5. _Catoptrica_, an optical work from which Theon of Alexandria quotes a remark about refraction.
6. _On Sphere-making_, a mechanical work on the construction of a sphere to represent the motions of the heavenly bodies (cf. pp. 5-6 above).
Arabian writers attribute yet further works to Archimedes, (1) On the circle, (2) On a heptagon in a circle, (3) On circles touching one another, (4) On parallel lines, (5) On triangles, (6) On the properties of right-angled triangles, (7) a book of _Data_; but we have no confirmation of these statements.
The famous French geometer, Chasles, drew an instructive distinction between the predominant features of the geometry of the two great successors of Euclid, namely, Archimedes and Apollonius of Perga (the "great geometer," and author of the classical treatise on Conics). The works of these two men may, says Chasles, be regarded as the origin and basis of two great inquiries which seem to share between them the domain of geometry. Apollonius is concerned with the _Geometry of Forms and Situations_, while in Archimedes we find the _Geometry of Measurements_, dealing with the quadrature of curvilinear plane figures and with the quadrature and cubature of curved surfaces, investigations which gave birth to the calculus of the infinite conceived and brought to perfection by Kepler, Cavalieri, Fermat, Leibniz and Newton.
In geometry Archimedes stands, as it were, on the shoulders of Eudoxus in that he applied the method of exhaustion to new and more difficult cases of quadrature and cubature. Further, in his use of the method he introduced an interesting variation of the procedure as we know it from Euclid. Euclid (and presumably Eudoxus also) only used _inscribed_ figures, "exhausting" the figure to be measured, and had to invert the second half of the _reductio ad absurdum_ to enable approximation from below (so to speak) to be applied in that case also. Archimedes, on the other hand, approximates from above as well as from below; he approaches the area or volume to be measured by taking closer and closer _circumscribed_ figures, as well as inscribed, and thereby _compressing_, as it were, the inscribed and circumscribed figure into one, so that they ultimately coincide with one another and with the figure to be measured. But he follows the cautious method to which the Greeks always adhered; he never says that a given curve or surface is the _limiting form_ of the inscribed or circumscribed figure; all that he asserts is that we can approach the curve or surface _as nearly as we please_.