Porism
Later he investigated the subject of porisms generally in a work entitled De porismatibus traclatus; quo doctrinam porisrnatum satis explicatam, et in posterum ab oblivion tutam fore sperat auctor, and published after his death in a volume, Roberti Simson opera quaedam reliqua (Glasgow, 1776).Simon wrote that Pappus's definition is too general, and that he substituted it as: Porisma est propositio in qua proponitur demonstrare rem aliquam, vel plures datas esse, cui, vel quibus, ut et cuilibet ex rebus innumeris, non quidem datis, sed quae ad ea quae data sunt eandem habent rationem, convenire ostendendum est affectionem quandam communem in propositione descriptam.Playfair defined a porism as "[a] proposition affirming the possibility of finding such conditions as will render a certain problem indeterminate or capable of innumerable solutions."[4] Although Playfair's definition of a porism appears to be most favoured in England, Simson's view has been most generally accepted abroad, and had the support of Michel Chasles.This was followed in the same journal and in La Science by a controversy between Breton and A. J. H. Vincent, who disputed the interpretation given by the former of Pappus's text, and declared himself in favour of Frans van Schooten's idea, put forward in his Mathematicae exercitationes (1657).[4] An interesting hypothesis about porisms was put forward by H. G. Zeuthen (Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertum, 1886, ch.