Abstract
IF I had made a slip of the pen of the kind suspected by Mr. Cumming (p. 198), it would have been a serious error, because it constituted the essence of what I was writing about. I was sure that a number of teachers did not believe it, and I am obliged to Mr. Cumming for giving me another opportunity of emphasising what I believe to be a vital matter. He says “the multiplication of one length by another length [or, more generally, of one concrete quantity by another] is abhorrent to the mind of” certain mathematicians. Quite true, I know it. The idea was abhorrent to the mind of the late Mr. Todhunter, and I think that Prof. Greenhill has expressed himself in the same sense. But what then? That is exactly why the idea requires driving home; and until it is driven home there will be no real clearness or simplicity in dealing either with physical quantities themselves or with their numerical specification in terms of given “units.”
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LODGE, O. The Meaning of the Symbols in Applied Algebra. Nature 55, 246–247 (1897). https://doi.org/10.1038/055246e0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/055246e0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.