Aspects of science

Geometry, it has been satisfactorily shown, had a purely empirical origin. It appears that the earliest geometrical formulæ which have been discovered belong to ancient Egypt, and that all these formulæ served a useful purpose. The oldest of them are concerned with the measurements of areas, a class of problem which the yearly sinking of the Nile rendered of great importance. The formulæ obtained by the ancient Egyptians were usually wrong, although they were approximately correct; they evidently rested on no theoretical basis, but were compendious statements of the results of somewhat rough measurements, a point of view which is borne out by the fact that no proof, nor even an attempt at a proof, is anywhere hinted at. So far as the evidence goes, it seems to be established that geometry, as consisting of logical deductions from stated premises, began with the Greeks. A number of theorems of a fair degree of complexity had been developed before they were reduced to a system; before, that is, the assumptions on which they were based were made explicit. The task of discovering the necessary and sufficient assumptions on which a system of geometry rests is one of the greatest difficulty; the necessary combination of subtlety and rigour is rare. The great systematisation of Greek geometry was effected, of course, by Euclid, and although his reduction of the system to its essential assumptions was not final, his performance was such as to awaken the admiration of great mathematicians in every succeeding century. But there is one point in which this great reduction is notably imperfect—the so-called parallel axiom. It says, essentially, that through a given point only one line can be drawn parallel to a given straight line. It was felt, even by the earliest commentators on Euclid, that this postulate did not possess quite the same degree of self-evidence as was manifested by the others. It was necessary, they felt, to give a proof of this postulate; they attempted to improve on Euclid’s work in a number of minor ways, but it was the parallel axiom which they were most concerned to revise; the proof of this postulate should be contained, they thought, in the other postulates. The attempts to supply this proof were all fruitless, and the sixth century was reached with this nine-hundred-years-old disfigurement still persisting. For some time after the sixth century the world rested from Euclid’s parallel axiom; indeed, it rested from geometry altogether, and the old empirical outlook of the Egyptians, and even their formulæ, again became current. But the Greek culture penetrated to the Arabs, and with the Greek culture came the riddle of Euclid’s axiom. Again proofs were attempted; a famous attempt is that of Nasir Eddin, who flourished in the thirteenth century. In 1663 John Wallis made the important discovery that unless the parallel axiom be assumed, similar figures of different sizes are not possible, that is to say, that if we are to assume that shape is independent of size, then we must assume Euclid’s parallel axiom. Many of these attempts brought out points of interest, but none of them were successful. In the year 1733, however, the whole research took on a new complexion with the publication of Girolamo Saccheri’s Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus. The importance of this work consists in the fact that, although it was written to vindicate Euclid’s parallel axiom once for all, it contains the first real outline of a non-Euclidean geometry.

Saccheri was a Jesuit, and it was in 1690, while he was teaching grammar in Milan, that he first studied the Elements of Euclid. He was a man of very great acumen, and when he, in turn, succumbed to the spell of the parallel postulate, he brought to bear on it a more subtle and rigorous logic than had yet been applied to it. Thirty-six years before he published his treatise on Euclid he had published a book on logic which gives him a high place as a logician. In it he is particularly concerned with investigating the compatibility of different assumptions or postulates. His method was to determine whether a member of a group of postulates is independent of the others by finding a particular case in which the postulate in question is not true while all the others remain true. If such a case can be found, it is obvious that the postulate in question cannot be deduced from the others, else it would be true whenever they were true. This was the method he applied to the parallel postulate of Euclid. He showed that the parallel postulate is equivalent to saying that the three interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. He proceeds, therefore, in accordance with his method, to develop the consequences of supposing them less than, or greater than, two right angles. In the latter case he succeeds in showing that we are led to impossible conclusions, since he assumed, as everybody assumed for more than a century after, that the straight line is of infinite length. But in the former case, the hypothesis that the interior angles of a triangle are together less than two right angles, Saccheri, although he struggled very hard, did not succeed in falling into contradictions. He does not seem to have had the boldness necessary completely to trust his own logic, but the fact remains that, accepting the rest of Euclid’s axioms and denying the parallel axiom, he developed a logically consistent geometry.

There is reason to suppose that Saccheri’s work had some influence on subsequent thought, although its full significance was certainly not perceived. The parallel axiom continued to be investigated, and the total effect of all these efforts was to induce a doubt concerning the absolute necessity of the Euclidean geometry. Such a doubt was very daring; for two thousand years the postulates of Euclid had been accepted as absolutely true; the fact of their existence had profoundly influenced philosophy, and, indeed, theology. But the doubt persisted and grew, until finally, early in the nineteenth century, a perfectly logical and consistent non-Euclidean geometry, one explicitly denying the parallel postulate, was published to the world. As so often happens, the great step was taken by two men independently of one another, Lobatschewski, a Russian, and Bolyai, a Hungarian. It appeared, however, that both had been preceded by that great mathematical genius, Gauss, although he had been too timid to publish his conclusions. The new geometry developed the consequences of that one of Saccheri’s alternatives which supposed the interior angles of a triangle to be less than two right angles. The whole outlook on geometry now assumed a new complexion. Riemann tried the effect of denying the infinity of the straight line and of developing Saccheri’s other alternative. He found he was led to no contradictions. But with Riemann’s work we come to a yet further extension of geometry—the extension to space of four, five, or any number of dimensions. And these investigations, which seemed for some time to constitute the most gratuitous, although the most profound and subtle, exercises of the mind, have now received their complete justification by flowering into the Generalised Principle of Relativity.