.
\newblock {\em Arch. Math. Logic}, 48(5):421--436, 2009.

\bibitem{Pierce-IR}
David Pierce.
\newblock Induction and recursion.
\newblock {\em The De Morgan Journal}, 2(1):99--125, 2012.
\newblock
  \url{http://education.lms.ac.uk/2012/04/david-pierce-induction-and-recursion/}.

\bibitem{Pierce-AO}
David Pierce.
\newblock Abscissas and ordinates.
\newblock {\em Journal of Humanistic Mathematics}, 201x.

\bibitem{Pirsig-L}
Robert~M. Pirsig.
\newblock {\em Lila}.
\newblock Bantam, New York, 1992.

\bibitem{Plato-Loeb-I}
Plato.
\newblock {\em Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus}.
\newblock Number~36 in Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press and
  William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, 1982.
\newblock with an English Translation by Harold North Fowler, first printed
  1914.

\bibitem{MR1200456}
Proclus.
\newblock {\em A Commentary on the First Book of {E}uclid's \emph{{E}lements}}.
\newblock Princeton Paperbacks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
  1992.
\newblock Translated from the Greek and with an introduction and notes by Glenn
  R. Morrow. Reprint of the 1970 edition. With a foreword by Ian Mueller.

\bibitem{Procopius-Buildings}
Procopius.
\newblock {\em On Buildings}.
\newblock Number 343 in Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press,
  Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 1954.
\newblock With an English translation by H. B. Dewing. Reprinted with revisions
  1954.

\bibitem{MR2038833}
Lucio Russo.
\newblock {\em The Forgotten Revolution}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
\newblock How science was born in 300 BC and why it had to be reborn.
  Translated from the 1996 Italian original by Silvio Levy.

\bibitem{Skeat}
Walter~W. Skeat.
\newblock {\em A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the {E}nglish Language}.
\newblock Perigee Books, New York, 1980.
\newblock Original date of this edition not given. First edition 1882.

\bibitem{Smyth}
Herbert~Weir Smyth.
\newblock {\em Greek Grammar}.
\newblock Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1980.
\newblock Revised by Gordon M. Messing, 1956. Eleventh Printing. Original
  edition, 1920.

\bibitem{MR13:419a}
Ivor Thomas, editor.
\newblock {\em Selections Illustrating the History of {G}reek Mathematics.
  {V}ol. {I}. {F}rom {T}hales to {E}uclid}.
\newblock Number 335 in Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press,
  Cambridge, Mass., 1951.
\newblock With an English translation by the editor.

\bibitem{MR13:419b}
Ivor Thomas, editor.
\newblock {\em Selections Illustrating the History of {G}reek Mathematics.
  {V}ol. {II}. {F}rom {A}ristarchus to {P}appus}.
\newblock Number 362 in Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press,
  Cambridge, Mass, 1951.
\newblock With an English translation by the editor.

\bibitem{Vidal-J}
Gore Vidal.
\newblock {\em Julian}.
\newblock Abacus, London, 1993.
\newblock Reprinted 2002.

\bibitem{von-Jan}
Karl von Jan, editor.
\newblock {\em Musici Scriptores {G}raeci. {A}ristoteles, {E}uclides,
  {N}icomachus, {B}acchius, {G}audentius, {A}lypius. Et Melodiarum Veterum
  Quidquid Exstat}.
\newblock Teubner, Leipzig, 1895.

\bibitem{Wordsworth-Ode}
William Wordsworth.
\newblock {\em Intimations of Immortality From Recollections of Early Childhood
  and Other Poems}.
\newblock Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1895.

\bibitem{Zeeman}
E.~C. Zeeman.
\newblock What's wrong with {E}uclid book {V}.
\newblock {\em Bull. London Math. Soc.}, 40:1--17, 2008.
\newblock The 2007 David Crighton Lecture.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
