Book, Paragraph

 1      I,  1 |           triangle are equal to two right angles; but it was only
 2      I,  1 |            angles were equal to two right angles? No: clearly he knows
 3      I,  3 |             prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse
 4      I,  4 |            triangle as such has two right angles, for it is essentially
 5      I,  4 |            essentially equal to two right angles.~An attribute belongs
 6      I,  4 |       equality of its angles to two right angles is not a commensurately
 7      I,  4 |             its angles equal to two right angles, this attribute cannot
 8      I,  4 |         angles are not equal to two right angles. On the other hand,
 9      I,  4 |             its angles equal to two right angles, yet isosceles triangle
10      I,  4 |             its angles equal to two right angles, or to possess any
11      I,  4 |        again (2) is equality to two right angles a commensurately
12      I,  5 |           another because each is a right angle, but simply on their
13      I,  5 |             its angles equal to two right angles qua isosceles. An
14      I,  5 |             angles are equal to two right angles, whether by means
15      I,  5 |             its angles equal to two right angles, nor does one yet
16      I,  5 |           triangle are equal to two right angles: but eliminate brazen
17      I,  9 |      possessing angles equal to two right angles as belonging to that
18      I,  23|           their angles equal to two right angles in virtue of a common
19      I,  24|   demonstration. If equality to two right angles is attributable to
20      I,  24| equivocal-and since equality to two right angles belongs to all triangles,
21      I,  24|           might thereby do what was right." When in this regress we
22      I,  24|            angles are equal to four right angles because they are
23      I,  24|          triangles are equal to two right angles, one knows in a sense-potentially-that
24      I,  24|        angles also are equal to two right angles, even if one does
25      I,  31|             its angles equal to two right angles, we should still
26     II,  2 |          attribute such as equal to right angles, or greater or less.~
27     II,  3 |             its angles equal to two right angles". An argument proving
28     II,  3 |         possess angles equal to two right angles, then this attribute
29     II,  8 |           equal or not equal to two right angles? When we have found
30     II,  11|             angle in a semicircle a right angle?-or from what assumption
31     II,  11|         does it follow that it is a right angle? Thus, let A be right
32     II,  11|         right angle? Thus, let A be right angle, B the half of two
33     II,  11|            angle, B the half of two right angles, C the angle in a
34     II,  11|         cause in virtue of which A, right angle, is attributable to
35     II,  11|             B, for C is half of two right angles. Therefore it is
36     II,  11|    assumption of B, the half of two right angles, from which it follows
37     II,  11|          angle in a semicircle is a right angle. Moreover, B is identical
38     II,  13|          straight line or circle or right angle. After that, having
39     II,  13|         arrangement of these in the right order, (3) the omission
40     II,  13|          topic of the accident. The right order will be achieved if
41     II,  13|             will be achieved if the right term is assumed as primary,
42     II,  13|           resume our account of the right method of investigation:
43     II,  17|       external angles equal to four right angles is an attribute wider
44     II,  17|            angles are equal to four right angles). And the middle