Hide Articles List

16 articles on this Page

HAVERFORDWEST QUARTER SESSIONS.

HAVERFORDWEST PETry SESSIONS.

COL. EDWARUES, M.P., AND THE…

[No title]

PEMBROKE.

PEMBROKE PETTY SESSTONS,

T E N B Y.

THE SOUTH PEMBROKESHIRE HUNT…

Family Notices

HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.

.CORRESPONDENCE.

[No title]

News
Cite
Share

SIR,âAllow me to ask why. in your rèp Irt of Saint Issell's Chutoh on Chri-tmis J)ay, all the procredings connected with it were ignored except the music and decorations ? This seems strange, as f2 108 was col- lei ted at the Offertory and sent to that most excellent institution, the County Infirmary, which has rroved Buch a blessing to so many of the poor of thir parish. I must, likewise, state that on the 23rd, through the kind contributions of several of the parishioners, prizes were given in the National School Room to fortv children, also a large slice of cake to upwards of one hundred; and, during the last week, the Vicar distributed E4 10s to more than fifty poor tenants of Mr Philipps, of Pictoa, being his Christmas donation to them. I am, Sir, A LOVER OF TRUTH. January 4, 1870. SIR.-T find that in replying to a question in a former issue of the Herald, a certain rnrrespf'nd nt has styled himself "an Ishmaelite," consequently suspicion re^ts on me, which I wish to remove by your favouring me with he insertion of my |solution of the question in this week's issue of the Herald. The problem appears rather simple The result of £19 I9s 1111 multiplied by 4 XL9 19a llfd. d. £ s. d. i$=1-9G0)19 19 11| 20 899 19 7 399 IS 7 0 0 41 9:9-960 £ 399 19 2 0-4,1960 or 19 939 960 bv 19 }59-960=3ôi!601r.OI.!)21600 == £ 399 19- 2d l> 4 1-930 Your obedient servant, THOMAS MORGAN. St Ishmaels, Jan. 5, 1870. Sir,-In your issue for last. week your correspondents Three R's" and Cantab have so explicitly stated the reasons why £ 19 19S. 11^2. cannot be muttiplied by JB19 19s. 11 fl. that. there ill "mllll need for me to say a word on that subject. Perhaps you will allow me to trespass a little on your space while I criticise the working given by An Ishmaelite," who has endea- voured to show that he is correct by obtaining the same result by three different methods. In neither case, however, has he performed the operation proposed. B«- decimals he has multiplied £ 19,99895833 by 19.99895833, and not by £ 19.99895333; by fractions he has multiplied £19 19s. ll^l. by 19199 960ths and not bv £ 19199 960ths. In hid third case be has strug« gled'omake the result correspond to his two former workings, and has contrived to make it do so by divid- ing by 16 to reduce farthing to pence, by 144 to reduce pence to shillings, and by 400 to reduce shillings to pounds, which operations will doubtless be new to the majority of your readers. Arithmetic is a science con sistent with itself, and any problem in reduction of money properly worked will be found correct by the old fashion of dividing by 4, 12, and 20. Had Ish- maelite" kept to the eld rule hit answer to the third operation would have been JE383,960 Os. 0-1-1. I regret having incurred the displeasure and indignation of vour correspondent Magister" who, I venture to believe, is not quite so puffed up as he was, as his wind-bag must have been awfully invaded by Three R's and "Cantab." No doubt, in this material age, some of your readers would ask What is the use of it ?" and on being informed that the use was simply nil would be inclined to poo-hpooh the question altogether. The question, as proposed by Constant Reader," could not possibly occur in the way of trade. The nearest approach to it which I can conceive is this: Suppose a numismatologisl or an antiquarian bad a lot of eld coins consisting of nineteen sovereigns, nineteen shillings, eleven pennies, and three farthings, and he desired to dispose of them at the rate of £ 19 19sllfl per soverreign then the price would be £399 19s 2 1 38-40d. This result woul; not be obtained by multiplying, viz. the £ s. d. by £ s. d. but by the same method as one might calculate the value lIf 80 many tons, owts., &c. of hay, at a cert ain price per ton. In conclusion, allow me to say, both to -1 Ma- gister and the "K.O. whom he so ardently desires to demolish, that there is no answer to Constan Reader's" {question for the theoretical objections stated by Three R'a and Cantab." Yours &c., â â ARITUMOS, Hayerfordffest, Jw> IS70, SIH. Wiil you kindly allow space for the following lines in reference to the correspondence which has lately occupied your c jiumns ? In the case of One who has passed the three R's," I find that he in trying to get clear of multiplying by a concrete number has falien into a very grave error when he eays that multiplying £ 19 ]9s lill by a number equal to the number of farthings in trie sanie (that is 19,199). In doing so he will find the anqv: r to be 960 times too much, or, which is the same thin^, the prodiut of 4 by 12 by 20-960, and not £ ?99 19s 2d 1-3840 We advise him to run over the tnree il's again, especinlly the las With respeot to Cantab's answer, it is absolute nonsense for him to say the true answer is £ 19 19a H|d multiplied by 2. We take f. r granted that" CinWb has matri- culated at the University of Cambridge or he would nol have signed himself so, or at least he wishes us to think fo. We should like, however, to know what College and who were some of the Fellows at that memorable period. We are quite sure of either of two tilings in tta first I place that Cantab"' after his matriculationâindeedrit seems to us r diuuloUs to suppose 1 e has matriculated at all-was .-ent down fur disreputable conduct. Or, which is the likelier one, we have no d ub) but "Cantab" is one of those beings who, having been plucked in smalh, fiad it perfectly absurd to' attempt getting through Mody." For his benefit as well as others I here append the words of Professor Wallace, A.M., one of the most clearheaded writers on mat'ematical subjects that have appeared within the last quarter of a century We have said before, in innumerable casei of the applieati n of Proportion we have \.o multiply money by money, and obtain a sensible result. For example, take tins question, "if £ 1 gam 2s 61 in a certain time, how much will 2s 6d gain in the some time ?" The answer to this question will be 3fd for, as tl JEg JBIg £ l-64=:y|d, the answer. Again, take this question, if Is gain 2s 6d in a certain time, how much will 2s 6d gain in the same time ? The answer to this question will be 6s 31; lor, as Is 2s 6d 2s Cd 6s 3d the answer. In both these cases, 2s 6d has to be multiplied by 2s 6d but the result is very different; and why ? because in the first ca<e, the gain 2s 6d is considered, and really is -1 of a pound; whereas in the other case the gain 23 6,1 is considered, and really is 2-L times one a pound being the standard of rompaiison in the one question, and a shilling he standard in the other ques'ion. )t is not, therefore, absurd to multiply moriey by money, provided that the factors are conaioeied ut3 parts ti-r multiples of a certain unit of money, and tfcat in tJte multiplication the multiplit,r is considered aa abstract number, or a number of tÃwp), or a tfaotion of a time, ate-iding to the nature of the question while the multiplicand retains its concrete value, and the divisor is also deemed'an abstract number." These are the words of Professor Wallace, A.M., Professor of Mathematics in the University of Glasgow, Collegiate Tutor of the University of London, and the author of Cassell's Arithmetic, Cassell's Euclid, Cassell's Algebra, &c. After this dicnim of the Professor we consider his standard as an author sufficient to silence ail disputes arising out of this question. To trose of your poetiwal readers I here give a few lines to the saw" effect take a from the J opuL-r Educator â Caqtt it be done ?" I say it may, For in commercial town or city, It is performed every day, By rich and poor, dull and witty And when my reasons you have heard,. You'll own the question's not absurd. When merobant-men, by mind or pen,. Do find the n umber to a question They get an answer, yes; but, then "Fis clear the answer needs suggestion;. It cannot mean so many noughts, It may be dollars, men, or groats. To multiply is to increase, And to increase to make addition For Johnson says that is the case, And it is done by repetition I'll give a case, as it, may be, One you can judge most, feelingly. If equal numbers added be, To those who now sit round your table Then twice that number you'will see, And their expense you'll find no fable; But multiply these numbers too, And their increase will frighten you. Again, if two and sixpence be Increased as much as it increases A unit of iiself, we see, Thltt six and three pence it expresses i But if we take it of a pound, A different answer will be found. Money of money is the source, And this in most slims is intended To be the answer but of course, The proper name should be appended; Methinke 'tis time the oharm was broke The secret lie* in what is spoke. I am, Sir, Yours faitbfully, MAGISTBB.

CARMARTHENSHIRE srEEPLE CHASES.

[No title]

Advertising

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.