The method is as follows.

It is required, let us say, to prove that a certain proposition A is

true. We assume as a hypothesis that A is true and, starting from this we find that, if A is true, a
certain other proposition B is true; if B is true, then C; and só on until we arrive at a proposition K
which is admittedly true. The object of the method is to enable us to infer, in the reverse order, that,
since K is true, the proposition A originally assumed is true. Now Aristotle had already made it clear
that false hypothesis might lead to a conclusion which is true. There is therefore a possibility of
error unless a certain precaution is taken. While, for example, B may be a necessary consequence of
A, it may happen that A is not a necessary consequence of B. Thus, in order that the reverse
inference from the truth of K that A is true may be logically justified, it is necessary that each step
in the chain of inferences should be unconditionally convertible. As a matter of fact, a very large
number of theorems in elementary geometry are unconditionally convertible, só that in practice the
difficulty in securing that the sucessive steps shall be convertible is not so great as might be
supposed. But care is always necessary. For example, as Hankel says 1, a proposition may not be
unconditionally convertible in the form in which it is generally quoted. Thus the proposition “The
vertices of all triangles having a common base and constant vertical angle lie on a circle” cannot be
converted into the proposition that “All triangles with common base and vertices lying on a circle
have a constant vertical angle”; for this is only true if the further conditions are satisfied (I) that the
circle passes through the extremities of the common base and (2) that only that part of the circle is
taken as the locus of the vertices which lies on one side of the base. If these conditions are added,
the proposition is unconditionally convertible. Or again, as Zeuthen remarks2, K may be obtained by
a series of inferences in which A or some other proposition in the series of inferences in which A or
some other proposition in the series is only apparently used; this would be the case e.g. when the
method of modern algebra is being employed and the expressions on each side of the sign of
equality have been inadvertently multiplied by some composite magnitude which is in reality equal
to zero.
Although the above extract from Pappus does not make it clear that each step in the chain
of argument must be convertible in the cake taken, he almost implies this in the second part of the
definition of Analysis where, instead of speaking of the consequences B, C... successively following
from A, he suddenly changes the expression and says that we inquire what it is (B) from which A
follows (A being thus the consequence of B, instead of the reverse), and then what (viz. C) is the
antecedent cause of B; and in practice the Greeks secured what was wanted by always insisting on
the analysis being confirmed by subsequent synthesis, that is, they laboriously worked backwards
the whole way from K to A, reversing the order of the analysis, which process would undoubtedly
bring to light any flaw which had crept into the argument through the accidental neglect of the
1 Hankel, p. 139.
2 Zeuthen, p. 103.
necessary precautions.
Reduction ad absurdum a variety of analysis.
In the process of analysis starting from the hypothesis that a proposition A is true and
passing through B, C... as successive consequences we may arrive at a proposition K which, instead
of being admittedly true, is either admittedly false or the contradictory of the original hypothesis A
or of some one or more of the proposition B, C... intermediate between A and K. Now correct
inference from a true proposition cannot lead to a false proposition; and in this case therefore we
may at once conclude, without any inquiry whether the various steps in the argument are
convertible or not, that the hypothesis A is false, for, if it were true, all the consequences correctly
inferred from it would be true and no incompatibility could arise. This method of proving that a
given hypothesis A is false 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.