Archimedes' Quadrature of the Parabola
Torricelli's de Dimensione establishes the amazing result that Archimedes' computation of the area of a segment of a parabola is logically equivalent to most of the major geometrical results known at the time. Given its centrality to Torricelli's work, it's useful to review in modern terms the key result in Archimedes' Quadrature of the Parabola, which determines the area of a segment of a parabola in terms of an inscribed triangle:
Proposition 24 of QP: Every segment bounded by a parabola and a chord Qq is equal to four-thirds of the triangle which has the same base as the segment and equal height [Heath, p. 251].

Archimedes' proof of this result (see also, e.g., [Katz, pp. 108-109] or [Boyer, pp. 52-53]) is an application of the method of exhaustion, which was the traditional approach among Greek mathematicians for solving area and volume problems. The proof also hinges on what is essentially a summation formula for a finite geometric series and an ingenious observation about how triangles can be inscribed inside a segment of a parabola. This result about inscribed triangles in turn depends on two more fundamental properties about the nature of the parabola which can be found in [Heath, p. 248]:
- Given any chord Qq in a parabola and the point P on the parabola where the tangent at P is parallel to Qq, the line PV parallel to the axis of the parabola bisects Qq.

- Given Qq and PV as above, if the points W on PV and R on the parabola are such that RW is parallel to Qq, then PVPW=QV2RW2.

With these results in hand, Archimedes constructs a sequence of successively smaller and non-overlapping triangles inscribed inside of the segment of the parabola. Starting with the original triangle △PQq from the proposition, another triangle △PRQ with one-eighth the size of △PQq and inscribed in the parabola along the side of PQ of △PQq is constructed as follows: With Qq bisected at V, consider the point M bisecting QV and the point R on the parabola such that RM is parallel to PV (and hence parallel to the axis of the parabola itself by definition of PV). Label the intersection of RM and PQ by Y and let RW be parallel to Qq.

It follows that RM is 3/4 of PV. Why? From property (2) above, PVPW=QV2RW2=(2MV)2RW2=4⋅RW2RW2=4, because RMVW is a parallelogram (and thus MW=RV). This implies that 14PV=PW and so RM=WV=PV−PW=34PV. Now note that the triangles △QYM and △QPV are similar because RM and PV are parallel. Since QM=12QV, this similarity implies that YM=12PV as well. Hence YR=RM−YM=14PV and so YM=2YR. Thus, △PRQ and △PMQ have the same base (PQ), but the height of △PMQ is twice the height of △PRQ, and it follows that in terms of area △PMQ=2△PRQ.
Likewise, △PQM and △PQV have the same height but △PQV has twice the base of △PQM, so we also have △PQV=2△PQM in terms of area. A similar argument shows that △PQq=2△PQV. It follows that △PRQ=18△QPq, because 8△PRQ=4△QPM=2△PQV=△QPq. A triangle △Pqr with the same ratio to △PQq can likewise be constructed on the sidePq, so altogether the original triangle has four times the total area of the two newly-constructed triangles.

Also, note the geometrically obvious fact that the area of the three triangles together make an even better approximation to the area of the segment of the parabola (which we will denote by Parab(PQq) in what follows) than the first triangle alone.
But why stop there? Each line PQ and Pq is itself the base of a segment of the parabola and rm and RM are parallel to the axis of the parabola (just like PV), so the same construction can be applied to the sides of △PQR and △Pqr, resulting in four new triangles with combined area (14)2△PQq. Obviously, the sum of these seven triangular areas is an even better approximation to the area of the segment of the parabola. And so on. As Archimedes will show eventually (see the discussion of the method of exhaustion below), the difference between the sums of these triangular areas and the area of the sector of the parabola is going to zero as n gets larger. At the nth step of the approximation another (14)n△PQq is added to the approximation, so the total area of the approximation after n stages is the finite geometric series △PQq+14△PQq+(14)2△PQq+⋯+(14)n△PQq.
The next observation in Archimedes' proof is essentially (from our perspective today) an algebraic identity that was designed to understand how this finite geometric series determined by the triangular areas grows as more triangles are added. Note first that for any quantity A, simple arithmetic shows that 14A+13⋅14A=14A+112A=13A. Next, consider a finite sequence A−1,A2,…,An such that Ai=14Ai−1. Since 14Ai+112Ai=13Ai for each i, 14A1+⋯+14An+112A1+⋯+112An=13A1+⋯+13An. But since 4Ai=Ai−1, for i=2,3,…,n, we have 112Ai−1=13Ai, and this equation can be rewritten as 14A1+⋯+14An+13A2+⋅+13An+1=13A1+⋯+13An. By canceling, this becomes 14A1+⋯+14An+13An+1=13A1. Adding A1 to both sides, we have Archimedes' geometric summation formula: A1+14A1+⋯+14An+13An+1=43A1.
If A1=area(△PQq), then (1/4)A1 is the area of the triangles added at the second step, (1/4)A2 is the area of the triangles added at the third step, and so on. So from a modern perspective, the identity A1+14A1+⋯+14An+13An+1=43A1 makes Archimedes' area formula geometrically obvious. The right-hand side never changes as n→∞. On the left-hand side, since An+1=(1/4)n△PQq, 13An+1→0 as n→∞. The remaining terms are the sum of the inscribed, non-overlapping triangular areas, which converge to the area of the parabola. Thus, Archimedes' area formula, Parab(PQq)=43△PQq, follows.
However, Archimedes would never take that step. Greek mathematicians, perhaps stung by the criticisms of Zeno of Elea (490-430BCE) in his paradoxes (or perhaps not--see [Baron, p. 22-25]), did not use infinite processes in formal proofs and never developed the concept of the limit. Instead, Archimedes employed the method of exhaustion, a technique found first in Antiphon, later perfected by Eudoxus, and adopted by Archimedes and others [Boyer, p. 32]. This was the standard method of solving area and volume problems for Greek mathematicians and, unlike our modern approach, doesn't require passage to the limit at any step. But it pays for this conceptual clarity with a lengthy double reductio ad absurdum proof, and that's exactly the sort of proof that Archimedes submits in the Quadrature of the Parabola.
In particular, to show that the area equation Parab(QPq)=43△QPq is true, Archimedes supposes that the equation isn't true. Then there are two possible relations between the areas:
- Parab(QPq)>43△QPq
- Parab(QPq)<43△QPq.
Both of these will be shown to lead to a contradiction.
To show that Parab(QPq)>43△QPq yields a contradiction, Archimedes notes that since each inscribed triangle is greater than half of the parabolic segment in which it lies (see [Heath, p. 248]), the sum of the triangular areas A1+14A1+⋯+14An can be made as close to Parab(QPq) as we want for large enough n. In particular, since 43△QPq<Parab(PQq) by assumption, we must also have 43△QPq<A1+14A1+⋯+14An for some finite number n. However, A1+14A1+⋯+14An<A1+14A1+⋯+14An+13An+1, and his algebraic identity for the geometrical series shows: A1+14A1+⋯+14An+13An+1=43A1=43△PQq, and so 43△QPq<43△QPq. Hence a contradiction.
To show that Parab(QPq)<43△QPq yields a contradiction, note that since An+1=(14)nA1, it follows that An+1 can be made arbitrarily small for some finite n. Since (by assumption) Parab(QPq)<43A1, we have A1+14A1+⋯+14An+13An+1=43A1>Parab(QPq). Because An+1 can be made arbitrarily small, this shows we must eventually have A1+14A1+⋯+14An>Parab(QPq) for some finite n. Hence another contradiction--this time of the fact that each of the non-overlapping regions A−1,A2,…,An is inscribed in the segment of the parabola Parab(QPq), so their sum must be smaller than the area of Parab(QPq).
By trichotomy, Parab(QPq)=43△QPq is the only possibility.