JB/135/266/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/135/266/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
Phil.fawcet (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>1821. July 30 M<lb/>
Posology</head>


<note>79<lb/>
Proportions &#x2014; mode of working</note>
<p>3</p>
<note>10. In duodecimal<lb/>
arithmetic either<lb/>
no repetends and<lb/>
circulates or very<lb/>
different from those<lb/>
of decimal arithmetic.</note>
<p>As to <sic>repitends</sic> &amp; circulates <add>&#x2014;</add> in duodecimal arithmetic, either<lb/>
there would be none, or the list of them would be very different<lb/>
from what it is in decimal arithmetic.</p>
<note>11.<lb/>
Lists made of square<lb/>
and cube numbers &#x2014;<lb/>
might be useful to<lb/>
make lists of repetends<lb/>
and circulates &#x2014;<lb/>
too laborious to<lb/>
be carried far.</note>
<p>Lists have been formed &amp; published of square numbers &amp;<lb/>
cube numbers viz. in decimal arithmetic. Might it not be of use<lb/>
if lists were framed of <sic>repitends</sic> &amp; circulates. The framing of such<lb/>
a list would in comparison of those others would be laborious in<lb/>
the extreme, therefore would scarcely be worth while to carry it at<lb/>
any rate in the first instance, to any very considerable length. But<lb/>
to whatever length carried it would contribute to give clearness to<lb/>
our ideas on the subject of quantity &amp; number <add>numbered quantity</add>, &amp; in this way be instructive.</p>
<note>12.<lb/>
Does not the incommensurability<lb/>
<del>here</del><lb/>
refer<del>red</del> to the indivisibility<lb/>
of certain<lb/>
numbers, according<lb/>
to the decimal<lb/>
system: by substitution<lb/>
of duodecimal<lb/>
to decimal<lb/>
<hi rend="underline">remainders</hi> would<lb/>
vanish.</note>
<p>The incommensurability ascribed by geometricians to certain<lb/>
quantities does it not bear tacit reference to the indivisibility of certain<lb/>
numbers (i.e. without <add>a</add> remainder) according to the decimal<lb/>
system of arithmetic: the quantity expressed by the figures employed<lb/>
in the designation of the one, being considered as divided by<lb/>
the quantity expressed by the figures employed in the designation<lb/>
of the other, there exists always a remainder. But<lb/>
if, either for the designation of the remainder, or for the designation<lb/>
of the entire dividend, the duodecimal or some other<lb/>
system of numeration than the decimal were employed,<lb/>
might not that remainder be, in every case, made to vanish?</p>




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Revision as of 08:25, 17 November 2019

Click Here To Edit

1821. July 30 M
Posology

79
Proportions — mode of working

3

10. In duodecimal
arithmetic either
no repetends and
circulates or very
different from those
of decimal arithmetic.

As to repitends & circulates in duodecimal arithmetic, either
there would be none, or the list of them would be very different
from what it is in decimal arithmetic.

11.
Lists made of square
and cube numbers —
might be useful to
make lists of repetends
and circulates —
too laborious to
be carried far.

Lists have been formed & published of square numbers &
cube numbers viz. in decimal arithmetic. Might it not be of use
if lists were framed of repitends & circulates. The framing of such
a list would in comparison of those others would be laborious in
the extreme, therefore would scarcely be worth while to carry it at
any rate in the first instance, to any very considerable length. But
to whatever length carried it would contribute to give clearness to
our ideas on the subject of quantity & number numbered quantity, & in this way be instructive.

12.
Does not the incommensurability
here
referred to the indivisibility
of certain
numbers, according
to the decimal
system: by substitution
of duodecimal
to decimal
remainders would
vanish.

The incommensurability ascribed by geometricians to certain
quantities does it not bear tacit reference to the indivisibility of certain
numbers (i.e. without a remainder) according to the decimal
system of arithmetic: the quantity expressed by the figures employed
in the designation of the one, being considered as divided by
the quantity expressed by the figures employed in the designation
of the other, there exists always a remainder. But
if, either for the designation of the remainder, or for the designation
of the entire dividend, the duodecimal or some other
system of numeration than the decimal were employed,
might not that remainder be, in every case, made to vanish?



Identifier: | JB/135/266/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 135.

Date_1

1821-07-30

Marginal Summary Numbering

10-12

Box

135

Main Headings

posology

Folio number

266

Info in main headings field

posology

Image

001

Titles

Category

copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

e3 / g79

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

richard doane

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

46384

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in