I am not to enter anything I do not possess. The reader therefore will not
learn from me the feats of many a man-at-arms in these subjects. He must be
content, unless he will bestir himself for himself, not to know how Mr.
Patrick Cody trisects the angle at Mullinavat, or Professor Recalcati
squares the circle at Milan. But this last is to be done by subscription,
at five francs a head: a banker is named who guarantees restitution if the
solution be not perfectly rigorous; the banker himself, I suppose, is the
judge. I have heard of a man of business who settled the circle in this
way: if it can be reduced to a debtor and creditor account, it can
certainly be done; if not, it is not worth doing. Montucla will give the
accounts of the lawsuits which wagers on the problem have produced in
France.
Neither will I enter at length upon the success of the new squarer who
advertises (Nov. 1863) in a country paper that, having read that the
circular ratio was undetermined, "I thought it very strange that so many
great scholars in all ages should have failed in finding the true ratio,
and have been determined to try myself.... I am about to secure the {209}
benefit of the discovery, so until then the public cannot know my new and
true ratio." I have been informed that this trial makes the diameter to the
circumference as 64 to 201, giving [pi] = 3.140625 exactly. The result was
obtained by the discoverer in three weeks after he first heard of the
existence of the difficulty. This quadrator has since published a little
slip, and entered it at Stationers' Hall. He says he has done it by actual
measurement; and I hear from a private source that he uses a disk of 12
inches diameter, which he rolls upon a straight rail. Mr. James Smith did
the same at one time; as did also his partisan at Bordeaux. We have, then,
both 3.125 and 3.140625, by actual measurement. The second result is more
than the first by about one part in 200. The second rolling is a very
creditable one; it is about as much below the mark as Archimedes was above
it. Its performer is a joiner, who evidently knows well what he is about
when he measures; he is not wrong by 1 in 3,000.
The reader will smile at the quiet self-sufficiency with which "I have been
determined to try myself" follows the information that "so many great
scholars in all ages" have failed. It is an admirable spirit, when
accompanied by common sense and uncommon self-knowledge. When I was an
undergraduate there was a little attendant in the library who gave me the
following,--"As to cleaning this library, Sir, if I have spoken to the
Master once about it, I have spoken fifty times: but it is of no use; he
will not employ _littery_ men; and so I am obliged to look after it
myself."
I do not think I have mentioned the bright form of quadrature in which a
square is made equal to a circle by making each side equal to a quarter of
the circumference. The last squarer of this kind whom I have seen figures
in the last number of the _Athenaeum_ for 1855: he says the thing is no
longer a _problem_, but an _axiom_. He does not know that the area of the
circle is greater than that of any other figure of the same circuit. This
any one might see without {210} mathematics. How is it possible that the
figure of greatest area should have any one length in its circuit unlike in
form to any other part of the same length?
The feeling which tempts persons to this problem is that which, in romance,
made it impossible for a knight to pass a castle which belonged to a giant
or an enchanter. I once gave a lecture on the subject: a gentleman who was
introduced to it by what I said remarked, loud enough to be heard by all
around, "Only prove to me that it is impossible, and I will set about it
this very evening."
This rinderpest of geometry cannot be cured, when once it has seated itself
in the system: all that can be done is to apply what the learned call
prophylactics to those who are yet sound. When once the virus gets into the
brain, the victim goes round the flame like a moth; first one way and then
the other, beginning where he ended, and ending where he begun: thus
verifying the old line
"In girum imus nocte, ecce! et consumimur igni."[353]
Every mathematician knows that scores of methods, differing altogether from
each other in process, all end in this mysterious 3.14159..., which insists
on calling itself the circumference to a unit of diameter. A reader who is
competent to follow processes of arithmetic may be easily satisfied that
such methods do actually exist. I will give a sketch, carried out to a few
figures, of three: the first two I never met with in my reading; the third
is the old method of Vieta.[354] [I find that both the first and second
methods are contained in a theorem of Euler.]
What Mr. James Smith says of these methods is worth noting. He says I have
given three "_fancy_ proofs" of the value of [pi]: he evidently takes me to
be offering demonstration. He proceeds thus:--
"His first proof is traceable to the diameter of a circle {211} of radius
1. His second, to the side of any inscribed equilateral triangle to a
circle of radius 1. His third, to a radius of a circle of diameter 1. Now,
it may be frankly admitted that we can arrive at the same result by many
other modes of arithmetical calculation, all of which may be shown to have
some sort of relation to a circle; but, after all, these results are mere
exhibitions of the properties of numbers, and have no more to do with the
ratio of diameter to circumference in a circle than the price of sugar with
the mean height of spring tides. (_Corr._ Oct. 21, 1865)."
I quote this because it is one of the few cases--other than absolute
assumption of the conclusion--in which Mr. Smith's conclusions would be
true if his premise were true. Had I given what follows as _proof_, it
would have been properly remarked, that I had only exhibited properties of
numbers. But I took care to tell my reader that I was only going to show
him _methods_ which end in 3.14159.... The proofs that these methods
establish the value of [pi] are for those who will read and can understand.
200000000 31415 3799
66666667 2817
26666667 1363
11428571 661
5079365 321
2308802 156
1065601 76
497281 37
234014 18
110849 9
52785 5
25245 2
12118 1
5834
-------- -------- -------
314153799 31415 9265
{212}
1. Take any diameter, double it, take 1-3d of that double, 2-5ths of the
last, 3-7ths of the last, 4-9ths of the last, 5-11ths of the last, and so
on. The sum of all is the circumference of that diameter. The preceding is
the process when the diameter is a hundred millions: the errors arising
from rejection of fractions being lessened by proceeding on a thousand
millions, and striking off one figure. Here 200 etc. is double of the
diameter; 666 etc. is 1-3rd of 200 etc.; 266 etc. is 2-5ths of 666 etc.;
114 etc. is 3-7ths of 266 etc.; 507 etc. is 4-9ths of 114 etc.; and so on.
2. To the square root of 3 add its half. Take _half_ the third part of
this; half 2-5ths of the last; half 3-7ths of the last; and so on. The sum
is the circumference to a unit of diameter.
Square root of 3.... 1.73205081
.86602540
------------
2.59807621
.43301270
.08660254
1855768
412393
93726
21629
5047
1188
281
67
16
4
1
------------
3.14159265
3. Take the square root of 1/2; the square root of half of one more than
this; the square root of half of one more {213} than the last; and so on,
until we come as near to unity as the number of figures chosen will permit.
Multiply all the results together, and divide 2 by the product: the
quotient is an approximation to the circumference when the diameter is
unity. Taking aim at four figures, that is, working to five figures to
secure accuracy in the fourth, we have .70712 for the square root of 1/2;
.92390 for the square root of half one more than .70712; and so on, through
.98080, .99520, .99880, .99970, .99992, .99998. The product of the eight
results is .63667; divide 2 by this, and the quotient is 3.1413..., of
which four figures are correct. Had the product been .636363... instead of
.63667..., the famous result of Archimedes, 22-7ths, would have been
accurately true. It is singular that no cyclometer maintains that
Archimedes hit it exactly.
A literary journal could hardly admit as much as the preceding, if it stood
alone. But in my present undertaking it passes as the halfpennyworth of
bread to many gallons of sack. Many more methods might be given, all ending
in the same result, let that result mean what it may.
Now since dozens of methods, to which dozens more might be added at
pleasure, concur in giving one and the same result; and since these methods
are declared by all who have shown knowledge of mathematics to be
_demonstrated_: it is not asking too much of a person who has just a little
knowledge of the first elements that he should learn more, and put his hand
upon the error, before he intrudes his assertion of the existence of error
upon those who have given more time and attention to it than himself, and
who are in possession, over and above many demonstrations, of many
consequences verifying each other, of which he can know nothing. This is
all that is required. Let any one square the circle, and persuade his
friends, if he and they please: let him print, and let all read who choose.
But let him abstain from intruding himself upon those who have been
satisfied by existing demonstration, until he is prepared {214} to lay his
finger on the point in which existing demonstration is wrong. Let him also
say what this mysterious 3.14159... really is, which comes in at every door
and window, and down every chimney, calling itself the circumference to a
unit of diameter. This most impudent and successful impostor holds false
title-deeds in his hands, and invites examination: surely those who can
find out the rightful owner are equally able to detect the forgery. All the
quadrators are agreed that, be the right what it may, 3.14159... is wrong.
It would be well if they would put their heads together, and say what this
wrong result really means. The mathematicians of all ages have tried all
manner of processes, with one object in view, and by methods which are
admitted to yield demonstration in countless cases. They have all arrived
at one result. A large number of opponents unite in declaring this result
wrong, and all agree in two points: first, in differing among themselves;
secondly, in declining to point out what that curious result really is
which the mathematical methods all agree in giving.
Most of the quadrators are not aware that it has been fully demonstrated
that no two numbers whatsoever can represent the ratio of the diameter to
the circumference with perfect accuracy. When therefore we are told that
either 8 to 25 or 64 to 201 is the true ratio, we know that it is no such
thing, without the necessity of examination. The point that is left open,
as not fully demonstrated to be impossible, is the _geometrical_
quadrature, the determination of the circumference by the straight line and
circle, used as in Euclid. The general run of circle-squarers, hearing that
the quadrature is not pronounced to be _demonstratively_ impossible,
imagine that the _arithmetical_ quadrature is open to their ingenuity.
Before attempting the arithmetical problem, they ought to acquire knowledge
enough to read Lambert's[355] demonstration (last given in Brewster's[356]
translation {215} of Legendre's[357] Geometry) and, if they can, to refute
it. [It will be given in an Appendix.] Probably some have begun this way,
and have caught a Tartar who has refused to let them go: I have never heard
of any one who, in producing his own demonstration, has laid his finger on
the faulty part of Lambert's investigation. This is the answer to those who
think that the mathematicians treat the arithmetical squarers too lightly,
and that as some person may succeed at last, all attempts should be
examined. Those who have so thought, not knowing that there is
demonstration on the point, will probably admit that a person who
contradicts a theorem of which the demonstration has been acknowledged for
a century by all who have alluded to it as read by themselves, may
reasonably be required to point out the error before he demands attention
to his own result.
_Apopempsis of the Tutelaries._--Again and again I am told that I spend too
much time and trouble upon my two tutelaries: but when I come to my
summing-up I shall make it appear that I have a purpose. Some say I am too
hard upon them: but this is quite a mistake. Both of them beat little
Oliver himself in the art and science of asking for more; but without
Oliver's excuse, for I had given good allowance. Both began with me, not I
with them: and both knew what they had to expect when they applied for a
second helping.
On July 31, the Monday after the publication of my remarks on my 666
correspondent, I found _three_ notes in separate envelopes, addressed to me
at "7A, University College." When I saw the three new digits I was taken
rhythmopoetic, as follows--
Here's the Doctor again with his figs, and by Heavens!
He was always at sixes, and now he's at sevens.
To understand this fully the reader must know that the greater part of
Apocalyptic interpretation has long been condensed, in my mind, into the
Turkish street-cry--In the {216} name of the Prophet! figs! I make a few
extracts. The reader will observe that Dr. Thorn grumbles at his _private_
letters being _publicly_ ridiculed. A man was summoned for a glutolactic
assault; he complained of the publication of his proceeding: I kicked etc.
_in confidence_, he said.
"After reading your last, which tries in every way to hold me up to public
ridicule for daring to write you privately ['that you would be d----d,'
omitted by accident] one would say, Why have anything to do with such a
testy person? [Wrong word; no testy person can manage cool and consecutive
ridicule. Quaere, what is this word? Is it anything but a corruption of the
obsolete word _tetchy_ of the same meaning? Some think _touchy_ is our
modern form of _tetchy_, which I greatly doubt]. My answer is, the poor man
is lamentably ignorant; he is not only so, but 'out of the way' [quite
true; my readers know me by this time for an out-of-the-way person. What
other could tackle my squad of paradoxers? What other would undertake the
job?] Can he be brought back and form one of those who in Ezekiel 37 ch.
have the Spirit breathed into them and live.... Have I any other feeling
towards you except that of peace and goodwill? [Not to your distinct
knowledge; but in all those who send people to 'the other place' for
contempt of their interpretations, there is a lurking wish which is father
to the thought; 'you _will_ be d----d' and 'you _be_ d--d' are Siamese
twins]. Of course your sneer at 666 brought plain words; but when men
meddle with what they do not understand (not having the double _Vahu_) they
must be dealt with faithfully by those who do.... [They must; which
justifies the Budget of Paradoxes: but no occasion to send them anywhere;
no preachee and floggee too, as the negro said]. Many will find the text
Prov. i. 26 fully realized. [All this contains distinct assumption of a
right 'of course' to declare accursed those who do not respect the writer's
vagary].... If I could but get the [Hebrew: A], the Ox-head, which in Old
Hebrew was just the Latin Digamma, F, out {217} of your name, and could
then Thau you with the Thau of Ezekiel ix, 4, the [chi], then you would
bear the number of a man! But this is too hard for me, although not so for
the Lord! Jer. xxxii. 17.... And now a word: is ridicule the right thing in
so solemn a matter as the discussion of Holy Writ? [Is food for ridicule
the right thing? Did I discuss Holy Writ? I did not: I concussed profane
scribble. Even the Doctor did not _discuss_; he only enunciated and
denunciated out of the mass of inferences which a mystical head has found
premises for in the Bible]."
M 40
O 70
R 100
G 6
N 50
----
266
[Hebrew: t]=[chi] 400
[That ill opinions are near relations of ill wishes, will be detected by
those who are on the look out. The following was taken down in a Scotch
Church by Mr. Cobden,[358] who handed it to a Roman friend of mine, for his
delectation (in 1855): "Lord, we thank thee that thou hast brought the Pope
into trouble; and we pray that thou wouldst be mercifully pleased to
increase the same."]
Here is a martyr who quarrels with his crown; a missionary who reviles his
persecutor: send him to New Zealand, and he would disagree with the Maoris
who ate him. Man of unilateral reciprocity! have you, who write to a
stranger with hints that that stranger and his wife are children of
perdition, the bad taste to complain of a facer in return? As James
Smith[359]--the Attorney-wit, not the Dock-cyclometer--said, or nearly
said,
"A pretty thing, forsooth!
Is he to burn, all scalding hot,
Me and my wife, and am I not
To job him out a tooth?"
{218}
Those who think parody vulgar will be pleased to substitute for the above a
quotation from Butler[360]:--
"There's nothing so absurd or vain
Or barbarous or inhumane,
But if it lay the least pretence
To piety and godliness,
Or tender-hearted conscience,
And zeal for gospel truths profess,--
Does sacred instantly commence,
And all that dare but question it are straight
Pronounced th' uncircumcised and reprobate,
As malefactors that escape and fly
Into a sanctuary for defence,
Must not be brought to justice thence,
Although their crimes be ne'er so great and high.
And he that dares presume to do't
Is sentenced and delivered up
To Satan that engaged him to't."