OF THE OPINION OF SOME THAT A TRIANGLE CASTS NO SHADOW ON A PLANE
SURFACE.

Certain mathematicians have maintained that a triangle, of which the
base is turned to the light, casts no shadow on a plane; and this
they prove by saying [5] that no spherical body smaller than the
light can reach the middle with the shadow. The lines of radiant
light are straight lines [6]; therefore, suppose the light to be _g
h_ and the triangle _l m n_, and let the plane be _i k_; they say
the light _g_ falls on the side of the triangle _l n_, and the
portion of the plane _i q_. Thus again _h_ like _g_ falls on the
side _l m_, and then on _m n_ and the plane _p k_; and if the whole
plane thus faces the lights _g h_, it is evident that the triangle
has no shadow; and that which has no shadow can cast none. This, in
this case appears credible. But if the triangle _n p g_ were not
illuminated by the two lights _g_ and _h_, but by _i p_ and _g_ and
_k_ neither side is lighted by more than one single light: that is
_i p_ is invisible to _h g_ and _k_ will never be lighted by _g_;
hence _p q_ will be twice as light as the two visible portions that
are in shadow.

[Footnote: 5--6. This passage is so obscure that it would be rash to
offer an explanation. Several words seem to have been omitted.]

On the relative depth of cast shadows (200-202).