Before discussing the first of these two Axioms, permit me to remind
the Reader that the question before us is not "is it true?" but
"is it axiomatic?", that is, 'does the average human intellect
accept it as true, without proof?' It is a question in
Mental Physiology rather than in Geometry. The 47th Proposition of
Euclid is quite as true as the Axiom 'things that are equal to
the same are equal to one another'; but the average human intellect,
while accepting the latter without proof, does most certainly demand
a good deal of proof before it will accept the former. Intellectual
beings may conceivably exist, to whom Euc. I. 47 is axiomatic; but our
books are not written for them.
Now there is one preliminary step, that is absolutely indispensable
before the human intellect can accept any Axiom[Pg 68] whatever: and that is,
it must attach some meaning to it. We cannot, rationally, either
assent to, or deny, any Proposition the words of which convey to us no
idea.
We have, then, two questions to answer: first, "what idea
is conveyed to the average human intellect by the phrase 'in the
same direction,' when applied to non-coincident Lines?", secondly,
"in accepting the Axiom, that 'Lines, which have the same direction,
make equal angles with all transversals,' to what other assertions are
we committing ourselves?"
If we contemplate a fixed Point in a Plane, and imagine one or more
Lines passing through it, it is not difficult to grasp the following
ideas—that the 'direction' of any such Line is that property of it
which determines its position, now that one Point in it is
already fixed—that any two such Lines form 4 angles, whose
common vertex is the fixed Point—that, if one of those 4 angles be
zero, the 2 Lines coincide; if not, they intersect—that,
in the first case, they have the same direction, in the second,
different directions—and that the difference of the directions
of such Lines is measured by the angle between them.
But these ideas are of little use to us, when confronted with a
given Line and a given Point outside it, and when told to
imagine a new Line drawn, through the given Point, and 'in the
same direction' as the given Line, the 2 Lines having no common
Point. For the directions of the Lines are no longer directly
comparable. There is no use in asking "do they contain a
zero-angle?" when they contain no angle whatever. An angle
cannot exist without a vertex: and where is the vertex?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account