The Seven Follies of Science Part 2

The following construction gives even still closer results: Given the semi-circle ABC, Fig. 2; from the extremities A and C of its diameter raise two perpendiculars, one of them CE, equal to the tangent of 30, and the other AF, equal to three times the radius. If the line FE be then drawn, it will be equal to the semi-circ.u.mference of the circle, within one-hundred-thousandth part nearly. This is an error of one-thousandth of one per cent, an accuracy far greater than any mechanic can attain with the tools now in use.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 2.]

When we have the length of the circ.u.mference and the length of the diameter, we can describe a square which shall be equal to the area of the circle. The following is the method:

Draw a line ACB, Fig. 3, equal to half the circ.u.mference and half the diameter together. Bisect this line in O, and with O as a center and AO as radius, describe the semi-circle ADB. Erect a perpendicular CD, at C, cutting the arc in D; CD is the side of the required square which can then be constructed in the usual manner. The explanation of this is that CD is a mean proportional between AC and CB.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 3.]

De Morgan says: "The following method of finding the circ.u.mference of a circle (taken from a paper by Mr. S. Drach in the 'Philosophical Magazine,' January, 1863, Suppl.), is as accurate as the use of eight fractional places: From three diameters deduct eight-thousandths and seven-millionths of a diameter; to the result, add five per cent. We have then not quite enough; but the shortcoming is at the rate of about an inch and a sixtieth of an inch in 14,000 miles."

For obtaining the side of a square which shall be equal in area to a given circle, the empirical method, given by Ahmes in the Rhind papyrus 4000 years ago, is very simple and sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes. The rule is: Cut off one-ninth of the diameter and construct a square upon the remainder.

This makes the ratio 3.16.. and the error does not exceed one-third of one per cent.

There are various mechanical methods of measuring and comparing the diameter and the circ.u.mference of a circle, and some of them give tolerably accurate results. The most obvious device and that which was probably the oldest, is the use of a cord or ribbon for the curved surface and the usual measuring rule for the diameter. With an accurately divided rule and a thin metallic ribbon which does not stretch, it is possible to determine the ratio to the second fractional place, and with a little care and skill the third place may be determined quite closely.

An improvement which was no doubt introduced at a very early day is the measuring wheel or circ.u.mferentor. This is used extensively at the present day by country wheelwrights for measuring tires. It consists of a wheel fixed in a frame so that it may be rolled along or over any surface of which the measurement is desired.

This may of course be used for measuring the circ.u.mference of any circle and comparing it with the diameter. De Morgan gives the following instance of its use: A squarer, having read that the circular ratio was undetermined, advertised in a country paper as follows: "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." He kept his method secret, expecting "to secure the benefit of the discovery," but it leaked out that he did it by rolling a twelve-inch disk along a straight rail, and his ratio was 64 to 201 or 3.140625 exactly. As De Morgan says, this is a very creditable piece of work; it is not wrong by 1 in 3000.

Skilful machinists are able to measure to the one-five-thousandth of an inch; this, on a two-inch cylinder, would give the ratio correct to five places, provided we could measure the curved line as accurately as we can the straight diameter, but it is difficult to do this by the usual methods. Perhaps the most accurate plan would be to use a fine wire and wrap it round the cylinder a number of times, after which its length could be measured. The result would of course require correction for the angle which the wire would necessarily make if the ends did not meet squarely and also for the diameter of the wire. Very accurate results have been obtained by this method in measuring the diameters of small rods.

A somewhat original way of finding the area of a circle was adopted by one squarer. He took a carefully turned metal cylinder and having measured its length with great accuracy he adopted the Archimedean method of finding its cubical contents, that is to say, he immersed it in water and found out how much it displaced. He then had all the data required to enable him to calculate the area of the circle upon which the cylinder stood.

Since the straight diameter is easily measured with great accuracy, when he had the area he could readily have found the circ.u.mference by working backward the rule announced by Archimedes, viz.: that the area of a circle is equal to that of a triangle whose base has the same length as the circ.u.mference and whose alt.i.tude is equal to the radius.

One would almost fancy that amongst circle-squarers there prevails an idea that some kind of ban or magical prohibition has been laid upon this problem; that like the hidden treasures of the pirates of old it is protected from the attacks of ordinary mortals by some spirit or demoniac influence, which paralyses the mind of the would-be solver and frustrates his efforts.

It is only on such an hypothesis that we can account for the wild attempts of so many men, and the persistence with which they cling to obviously erroneous results in the face not only of mathematical demonstration, but of practical mechanical measurements. For even when working in wood it is easy to measure to the half or even the one-fourth of the hundredth of an inch, and on a ten-inch circle this will bring the circ.u.mference to 3.1416 inches, which is a corroboration of the orthodox ratio (3.14159) sufficient to show that any value which is greater than 3.142 or less than 3.141 cannot possibly be correct.

And in regard to the area the proof is quite as simple. It is easy to cut out of sheet metal a circle 10 inches in diameter, and a square of 7.85 on the side, or even one-thousandth of an inch closer to the standard 7.854. Now if the work be done with anything like the accuracy with which good machinists work, it will be found that the circle and the square will exactly balance each other in weight, thus proving in another way the correctness of the accepted ratio.

But although even as early as before the end of the eighteenth century, the value of the ratio had been accurately determined to 152 places of decimals, the nineteenth century abounded in circle-squarers who brought forward the most absurd arguments in favor of other values. In 1836, a French well-sinker named Lacomme, applied to a professor of mathematics for information in regard to the amount of stone required to pave the circular bottom of a well, and was told that it was impossible "to give a correct answer, because the exact ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circ.u.mference had never been determined"! This absolutely true but very unpractical statement by the professor, set the well-sinker to thinking; he studied mathematics after a fas.h.i.+on, and announced that he had discovered that the circ.u.mference was exactly 3-1/8 times the length of the diameter! For this discovery (?) he was honored by several medals of the first cla.s.s, bestowed by Parisian societies.

Even as late as the year 1860, a Mr. James Smith of Liverpool, took up this ratio 3-1/8 to 1, and published several books and pamphlets in which he tried to argue for its accuracy. He even sought to bring it before the British a.s.sociation for the Advancement of Science.

Professors De Morgan and Whewell, and even the famous mathematician, Sir William Rowan Hamilton, tried to convince him of his error, but without success. Professor Whewell's demonstration is so neat and so simple that I make no apology for giving it here. It is in the form of a letter to Mr. Smith: "You may do this: calculate the side of a polygon of 24 sides inscribed in a circle. I think you are mathematician enough to do this.

You will find that if the radius of the circle be one, the side of the polygon is .264, etc. Now the arc which this side subtends is, according to your proposition, 3.125/12 = .2604, and, therefore, the chord is greater than its arc, which, you will allow, is impossible."

This must seem, even to a school-boy, to be unanswerable, but it did not faze Mr. Smith, and I doubt if even the method which I have suggested previously, viz., that of cutting a circle and a square out of the same piece of sheet metal and weighing them, would have done so. And yet by this method even a common pair of grocer's scales will show to any common-sense person the error of Mr. Smith's value and the correctness of the accepted ratio.

Even a still later instance is found in a writer who, in 1892, contended in the New York "Tribune" for 3.2 instead of 3.1416, as the value of the ratio. He announces it as the re-discovery of a long lost secret, which consists in the knowledge of a certain line called "the Nicomedean line." This announcement gave rise to considerable discussion, and even towards the dawn of the twentieth century 3.2 had its advocates as against the accepted ratio 3.1416.

Verily the slaves of the mighty wizard, Michael Scott, have not yet ceased from their labors!

FOOTNOTES:

[1] What follows is an exceedingly forcible ill.u.s.tration of an important mathematical truth, but at the same time it may be worth noting that the size of the blood-globules or corpuscles has no relation to the size of the animal from which they are taken. The blood corpuscle of the tiny mouse is larger than that of the huge ox. The smallest blood corpuscle known is that of a species of small deer, and the largest is that of a lizard like reptile found in our southern waters--the amphiuma.

These facts do not at all affect the force or value of De Morgan's mathematical ill.u.s.tration, but I have thought it well to call the attention of the reader to this point, lest he should receive an erroneous physiological idea.

II

THE DUPLICATION OF THE CUBE

This problem became famous because of the halo of mythological romance with which it was surrounded. The story is as follows:

About the year 430 B.C. the Athenians were afflicted by a terrible plague, and as no ordinary means seemed to a.s.suage its virulence, they sent a deputation of the citizens to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delos, in the hope that the G.o.d might show them how to get rid of it.

The answer was that the plague would cease when they had doubled the size of the altar of Apollo in the temple at Athens. This seemed quite an easy task; the altar was a cube, and they placed beside it another cube of exactly the same size. But this did not satisfy the conditions prescribed by the oracle, and the people were told that the altar must consist of one cube, the size of which must be exactly twice the size of the original altar. They then constructed a cubic altar of which the side or edge was twice that of the original, but they were told that the new altar was eight times and not twice the size of the original, and the G.o.d was so enraged that the plague became worse than before.

According to another legend, the reason given for the affliction was that the people had devoted themselves to pleasure and to sensual enjoyments and pursuits, and had neglected the study of philosophy, of which geometry is one of the higher departments--certainly a very sound reason, whatever we may think of the details of the story. The people then applied to the mathematicians, and it is supposed that their solution was sufficiently near the truth to satisfy Apollo, who relented, and the plague disappeared.

In other words, the leading citizens probably applied themselves to the study of sewerage and hygienic conditions, and Apollo (the Sun) instead of causing disease by the festering corruption of the usual filth of cities, especially in the East, dried up the superfluous moisture, and promoted the health of the inhabitants.

It is well known that the relation of the area and the cubical contents of any figure to the linear dimensions of that figure are not so generally understood as we should expect in these days when the schoolmaster is supposed to be "abroad in the land." At an examination of candidates for the position of fireman in one of our cities, several of the applicants made the mistake of supposing that a two-inch pipe and a five-inch pipe were equal to a seven-inch pipe, whereas the combined capacities of the two small pipes are to the capacity of the large one as 29 to 49.

This reminds us of a story which Sir Frederick Bramwell, the engineer, used to tell of a water company using water from a stream flowing through a pipe of a certain diameter. The company required more water, and after certain negotiations with the owner of the stream, offered double the sum if they were allowed a supply through a pipe of double the diameter of the one then in use. This was accepted by the owner, who evidently was not aware of the fact that a pipe of double the diameter would carry _four_ times the supply.

A square whose side is twice the length of another, and a circle whose diameter is twice that of another will each have an area four times that of the original. And in the case of solids: A ball of twice the diameter will weigh eight times as much as the original, and a ball of three times the diameter will weigh twenty-seven times as much as the original.

In attempting to calculate the side of a cube which shall have twice the volume of a given cube, we meet the old difficulty of incommensurability, and the solution cannot be effected geometrically, as it requires the construction of two mean proportionals between two given lines.

III

THE TRISECTION OF AN ANGLE

This problem is not so generally known as that of squaring the circle, and consequently it has not received so much attention from amateur mathematicians, though even within little more than a year a small book, in which an attempted solution is given, has been published. When it is first presented to an uneducated reader, whose mind has a mathematical turn, and especially to a skilful mechanic, who has not studied theoretical geometry, it is apt to create a smile, because at first sight most persons are impressed with an idea of its simplicity, and the ease with which it may be solved. And this is true, even of many persons who have had a fair general education. Those who have studied only what is known as "practical geometry" think at once of the ease and accuracy with which a right angle, for example, may be divided into three equal parts. Thus taking the right angle ACB, Fig. 4, which may be set off more easily and accurately than any other angle except, perhaps, that of 60, and knowing that it contains 90, describe an arc ADEB, with C for the center and any convenient radius. Now every school-boy who has played with a pair of compa.s.ses knows that the radius of a circle will "step" round the circ.u.mference exactly six times; it will therefore divide the 360 into six equal parts of 60 each. This being the case, with the radius CB, and B for a center, describe a short arc crossing the arc ADEB in D, and join CD. The angle DCB will be 60, and as the angle ACB is 90, the angle ACD must be 30, or one-third part of the whole. In the same way lay off the angle ACE of 60, and ECB must be 30, and the remainder DCE must also be 30. The angle ACB is therefore easily divided into three equal parts, or in other words, it is trisected. And with a slight modification of the method, the same may be done with an angle of 45, and with some others. These however are only special cases, and the very essence of a geometrical solution of any problem is that it shall be applicable to _all_ cases so that we require a method by which _any_ angle may be divided into three equal parts by a pure Euclidean construction. The ablest mathematicians declare that the problem cannot be solved by such means, and De Morgan gives the following reasons for this conclusion: "The trisector of an angle, if he demand attention from any mathematician, is bound to produce from his construction, an expression for the sine or cosine of the third part of any angle, in terms of the sine or cosine of the angle itself, obtained by the help of no higher than the square root. The mathematician knows that such a thing cannot be; but the trisector virtually says it can be, and is bound to produce it to save time. This is the misfortune of most of the solvers of the celebrated problems, that they have not knowledge enough to present those consequences of their results by which they can be easily judged."

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 4.]

De Morgan gives an account of a "terrific" construction by a friend of Dr. Wallich, which he says is "so nearly true, that unless the angle be very obtuse, common drawing, applied to the construction, will not detect the error." But geometry requires _absolute_ accuracy, not a mere approximation.

IV

PERPETUAL MOTION