The History of Mathematical Proof in Ancient Traditions

Double proofs

II.4

aliter

. exists in

Th

& gr. lat.

In mg. by a late hand in

P^

VII

.31

aliter

. exists in

Th

& gr. lat. Does not exist in

P^

X.1

aliter

. exists in

Th

& gr. lat.

In mg. by hand

1 in

P^

X.6

aliter

. exists in

Th

& gr. lat.

In mg. by hand

1 in

P^

X.9

aliter

. exists in

Th

& gr. lat.

In mg. by hand

1 in

P^

Changes in order

in Df.

Inversion of Df.

V.6–7 in

P^

Inversion Df.

XI 27–28

(icos.; dodec.) in

P^

(dodec.; icos.) in

Th

& gr. lat.

Modifi

cations

Formulations ≠

Proof of

IX

.19 corrupted in

P^

correct in

Th

Proof in

XI.1 with addition of

explanations ≠ in

P and in

Th

‘solid parallelepiped’ in place of ‘cube’ for

XI.38 in

Th

Modifi

cation of lettering in

XII

.17

IV

.5 Por.,

IV.15 Por.

VI

.19 Por: ‘trigonon’ (= triangle) in

Th

& gr. lat.

& addition

supralin

. in

P , by a late hand;

‘eidos’ in text in

P by hand 1

XII

.7 Por.

Total

17

8

Note:a^

No substitution of proof (!), no change in order for the Propositions; no Lemma which exists in one of the two versions and not in the other. When there

is a double proof, the order is always the same in

P as in

Th

. Th

e diff

erence occurs mostly in the marginal additions of

P (by the copyist = hand 1 or by a

late hand) aft

er consultation with a copy of the family

Th

.