( 239 ) 
VV! because, all the projections being taken on the same line QQ’, 
= proj. mot. pec. for Apex at V< = proj. mot. pec. for Apex 
at Q', i.e. because 
uA? + WA? < (uA — SAP + (WA + SAP 
The two contentions are nowise contradictory. They are in fact 
both true. They have nothing whatever to do with each other. 
5. SrriN does not however confine himself to the assertion that 
for stars at one and the same point of the heavens (8) leads to (7), 
he also tries to prove directly, in two different ways, that (9) gives 
a determination which is identicai to that by (8). In fact he tries 
to prove that both of these conditions lead to his conditions C. 
It must already be evident from the above, that this proof must 
be impossible, and that consequently there must be an error in STEIN’s 
argument. 
The condition (9) evidently gives rise to the two equations 
[ee aA| = ee ap) en 
In SreiN’s second proof he simply derives the values of the deri- 
. dz Or 
Watves.--. and == 
5D wn from the equations of condition 
h h 
To = — sin À sin € Up = — sin À cos &. 
Here, therefore, he falls into the error, against which was warned 
in § 1 (0). 
In the first proof of Srei I cannot point out the main error, as 
I have been unable to follow the author’s reasoning. '). 
1) Still I will remark that if, as is done by Srery, in the equation 
m d h d 
|= cosg ee +4 = sind <4] — 
ge 0A g 
the first term may simply be left out of account, because „the motus peculiaris may 
be considered as an error of observation”, then with the same right the other 
h 
component y — — sin À of the motus peculiaris may he neglected, so that in the 
h 
second term we may write U for — san A. The equation thus becomes no other than 
the contested one: 
