History of Mathematics 0038

Lecture Notes 6: Archimedes’ Quadratures

1. Work

Archimedes (287-212 BC) is recognised as the greatest mathematician of ancient times. He was
famous in his own time for his mechanical inventions, such as the Archimedean screw for pumping
water and engines of war that terrified Roman soldiers in the siege of Syracuse (in which he died).
He made notable contributions to mathematical physics: he constructed a small planetarium to
show the movement of the sun, moon and planets whose design he demonstrated in On Sphere
Making (now lost); he founded the study of hydrostatics in On Floating Bodies; he proved a number
of theorems on the centre of gravity of triangles and parabolic segments in On the Equilibrium of
Planes. In arithmetic he devised a system for expressing astronomically large numbers. In number
theory he derived a summation formula for an infinite geometric series and inequalities for the sums
of squares. But he is probably most admired for his quadratures, demonstrated in a series of highly
original treatises: The Measurement of a Circle, On Spirals, The Quadrature of the Parabola, On
Conoids and Spheroids, On the Sphere and the Cylinder and The Method. The aim of these works of
quadrature was to express the area and volume of curvilinear figures in terms of known and
constructible figures such as the cylinder, circle or triangle. It seems Archimedes was most proud of
his theorem that a sphere is 2/3 the volume of its circumscribed cylinder, equivalent to the formula
4/3  r3 for the volume of a sphere (see Appendix 2 and 4). At his request a sculpture of a sphere
within a cylinder was carved upon his tomb. His editor, Sir Thomas Heath, described Archimedes’
work as ‘a sum of mathematical achievement unsurpassed by any one man in the world’s history’.

2. Technique of Quadrature

The key to Archimedes’ quadratures is Eudoxus’ method of exhaustion which underpins his method
of approximating curved figures by inscribing and/or circumscribing regular figures of computable
area or volume such as polygons, circles and cylinders. But each quadrature is different, based on
the specific geometrical features of the figure under investigation rather than on any general
algorithm. Archimedes generally proved his results by the technique of double contradiction,
showing that the area or volume can be neither more nor less than the proposed ratio. This
technique of course depends on knowing the right answer in the first place. But given the synthetic
style of his geometrical treatises (with the exception of one passage in On the Sphere and Cylinder
where the method of analysis and synthesis is used), the analysis which Archimedes employed to
obtain the right answer remained hidden from his successors. It was not until the early twentieth
century when a treatise, the Method, thought to be lost, was rediscovered after almost two
thousand years that Archimedes’ method of analysis was revealed.
 2

3. The Area of a Circle

Proposition 1 of the Measurement of a Circle states the area of a circle is equal to the area of a right
angled triangle K in which one of the sides about the right angle is equal to the radius and the
other equal to the circumference of the circle:

The key to this quadrature is the method of exhaustion which ensures that a circle can be
compressed as nearly as desired between a series of inscribed and circumscribed regular polygons.
This can be achieved by doubling the number of sides, provided that each new polygon in the
inscribed series encompasses half or more of the remaining area while each new polygon in the
circumscribed series excludes half or more of the remaining area. Archimedes included a proof that
this condition is satisfied in the case of the circumscribed polygons but evidently regarded the case
of the inscribed polygons as too obvious to require proof. He then proceeded to prove the theorem
by contradiction.

On the assumption that K is smaller than the circle, he inscribed a polygon greater than K within the
circle. But since the perpendicular ON from the centre to the side of the polygon is less than the
radius of the circle (and so less than one of the sides about the right angle in K) while the perimeter
of the polygon is less than the circumference of the circle (and so less than the other side about the
right angle in K), the polygon must be smaller than K, which is a contradiction.

But on the assumption that K is greater than the circle, he circumscribed a polygon smaller than K
about the circle. But since the perpendicular OA from the centre to the side of the polygon is equal
to the radius of the circle (and so equal to one of the sides in K) while the perimeter of the polygon is
greater than the circumference of the circle (and so greater than the other side of K), the polygon
must be larger than K, which is also a contradiction.

Therefore, since the area of the circle is neither greater nor smaller than K, it must be equal to K.
QED.
 3

4. The Ratio of the Circumference of a Circle to its Diameter

In Proposition 2 of the Measurement of a Circle Archimedes provided lower and upper bounds for
the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. This ratio (only denoted by  in the
eighteenth century) is given as

3 10/71 < 6336/2017¼ <  < 14688/4673½ < 3 1/7.

In order to obtain these bounds, starting with a regular hexagon, he inscribed and circumscribed a
regular polygon of 96 sides within and around a circle. Using simple trigonometry and Euclid’s
theorem on the proportionality of the sides of similar triangles, he was able to compute the
perimeter of each of these polygons in terms of the diameter of the circle. These ratios provided him
with the required lower and upper bounds. Archimedes’ values, refined by Apollonius, were the
most accurate approximation of π in the ancient world.

5. The Quadrature of the Spiral

Archimedes apparently invented his spiral in order to square the circle (see Lecture Notes 4). He
defined the spiral in a letter to Dositheus (see Appendix 1) as follows:

‘If a straight line of which one extremity remains fixed is made to revolve at a uniform rate in a
plane until it returns to the position from which it started, and if, at the same time as the straight
line revolves, a point moves at a uniform rate along the straight line starting from the fixed
extremity, the point will describe a spiral in the plane.’

In his treatise On Spirals Archimedes proved that the area of the region bounded by the first turn of
the spiral and the initial line is one third of the area of the first circle (see Appendix 2). In modern
terms, if the equation of the spiral is r = a, then the radius of the first circle is given by r = 2a and
the area C of the first circle is  (2a)2 = 4π3a2. Archimedes’ theorem states that the area S of the
spiral region is given by S = ⅓ C = 43a2/3:

Archimedes proved this quadrature by compressing the area beneath the spiral between a series of
circle sectors, such sectors being easily computed (see Appendix 2).

4
 6. The Quadrature of the Parabola

In the Quadrature of the Parabola Archimedes proved a series of propositions culminating in the
theorem that the area of a parabolic segment is equal to 4/3 the area of a triangle having the same
base as the segment and equal height:

Archimedes proved that the area of the parabolic segment APB is 4/3 the area of triangle APB,
where P is the vertex of the segment, the tangent at P being parallel to the base AB. He obtained the
proof by double contradiction following a skilful use of the method of exhaustion (see Appendix 3).
His proof also included an ingenious finite summation formula (see Appendix 4). However his task
was made easier by the fact that he already knew the right answer in the first place, having deduced
it by his ‘mechanical method’ (see Section 8 below and Appendix 5).

7. The Quadrature of the Sphere

In his treatise On the Sphere and Cylinder Archimedes provided geometrical proofs of the theorem
that the surface of any sphere is equal to four times its greatest circle, a result equivalent to the
formula 4 π r2 for the area of a sphere of radius r, and the theorem that any cylinder having its base
equal to the greatest circle of those in the sphere and height equal to the diameter of the sphere is
itself half as great again as the sphere, a result is equivalent to the formula 4/3 π r3 for the volume
of a sphere of radius r (see Appendix 6). Archimedes was particularly proud of this latter theorem,
which he had originally derived by his mechanical method (see Appendix 7), and he asked that an
image of a sphere inscribed within a cylinder should be carved on his tombstone.

8. The Method

Proof by contradiction depends on knowing the right answer in the first place. Archimedes wrote his
treatise The Method in order to provide his successors with an insight into the mechanical method
by which he had obtained some of his results (see Appendix 8). His method in the case of solids of
revolution was to inscribe the unknown solid within a constructible solid of known centre of gravity.
Then by making a cut through the whole configuration perpendicular to the line of symmetry, he
would ‘weigh’ a circular cross section of the unknown figure against a circular cross section of the
known figure across an imagined fulcrum using the law of the lever. This law states that two weights
placed on a lever are in equilibrium if the ratio of their weights is inversely proportional to the ratio
of their distances from the fulcrum. On the assumption that every solid is composed of an infinite
number of parallel planes, the entire unknown figure could be weighed in this way against the
known figure, so that the volume of the former could then be expressed in terms of the volume of
the latter.
5
Having obtained the right answer by this method, Archimedes would then seek to prove the
quadrature by a rigorous geometrical argument. Unfortunately the treatise disappeared in the early
Christian era and was only rediscovered in 1906. Twenty years ago the original palimpsest sold for
over two million dollars at auction.

In Proposition 4 of the Method Archimedes showed that the volume of a segment of a paraboloid is
½ the volume of the cylinder and 3/2 times the volume of the cone having the same base and
height.

A triangle and a parabola inscribed within a rectangle are rotated about the axis DA to generate,
respectively, a cone BAC, a paraboloid BOAPC and a cylinder BEFC. DA is produced to H where
HA = DA. A plane NSM perpendicular to the axis cuts the cylinder in a cross-sectional circle of radius
SN, the paraboloid in a circle of radius SP and the cone in a circle of radius ST.

Since BOAPC is a parabola, DA : AS = DC2 : SP2. But HA = DA and DC = SN, so HA : AS = SN2 : SP2
or HA . SP2 = AS . SN2. Therefore, since the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its radius,

HA . area of circle in paraboloid = AS . area of circle in cylinder.

6
Suppose now the whole configuration is flipped on its side, so that HD can be regarded as the bar of
a balance with the fulcrum at A:

On the assumption that the ‘weight’ of the circles is proportional to their areas, it follows by the law
of the lever that the circle in the paraboloid of radius SP, if placed at H at a distance HA from the
fulcrum, will be in equilibrium with the circle in the cylinder of radius SN at a distance AS from the
fulcrum i.e. in the place where it is.

The same will be true of the corresponding circular sections of the paraboloid and cylinder cut by
any plane perpendicular to the axis. Assuming that both paraboloid and cylinder are composed of
an infinite number of parallel planes, it follows that as the cutting plane moves horizontally from EF
to BC, it will exhaust the volumes of both the paraboloid and the cylinder. Therefore the whole
paraboloid placed at H at a distance HA from the fulcrum will balance the whole cylinder in the place
where it is. But the centre of gravity of the cylinder lies at K where AK = ½ HA. It follows by the law
of the lever that the volume of the paraboloid is half the volume of the cylinder, as was to be shown.

Eudoxus’ theorem that the volume of a cone is 1/3 the volume of a cylinder having the same base
and height was then used to establish that the volume of the paraboloid = 3/2 the volume of the
cone.

Archimedes explained at the end that ‘the fact here stated is not actually demonstrated by the
argument used but that argument has given a sort of indication that the conclusion is true’.
Presumably his reluctance to rely on a mechanical derivation alone was due to the fact that the
method depends, not only on Democritus’ intuitive but somewhat imprecise idea that plane figures
are composed of an infinite number of parallel lines while solids of revolution are composed of an
infinite number of parallel planes, but also on the notion that infinitely thin circular strips can be
weighed. For this reason Archimedes also provided rigorous geometrical proofs of his quadratures.

7
These results can be proved by calculus as follows. If DA = k, DC = b, SP = y and ST = z, then the
equation of the parabola APC is y2 = x, so that in particular b2 = k, while the equation of the straight
line ATP is z = xb/k. Hence

Volume of cylinder =  b2 k =  k2

Volume of paraboloid =   k0 y2 dx =   k0 x dx =  x2/2 k0 =  k2/2

Volume of cone =   k0 z2 dx =   k0 x2(b/k)2dx = (b2/k2) x3/3 k0 = 1/3  k2

9. Postscript

With the exception of On the Measurement of Circles and On the Sphere and Cylinder, which were
known and admired, Archimedes’ work was not generally available by the early centuries of the
Christian era. In particular The Method, in which Archimedes explained how he had derived many of
his results in the hope that his successors might discover theorems of their own in the same way,
had vanished. In the ninth century Leon the Geometer, who restored the University of
Constantinople, gathered all the works of Archimedes he could find and had a manuscript edition
made. A copy of the manuscript ended up in the Papal Library in Rome where the greater part of it
was translated into Latin in 1269 by William of Moerbeke. Unfortunately William was not a
mathematician and there were several mistakes in his translation. In any case the level of
mathematics in medieval Europe was too low for Archimedes’ work to be understood. Archimedes’
treatises were translated again in the Renaissance, most notably in 1558 by Federigo Commandino
who also supplied explanatory notes. As a result European mathematicians of the seventeenth
century such as Fermat, Wallis, Newton and Leibniz were familiar with many of Archimedes’ results.
Fermat and Leibniz in particular were influenced by Archimedes’ idea of inscribing polygons within a
curved figure. But it is probably true to say that Archimedes’ work was easier to admire than to
imitate. He provided no algorithm of quadrature. Each of his quadratures was based on the specific
geometric features of the problem at hand and his technique of proof by double contradiction
depended on knowing the right answer in the first place. Unfortunately his successors were unable
to understand how he had found the right answer. Wallis made this point when he said that ‘not
only Archimedes but nearly all the ancients so hid from posterity their method of analysis (though it
is clear that they had one) that more modern mathematicians found it easier to invent a new
analysis than seek out the old’. Unfortunately by the time the Method was rediscovered in 1906
Archimedes’ mechanical method of quadrature had long been superseded by the integral calculus.
 8

Appendix 1: Letter to Dositheus on Spirals

9
Appendix 2: Archimedes Quadrature of the Spiral

Archimedes achieved a rigorous geometrical quadrature of the spiral by his usual method of
approaching the unknown through the known, in this case by expressing the area beneath the spiral
in terms of the area of the circle, whose quadrature he had already obtained. He divided the first
circle into n equal sectors whose radii intersect the spiral in the points 0, A1 , A2 , … An :

Consequently the spiral region S is bounded above by a region F consisting of circular sectors with
radii OA1 , OA2 , … OAn , and bounded below by a region f consisting of circular sectors with radii
0, OA1 , OA2 , … OAn-1. Since the lengths of the radii lie in arithmetic progression, they can be taken
for convenience as 0, 1, 2, … n.

The method of exhaustion guarantees that S can be compressed as nearly as desired between
F and f simply by increasing the number of sectors.

Since the area of a circular sector is proportional to the square of its radius, the ratio of the area of F
to the area of C is given by

F/C = (12 + 22 + … + n2) / n. n2

while the ratio of f to C is given by

f/C = (02 + 12 + … + (n  1)2) / n.n2.

At this point Archimedes proceeded to a proof by contradiction. First he assumed that the area S of
the spiral region is less than 1/3 C. He took n large enough to ensure that the difference between F
and S is less than the difference between 1/3 C and S, which implies that F < 1/3 C. He then used an
inequality proved in On Conoids

n3 /3 < 12 + 22 + …. + n2

to show that F is greater than 1/3 C, contradicting the first hypothesis.

10
Next he assumed that S is greater than 1/3 C. In this case he took n large enough to ensure that the
difference between S and f is less than the difference between S and 1/3 C, which implies that
f > 1/3 C. He then used the inequality

02 + 12 + 22 + ….+ (n – 1)2 < n3 /3

to show that f < 1/3 C, contradicting the alternative hypothesis. Hence S = 1/3 C. QED.

This result can be proved by calculus as follows. The area A beneath the spiral r = a is given by

A = ½  20 r2 d = ½  20 (a )2 d = ½ a2  3/3  20 = 4/3 a2 3,

whereas the area C of the first circle of radius 2a is given by

C =  (2a)2 = 4 a2 3 .

Appendix 3: Archimedes Quadrature of a Parabolic Segment

First a few facts about the parabola, which Archimedes would undoubtedly have learned from
Euclid’s treatise on the conics, now lost. Given a parabolic segment with base AB, the point P on the
curve farthest from the base is called the vertex and the perpendicular distance from P to the base
(not drawn in the figure above) is its height. The straight line PM from the vertex to the midpoint of
the base at M is called a diameter. All diameters such as P1M1 and P2M2 are parallel to one another.
Furthermore the base AB is parallel to the tangent A’B’ which touches the curve at P. Thus the
diameter and the tangent can be used as reference lines (in effect oblique coordinates) by which the
position of a point on the curve can be denoted. The symptom of a parabola, which in modern
notation can be expressed by the equation y2= px, implies that the square of an ordinate P1V parallel
to the tangent is proportional to the distance PV along the diameter. This implies, using modern
notation, that P1V2/PV = BM2/PM.

11
Archimedes’ aim was to show that the area of the parabolic segment APB is equal to 4/3 the area of
the inscribed triangle APB having the same base and height. He intended to demonstrate his
quadrature by means of Eudoxus’ method of exhaustion. This implies that the area of a curved figure
can be approximated as nearly as desired by a series of inscribed polygons provided that each new
polygon encompasses more than half of the remaining area.

Now a parallelogram AA’B’B can be circumscribed about the parabolic segment APB. Since the area
of the inscribed triangle APB is half the area of the circumscribed parallelogram, it is clear that the
area of the triangle is more than half the area of the parabolic segment.

Archimedes then considered the two smaller parabolic segments PP1B and AP2B with vertices at P1
and P2 respectively. The diameters P1M1 and P2M2 of these segments, since they bisect their bases PB
and AP, also bisect BM and MA at M1 and M2 respectively. And in the same way as above, the
inscribed triangles PP1B and AP2P encompass more than half of the two segments.

And in each of the four segments created by these triangles he inscribed a new triangle having the
same base and height. Continuing in this way, he could be sure that at each stage the area of the
inscribed triangles would constitute more than half the area of the corresponding segments.
Eudoxus’ theorem would then guarantee that the polygon so formed would gradually ‘exhaust’ the
area of the original parabolic segment.

The next step was to show that the total areas of the triangles created at each stage is ¼ of the area
of the triangles constructed at the previous stage. Archimedes proved this as follows. BM = 2 M 1M,
so BM2 = 4 M1M2 = 4 P1V2. But the symptom of a parabola implies that
PV/PM = P1V2/BM2 = P1V2/4 P1V2, so that PM = 4 PV, whence PM = 4/3 P1M1. Now by the similarity of
triangles BYM1 and BPM, PM = 2 YM1, whence YM1 = 2 P1Y. It follows from Euclid’s theorem on the
ratio of triangles on the same base and between the same parallels that

area triangle PP1B = ½ area triangle PM1B = ¼ area triangle PMB.

The next step was to obtain the area of the polygon. Using the symptom of a parabola
together with Euclid’s theorem that the sides of similar triangles are proportional and his theorem
that triangles on the same base and between the same parallels are equal in area, Archimedes
proved that

area triangle PP1B + area triangle PP2B = ¼ area triangle APB.

Since each set of triangles is constructed in the same way, it follows that the area of the new
triangles formed at every stage is equal to ¼ of the area of the triangles constructed at the previous
stage. Therefore if the area of triangle ABP, using modern notation, is denoted by a, the area Tn of
the polygon obtained after n steps will be given by

Tn = a + a/4 + a/42 + … + a/4n.

The area of the parabolic segment will differ from Tn by less than any given magnitude providing n is
taken sufficiently large.

12
At this point a modern mathematician would simply have summed the geometric series
a + a/4 + a/42 + … + a/4n + … , taking the limit as n approaches infinity, to obtain the sum
S = a(1 – ¼ n+1)/(1 – ¼) = a/(1 – ¼) = 4a/3. But Archimedes did not possess the concept of a limit, an
idea first conceived in the seventeenth century by Wallis and invoked by Newton to justify his
method of fluxions or differential calculus. Furthermore the Greeks regarded the notion of infinity
with suspicion. Hence there was no formula available to Archimedes to sum an infinite series. But
he knew the area of the parabolic segment to be 4/3 the area of triangle APB, having deduced this
result by a ‘mechanical’ method (see Appendix 5 below). He was also in possession of his own finite
summation formula (see Appendix 4 below):

a + a/4 + a/42 + … + a/4n + (1/3) a/4n ( = Tn + (1/3) a/4n) = 4a/3.

This enabled him to obtain a proof by contradiction as follows. Suppose that the area P of the
parabolic segment is not equal to K = 4a/3. If P is greater than K , then a sufficient number of
triangles can be inscribed within the segment to enlarge the polygon so as to ensure that
P − Tn < P – K. But this would imply that Tn > K, which is impossible because the summation formula
above shows that Tn < 4a/3 = K. On the other hand if P is less than K, then n can be taken sufficiently
large that a/4n < K – P. But then K – Tn = (1/3) a/4n < a/4n < K – P, which would imply that Tn > P,
which is also impossible since the area of the inscribed triangles cannot exceed the area of the
parabolic segment. Hence P = K = 4a/3, as required.

Archimedes’ result can be verified by calculus in the simple case of the parabola y = a2 x2. The area
of the inscribed triangle with vertices at (a, 0), (0, a2), (a, 0) = ½ a2 2a = a3, while the area of the
parabolic segment cut off by the x-axis =  a a a2 x2 dx = a2x  x3/3a a = 4/3 a3.

Archimedes may also have tried but failed to obtain the area of a segment of an ellipse and a
hyperbola.

Appendix 4: Archimedes’ Finite Summation Formula

Archimedes derived the finite summation formula used in his quadrature of a parabolic segment as
follows. Suppose A, B,C, D, .. are the terms of a geometric series with common ratio ¼
i.e. B = ¼ A, C = ¼ B, D = ¼ C, … etc.

Take b, c, d, … such that b = 1/3 B, c = 1/3 C, d =1/3 D, …etc. Then B + b = 1/3 A, C + c = 1/3 B,
D + d = 1/3 C, … etc. and therefore

B + C + D + … + Z + b + c + d + … + z = 1/3 (A + B + C + … + Y).

But

b + c + d + … + y = 1/3 (B + C + D + … + Y).

13
By subtraction,

B + C + D + … + Z + z = 1/3 A

or

A + B + C + … + Z + 1/3 Z = 4/3 A.

Appendix 5: Archimedes’ Derivation of the Quadrature of a Parabolic Segment

In Proposition 1 of The Method Archimedes presented a derivation of the theorem that the area of a
parabolic segment is 4/3 the area of the inscribed triangle, a theorem rigorously proved in his
treatise The Quadrature of the Parabola (see above). In this two dimensional example of his
mechanical method, he first inscribed the segment within a triangle of known centre of gravity and
then ‘weighed’ lines in the segment against lines in the triangle about an imagined fulcrum placed at
one extremity of the configuration along the line of symmetry. On the assumption that every plane
figure is composed of an infinite number of parallel lines, he was able to determine the area of the
parabolic segment in terms of the circumscribed triangle and then by extension in terms of the
triangle inscribed within the segment:

14
A.

15
Appendix 6: Letter to Dositheus on the Sphere and Cylinder

Appendix 7: Quadrature of the Sphere by the Method

In Proposition 2 of the Method Archimedes derived the theorem of which he was apparently most
proud and which he asked should be carved on his tombstone, namely that the volume of a sphere
is two thirds of the volume of its circumscribed cylinder. This result is equivalent to the formula
that the volume of a sphere of radius r is 4/3 π r3.

16
He obtained these results by using the law of the lever to balance a sphere and a cone against a
cylinder:

The figure represents a circle ABCD of radius r, a right angled triangle EAF of height 2r, a square
MNLK of side 2r and a rectangle HGFE whose sides are given by 2r and 4r. The entire configuration is
then rotated about the axis AC to generate a cone EAF, a sphere ABCD, a smaller cylinder MNLK and
a larger cylinder HGFE.

Archimedes aims to show that the volume of the sphere ABCD = 2/3 the volume of the
circumscribed cylinder MNLK.

17
His proof, slightly modernised, runs as follows. Let PQ represent a plane perpendicular to the axis,
cutting the larger cylinder at P, the sphere at Y and the cone at T, creating a circular cross section of
radius XP = 2r in the cylinder HGFE, a circular cross section of radius XY = y in the sphere and a
circular cross section of radius XT = AX = x in the cone EAF. Produce CA to W where WA = CA = 2r.
Then by Euclid’s theorem (Elements 6, 13)

XY2 = AX. XC

i.e. y2 = x.(2r – x)

= 2rx − x2.

→ x2 + y2 = 2rx

→ (π x2 + π y2) / π (2r)2 = x/2r

→ (sum of areas of circles in cone EAF and sphere ABCD) / area of circle in cylinder HGFE = x/2r.

 (sum of areas of the circles in the cone and sphere) . 2r = (area of circle in cylinder) . x.

If WC is regarded as the bar of a balance with the fulcrum at A, it follows that the circle in the cone
EAF (C1) and the circle in the sphere ABCD (C2) will be in equilibrium with the circle in the cylinder
HGFE, as shown in the figure.

Now ‘exhaust’ the volume of the whole configuration by means of an infinite number of vertical
planes such as PQ. It follows, by the law of the lever (treating WC as the bar of a balance with the
fulcrum at A), that the volumes of cone EAF and sphere ABCD, if placed at W, will be in equilibrium
with the volume of the cylinder HGFE in the place where it is. But the cone and sphere at W are
twice as far from the fulcrum as the centre of gravity of the cylinder. Therefore

volume of cone EAF + volume of sphere ABCD = ½ volume of cylinder HGFE

= 2 volume of cylinder MNLK .

But by Eudoxus’ theorem, the volume of the cone EAF is one third the volume of cylinder HGFE and
so four thirds the volume of cylinder MNLK. Hence

4/3 volume of MNLK + volume of sphere ABCD = 2 volume of MNLK

or

volume of sphere ABCD = 2/3 volume cylinder MNLK,

as was to be shown.

18
Appendix 8: Letter to Eratosthenes on the Method
 19

Further Reading

*Archimedes, Encyclopedia Britannica, britannica.com

*Archimedes, MacTutor, mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk

*Archimedes, Works, ed. T. Heath, oll.libertyfund.org, oll-resources.s3.amazonaws.com

*Archimedes, Works, wilbourhall.org

*Thomas Heath, Archimedes, gutenberg.org

*Archimedes, The Method, wilbourhall.org

*V. Katz, A History of Mathematics, pp. 103-112, UCL library online

C. H. Edwards, The Historical Development of the Calculus, isidore

J.Fauvel and J. Gray, ed., The History of Mathematics

Grateful acknowledgement to C. H. Edwards and S. Hollingdale for use of their texts in preparing
these notes.