This subject is introduced by some observations on the force of cohesion, Galileo seeming to be of opinion that, although it cannot be adequately accounted for by "the great and principal resistance to a vacuum, yet that perhaps a sufficient cause may be found by considering every body as composed of very minute particles, between every two of which is exerted a similar resistance." This remark serves to lead to a discussion on indivisibles and infinite quantities, of which we shall merely extract what Galileo gives as a curious paradox suggested in the course of it. He supposes a basin to be formed by scooping a hemisphere out of a cylinder, and a cone to be taken of the same depth and base as the hemisphere. It is easy to show, if the cone and scooped cylinder be both supposed to be cut by the same plane, parallel to the one on which both stand, that the area of the ring CDEF thus discovered in the cylinder is equal to the area of the corresponding circular section AB of the cone, wherever the cutting plane is supposed to be.[147] He then proceeds with these remarkable words:—"If we raise the plane higher and higher, one of these areas terminates in the circumference of a circle, and the other in a point, for such are the upper rim of the basin and the top of the cone. Now since in the diminution of the two areas they to the very last maintain their equality to one another, it is in my thoughts proper to say that the highest and ultimate terms[148] of such diminutions are equal, and not one infinitely bigger than the other. It seems therefore that the circumference of a large circle may be said to be equal to one single point. And why may not these be called equal if they be the last remainders and vestiges left by equal magnitudes[149]?" We think no one can refuse to admit the probability, that Newton may have found in such passages as these the first germ of the idea of his prime and ultimate ratios, which afterwards became in his hands an instrument of such power. As to the paradoxical result, Descartes undoubtedly has given the true answer to it in saying that it only proves that the line is not a greater area than the point is. Whilst on this subject, it may not be uninteresting to remark that something similar to the doctrine of fluxions seems to have been lying dormant in the minds of the mathematicians of Galileo's era, for Inchoffer illustrates his argument in the treatise we have already mentioned, that the Copernicans may deduce some true results from what he terms their absurd hypothesis, by observing, that mathematicians may deduce the truth that a line is length without breadth, from the false and physically impossible supposition that a point flows, and that a line is the fluxion of a point.[150]