Contrary to the title of our paper, the Catoptrica is generally regarded as a pseudo-Euclidean work―a late recension of a genuine Euclidean one, probably written by Theon of Alexandria. Almost all historians of science have accepted this interpretation, which was proposed by J. L. Heiberg and later elaborated by A. Lejeune. In this paper the author intends first to examine the validity of this widespread interpretation, focussing mainly on Heiberg's arguments, and secondly to propose an alternative interpretation.
Heiberg's arguments can be divided into three groups, which concern respectively :
(Gl) theoretical contents of the Catoprica
(G2) scanty testimonies in antiquity
(G3) stylistic analyses of the Greek text
(Gl)is, it seems, the most important reason to have led him to the inauthenticity of the work. His arguments in this regard consist of pointing out, on the one hand, inaccurate proof procedures and lack of mathematical rigor(for Propsitions 7-12, 16-18), and, on the other, fallacious assertions(for Postulates 4 & 5). The present author refutes the former by showing Heiberg's misunderstanding of the propositions, and the latter by proposing a new interpretation of the postulates, a kernel of which is the assumption, indicated by the use of 〇 vKerc and supported by the use of the same word in Euclid's Optica, Prop. 3, that observer' s eye moves around the object of sight, looking at the image in the mirror.
With the collapse of reasons in (Gl), Heiberg's argument in (G2) is deemed to lose its force. We havz no right to doubt the truth of both Proclus' ascription of the work to Euclid and Euclid's own allusion to the work in his Optica, Prop.19.
Concerning (G3), it is shown that his argument is far from convincing. It never supports a hypothesis that Theon was a pseudo-Euclid who compiled the work, but rather indicates, against his intention, that the work has same characteristic style as the genuine Euclidean Optica, probably inherited from optical research before Euclid.
Thus if the Optica has the right to claim Euclidean authenticity, the Catoptrica also has, we must admit, the same right in its extant form as handed down to us.
This paper deals with the historical process of various Japanese nomenclature of elements in the 1820s-1880s in Japan.
The first introduction of Lavoisier's terms of elements in Japan was seen in the Ensei Iho Meibutsuko（1822-25） which Genshin Udagawa and Yoan Udagawa compiled from Dutch pharmaceutical books. In this book the Dutch term hoofdstof or grondstof is translated into Japanese as the term genso（元素）.In the book, Yoan Udagawa coined the terms sanso（酸素）suiso（水素）and tanso（炭素）for Dutch terms zuurstof, waterstof and koolstof respectively. Then, he coined the terms chisso（窒素）and enso（塩素）. The present Japanese nomenclature of elements of the suffix-so（素）is based on Yoan's nomenclature. Lavoisier's new concept of elements was described in more detail in the Ensei Iho Meibutsuko-Hoi （published in 1835）.
Morisaburo Ichikawa proposed in the Rika Nikki （published in 1872） that the Japanese terms of all non-metals should have a common ending in-so（素）.His idea of the nomencelature of all non-metals was not generally accepted, although it was favoured by a few chemists.
In the late Edo era （1820s-1860s） the names of many other elements appeared as the transliterations of Chinese characters for the terms used in Western Europe. The use of the transliteration of the Japanese alphabet kana for the elements appeared in the early 1870s. The Chinese character-transliteration became generally less prevalent.
The use of the new transliteration nomenclature of the kana was generally accepted by the early 1880s in the field of chemistry.
The Chineses single word nomenclature of elements adopted in the Hua Xue Chu Jie （"化学初階 " published in 1870） and Hua Xue Jian Yuan （"化学鑑原 " published in 1872） was introduced into Japan in the early 1870s. But it has had little influence on the Japanese nomenclature of elements
I analyze continously the controversy (1962) between K. Kogi and J. Hashimoto concerning the theory of the industrial health tehchnology, and my opinion is as follows:
1) The directive and administrative actions, which are concerned with the man power on the labour process, are divided into two sections by the historical factors. One is to protect the workers health against unhealthy factors, and another is to organize the labour scientifically in a broad sense. When these actions are organized by the management, they are antagonistic to the workers in the real labour process. The development stage of the actions is judged by objective criterion such as the system of applied means.
2) It is necessary to study industrial fatigue not only by the physical and psychological approach, but also by the sociological route.
W. R. Hamilton proposed, in his articles written between 1824 and 1833, the characteristic function to describe the properties of ray systems. It has been usually presumed that he derived the function from the principle of least action. The present paper aims at revealing the historical connection between the above mentioned function and principle.
Firstly discussed are the origin and implication of the principle which he called that of least action. He derived it from the law of reflection and refraction ; what he called ACTION in this process did not imply mechanical action but optical path length. Accordingly, the principle should originally be called that of the shortest optical path length.
Secondly dealt with are the basis of his characteristic function and the way of its extension. It was introduced, not on the basis of the above-mentioned principle, but through analysis of rays in focal mirrors and focal refractors; before long, he noticed that the function was compatible with the principle ; then, for the purpose of expressing the ray systems in inhomogeneous medium, he utilized a refined form of the function ; besides, he formulated the function on the basis of the principle; finally the principle was accepted as an axiom.