>>12705843Hi. So let me first start with this page.
I've actually been quite irritated with much of this book, computational errors are everywhere, and it is rife with some mathematical missteps.
Here is a perfect example to show you what I mean. (You have the same edition I believe that I do, Wallis' translation/editing was horrible).
You'll note the first error is when he says angle BDE = 33deg57min at the bottom there. How can the exterior angle of a trangle equal the angle inside the triangle? Should it not be 34DEG58min???
In addition, this screws up the rest of the calculations. This is a significant error, it isn't one minute, and the very next page has Copernicus using the degree of that angle meaningfully in a calculation, therefore something went wrong with Copernicus' calculations, because this error translates to the rest of the mathematics.
But, believe it or not my problem is not here.
>>12705852It's here.
It's still in the first example part, however. If you read the last part of those Copernicus is stating that the ratio of the sides of the triangle EFG are known, but I know of no way to tell that for sure, or HOW he can say that, after all the angles aren't all known in that triangle.
The only things he knows, or states that he knows, are FE, FG, and angle FEG. That does not lead to knowledge of the rest of the triangle, something else is needed.
Thank you.
