Wilson's, both rest on the same vicious Axiom, that different Lines can exist, which possess a property called 'the same direction'—a phrase which is intelligible enough when used of two Lines which have a common point, but which, when applied to two Lines not known to have a common point, can neither be defined, nor constructed. We need not pursue the subject further. Have you provided any test for knowing whether two given finite Lines will meet if produced?
Nie. We have not thought it necessary.
Min. Then the only other remark I have to make on this singularly compendious treatise is that, of the 35 Theorems which Euclid gives us in his First Book, it reproduces just sixteen: the omissions being 16, 17, 25, 26 (2), 27 and 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 48.
Nie. Most of those are in the book. For example, § 30 answers to Euc. I. 29.
Min. Only by proving that separational Lines have the same direction: which you have not done.
Nie. At any rate we have Euc. I. 47 in our § 256.
Min. Oh, no doubt! Long after going through ratios, which necessarily include incommensurables; and long after the Axiom (§ 99) 'Infinitely small quantities may be neglected'! No, no: so far as beginners are concerned, there is no Euc. I. 47 in this book!
My conclusion is that, however useful this Manual may be to an advanced student, it is not adapted to the wants of a beginner.
