The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 07 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
To the sixteenth article you bring no argument, but fall into a loud
_oncethmus_ (the special figure wherewith you grace your oratory),
offended with my unexpected crossing of the doctrine you teach, that
proportion consisteth in a quotient. For that being denied you, your
_a/b - c/d + e/f - g/h + i/k_ comes to nothing, that is, to just as much
as it is worth. But are not you very simple men, to say that all
mathematicians speak so, when it is not speaking? When did you see any
man but yourselves publish his demonstrations by signs not generally
received, except it were not with intention to demonstrate, but to teach
the use of signs? Had Pappus no analytics? or wanted he the wit to
shorten his reckoning by signs? Or has he not proceeded analytically in
a hundred problems (especially in his seventh book), and never used
symbols? Symbols are poor unhandsome, though necessary, scaffolds of
demonstration; and ought no more to appear in public, than the most
deformed necessary business which you do in your chambers. “_But why_,”
say you, “_is this limitation to the proportion of the greater to the
less?_” I will tell you; because iterating of the proportion of the less
to the greater, is a making of the proportion less, and the defect
greater. And it is absurd to say that the taking of the same quantity
twice should make it less. And thence it is, that in quantities which
begin with the less, as one, two, four, the proportion of one to two is
greater than that of one to four, as is demonstrated by Euclid, Elem. 5,
prop. 8; and by consequent the proportion of one to four, is a
proportion of greater littleness than that of one to two. And who is
there, that when he knoweth that the respective greatness of four to
one, is double to that of the respective greatness of four to two, or of
two to one, will not presently acknowledge that the respective greatness
of one to two, or two to four, is double to the respective greatness of
one to four? But this was too deep for such men as take their opinions,
not from weighing, but from reading.