and as for the method of 'direction,' it is simply a rope of sand—it breaks to pieces wherever you touch it!
Euc. We may take it as a settled thing, then, that you have found no sufficient cause for abandoning either my sequence of Propositions or their numbering, and that all that now remains to be considered is whether any important modifications of my Manual are desirable?
Min. Most certainly.
Euc. Have you met with any striking novelty on the subject of a practical test for the meeting of Lines?
Min. There is one rival to your 12th Axiom which is formidable on account of the number of its advocates—the one usually called 'Playfair's Axiom.'
Euc. We have discussed that matter already (p. 40).
Min. But what have you to say to those who reject Playfair's Axiom as well as yours?
Euc. I simply ask them what practical test, as to the meeting of two given finite Lines, they propose to employ. Not only will they find it necessary to prove, in certain Theorems, that two given finite Lines will meet if produced, but they will even find themselves sometimes obliged to prove it of two Lines, of which the only geometrical fact known is that they possess the very property which forms the subject of my Axiom. I ask them, in short, this question:—'Given two Lines making, with a certain transversal, two interior angles together less than two right angles, how do you propose to prove, without my Axiom, that they will meet if produced?'
Min. The advocates of the 'direction' theory would of course reply, 'We can prove, from the given property,
