§1.2.5#2συμβαίνει δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις αὐτῷ τῷ δεικνυμένῳ χρῆσθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν·
But it happens even in these cases that one uses the very thing to be proved for the proof.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ Γ κατὰ τοῦ Β καὶ τὸ Β κατὰ τοῦ Α δείκνυται ληφθέντος τοῦ Γ κατὰ τοῦ Α λέγεσθαι, τὸ δὲ Γ κατὰ τοῦ Α διὰ τούτων δείκνυται τῶν προτάσεων, ὥστε τῷ συμπεράσματι χρώμεθα πρὸς τὴν ἀπό δειξιν.
For C is proved of B, and B of A, by assuming that C is said of A; whereas C is proved of A through these premises, so that we use the conclusion for the proof.
Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν στερητικῶν συλλογισμῶν ὧδε δείκνυται ἐξ ἀλλήλων.
In negative syllogisms, reciprocal proof is shown as follows.
ἔστω τὸ μὲν Β παντὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχειν, τὸ δὲ Α οὐδενὶ τῷ Β. συμπέρασμα ὅτι τὸ οὐδενὶ τῷ Γ. εἰ δὴ πάλιν δεῖ συμπεράνασθαι ὅτι τὸ Α οὐδενὶ τῷ Β, ὃ πάλαι ἔλαβεν, ἔστω τὸ μὲν Α μηδενὶ τῷ Γ, τὸ δὲ Γ παντὶ τῷ Β· οὕτω γὰρ ἀνάπαλιν ἡ πρότασις.
Let B belong to every C, and A to no B. The conclusion is that A belongs to no C. If, then, it is necessary to conclude again that A belongs to no B, which one assumed before, let A belong to no C, and C to every B; for in this way the premise is reversed.
εἰ δʼ ὅτι τὸ Β τῷ Γ δεῖ συμπεράνασθαι, οὐκέθʼ ὁμοίως ἀντιστρεπτέον τὸ Α Β (ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ πρότασις, τὸ Β μηδενὶ τῷ Α καὶ τὸ Α μηδενὶ τῷ Β ὑπάρχειν), ἀλλὰ ληπτέον, ᾧ τὸ Α μηδενὶ ὑπάρχει, τὸ Β παντὶ ὑπάρχειν.
But if it is necessary to conclude that B belongs to C, one must no longer convert AB in the same way (for 'B belongs to no A' and 'A belongs to no B' are the same premise), but one must assume that to whatever A belongs to none, B belongs to all.
ἔστω τὸ Α μηδενὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχειν, ὅπερ ἦν τὸ συμπέρασμα· ᾧ δὲ τὸ Α μηδενί, τὸ Β εἰλήφθω παντὶ ὑπάρχειν· ἀνάγκη οὖν τὸ Β παντὶ τῷ Γ ὑπάρχειν.
Let A belong to no C, which was the conclusion; and let it be assumed that to whatever A belongs to none, B belongs to all; it is necessary, then, for B to belong to every C.
ὥστε τριῶν ὄντων ἕκαστον συμπέρασμα γέγονε, καὶ τὸ κύκλῳ ἀποδεικνύναι τοῦτʼ ἔστι, τὸ τὸ συμπέρασμα λαμβάνοντα καὶ ἀνάπαλιν τὴν ἑτέραν πρότασιν τὴν λοιπὴν συλλογίζεσθαι.
So that each of the three propositions has become a conclusion, and this is what it is to prove circularly, namely, taking the conclusion and one of the premises conversely, to syllogize the remaining one.
Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν μέρει συλλογισμῶν τὴν μὲν καθόλου πρότασιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀποδεῖξαι διὰ τῶν ἑτέρων, τὴν δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἔστιν.
In particular syllogisms, it is not possible to prove the universal premise through the others, but it is possible to prove the particular one.
ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀποδεῖξαι τὴν καθόλου, φανερόν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ καθόλου δείκνυται διὰ τῶν καθόλου, τὸ δὲ συμπέρασμα οὐκ ἔστι καθόλου, δεῖ δʼ ἐκ τοῦ συμπεράσματος δεῖξαι καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας προτάσεως.
That it is not possible to prove the universal is clear; for the universal is proved through universals, but the conclusion is not universal, and one must prove from the conclusion and the other premise.
ἔτι ὅλως οὐδὲ γίνεται συλλογισμὸς ἀντιστραφείσης τῆς προτάσεως· ἐν μέρει γὰρ 58b ἀμφότεραι γίνονται αἱ προτάσεις.
Furthermore, a syllogism is not produced at all when the premise is converted; for both premises become particular.
τὴν δʼ ἐπὶ μέρους ἔστιν.
But the particular premise can be proved.
δεδείχθω γὰρ τὸ Α κατὰ τινὸς τοῦ Γ διὰ τοῦ Β. ἐὰν οὖν ληφθῇ τὸ Β παντὶ τῷ Α καὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα μένῃ, τὸ Β τινὶ τῷ ὑπάρξει· γίνεται γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον σχῆμα, καὶ τὸ Α μέσον.
For let A be proved of some C through B. If, therefore, B is assumed to belong to every A, and the conclusion remains, B will belong to some C; for the first figure is produced, and A is the middle term.
εἰ δὲ στερητικὸς ὁ συλλογισμός, τὴν μὲν καθόλου πρότασιν οὐκ ἔστι δεῖξαι, διʼ ὃ καὶ πρότερον ἐλέχθη· τὴν δʼ ἐν μέρει ἔστιν, ἐὰν ὁμοίως ἀντιστραφῇ τὸ Α Β ὥσπερ κἀπὶ τῶν καθόλου, οἷον ᾧ τὸ Α τινὶ μὴ ὑπάρχει, τὸ Β τινὶ ὑπάρχειν·
But if the syllogism is negative, the universal premise cannot be proved, for the same reason as was said before; but the particular one can be proved, if AB is converted in the same way as in the case of universal syllogisms, for instance, that to whatever A does not belong to some, B belongs to some.
ἄλλως γὰρ οὐ γίνεται συλλογισμὸς διὰ τὸ ἀποφατικὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐν μέρει πρότασιν.
For otherwise a syllogism is not produced, because the particular premise is negative.