furnishes an indirect method of proving that a given hypothesis A is true, since we have

only to take the contradictory of A and to prove that it is false. This is the method of reductio ad
absurdum, which is therefore a variety of analysis. The contradictory of A, or not-A, will generally
include more than one case and, in order to prove its falsity, each of the cases must be separately
disposed of: e.g., if it is desired to prove that a certain part of a figure is equal to some other part,
we take separetely the hypotheses (1) that it is greater, (2) that it is less, and prove that each of
these hypotheses leads to a conclusion either admittedly false or contradictory to the hypothesis
itself or to some one of its consequences.
Analysis as applied to problems.
It is in relation to problems that the ancient analysis has the greatest significance, because
it was the one general method which the Greeks used for solving all “the more abstruse problems”
(τὰ ἀσαϕέστερα των προβλημάτων)1.
We have, let us suppose, to construct a figure satisfying a certain set of conditions. If we
are to proceed at all methodically and not by mere guesswork, it is first necessary to “analyse” those
conditions. To enable this to be done we must get them clearly in our minds, which is only possible
by assuming all the conditions to be actually fulfilled, in other words, by supposing the problem
solved. Then we have to transform those conditions, by all the means which practice in such cases
has taught us to employ, into other conditions which are necessarily fulfilled if the original
conditions are, and to continue this transformation until we at lenght arrive at conditions which we
are in a position to satisfy 2. In others words, we must arrive at some relations which enables us to
construct a particular part of the figure which, it is true, has been hypothetically assumed and even
drawn, but which nevertheless really requires to be found in order that the problem may be solved.
From that moment the particular part of the figure becomes one of the data, and a fresh relation has
to be found which enables a fresh part of the figure to be determined by means of the original data
and the new one together. When this is done, the second new part of the figure also belongs to the
data; and we proceed in this way until all the parts of the required figure are found 3. The first part of
the analysis down to the point of discovery of a relation which ebables us to say that a certain new
part of the figure not belonging to the original data is given, Hankel calls the transformation; the
second part, in which it is proved that all the remaining parts of the figure are “given,” he calls the
resolution. Then follows the synthesis, which also consists of two parts, (1) the construction, in the
order in which it has to be actually carried out, and in general following the course of the second
part of the analysis, the resolution; (2) the demonstration that the figure obtained does satisfy all the
given conditions, which follows the steps of the first part of the analysis, the

1 Proclus, p. 242, 16, 17.

2 Zeuthen, p. 93.
3 Hankel, p. 141.