( 531) 
in their coefficients. We shall first point out, that the latter pecu- 
liarity explains the lowering appearing here even then, if we neglect 
to avail ourselves of the simplification indicated in the lemma a); we 
shall then show that the first particularity has no effect here. 
By substituting in the eliminant of the system for each element 
the number indicating its degree in ¢ and by representing the places 
made vacant by differentiation by the symbol +, then in the three 
cases s = 9, 1, 2, appearing in the skew parabola, we have — inde- 
pendent of the lacking of ¢* in (3) — to deal with the three symbolic 
equations 
Cine. 5 et ae TKA NT 
OO. f Ob. 4 o£ 4 
= 0, = 0); par 
EF CEO A 0 10-00 Fo oe On 
OF a OF 0 0. Om an 
which really show that the corresponding equations in ¢ are respec- 
tively of degree 5, 6, 5. 
By substituting furthermore in the eliminant for each element the 
term of the highest degree in ¢, we then find omitting the first 
case, clear enough in itself, 
ra Be 2 4 My ved ? ¢5 
ki at Bt + 1 ot Bt 
= 0, == 
MG GU Ag 4 toeh 12 208 
by Da bs b fi % ds As Wy 
and now, taking the arbitrariness of the coefficients a, 5 of the equa- 
tions of the planes S, into consideration, it is clear that the terms 
of the highest degree 
be Ob 
Ge ey pe | 
|=3(a bt, —a, |l 2 54 |= — 12, 
bi dz | 2¢ 54 
Lt, 2.208 
and the constant terms 
(az by), 2 Us 
