FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203  
204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   >>   >|  
the first, though the whole of which they are to be the fifths is perpetually diminished. Thirdly, there is the confusion of the great misomath {251} of our own day, who discovered two quantities which he avers to be identically the same, but the greater the one the less the other. He had a truth in his mind, which his notions of quantity were inadequate to clothe in language. This erroneous phraseology has not found a defender; and I am almost inclined to say, with Falstaff, The poor abuses of the time want countenance. ERRONEOUS ARITHMETICAL NOTIONS. "Shallow numerists," as Cocker[401] is made to call them, have long been at work upon the question how to _multiply_ money by money. It is, I have observed, a very common way of amusing the tedium of a sea voyage: I have had more than one bet referred to me. Because an oblong of five inches by four inches contains 5 x 4 or 20 _square_ inches, people say that five inches multiplied by four inches _is_ twenty _square_ inches: and, thinking that they have multiplied length by length, they stare when they are told that money cannot be multiplied by money. One of my betters made it an argument for the thing being impossible, that there is no _square money_: what could I do but suggest that postage-stamps should be made legal tender. Multiplication must be _repetition_: the repeating process must be indicated by _number_ of times. I once had difficulty in persuading another of my betters that if you repeat five shillings as often as there are hairs in a horse's tail, you do not _multiply five shillings by a horsetail_.[402] I am very sorry to say that these wrong notions have found support--I think they do so no longer--in the University of Cambridge. In 1856 or 1857, an examiner was displaced by a vote of the Senate. The pretext was that he was too severe an examiner: but it was well known that {252} great dissatisfaction had been expressed, far and wide through the Colleges, at an absurd question which he had given. He actually proposed such a fraction as 6s. 3d. --------. 17s. 4d. As common sense gained a hearing very soon, there is no occasion to say more. In 1858, it was proposed at a college examination, to divide 22557 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes, 48 seconds, by 57 minutes, 12 seconds, and also to explain the fraction 32l. 18s. 8d. -------------. 62l. 12s. 9d. All paradoxy, in matters of demonstration, arises out of muddle about firs
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203  
204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

inches

 

square

 

multiplied

 
betters
 
shillings
 

examiner

 
minutes
 

seconds

 

proposed

 

question


common
 

fraction

 

multiply

 

length

 

notions

 
Cambridge
 

University

 

longer

 

pretext

 
Senate

displaced

 
difficulty
 

persuading

 

number

 

repetition

 

repeating

 

process

 
repeat
 

support

 

horsetail


severe

 

Colleges

 

explain

 

muddle

 

arises

 

demonstration

 

paradoxy

 

matters

 

divide

 

examination


absurd

 

dissatisfaction

 

expressed

 

occasion

 

college

 

hearing

 
gained
 

NOTIONS

 

Shallow

 

numerists