Holdred versus Nicholson. 377 



Bowes in Yorkshire, in the house of Mr. Bayles, in the Strand, 

 on Monday, January 3, where Mr. Horn was on a visit. This 

 was long before Mr. Nicholson's publication, which he pretends 

 (in one place) contains my method, and a little further on, says 

 it is superior; but that he does not think it superior, is obvious 

 from his having instantly adopted mine. He has not altered the 

 principle, but has disguised it, and made it look shorter by not 

 exhibiting all the figures. 



It may be inquired, what made the Tract so long coming out. 

 To which I can only give the following hints : In .lune 1819. a 

 printer had the manuscript in hand, who declined printing it, 

 because I could not put ten pounds into his hands before he com- 

 menced the work. An advance of money was also asked by the 

 printer who did print it at last; and Mr. Robert Gibson pre- 

 vailed on him to begin without, by saying he would see it paid. 

 It proceeded slowly, being about nine months in hand, although 

 it came out earlier than Mr. Nicholson represents. 



What idea Mr. Nicholson means (in page 64) that he com- 

 municated to me, I am at a loss to know. If it were any thing 

 relative to figurate numbers, I certainly stood in no need of any 

 hint from him on that subject; but Mr. Nicholson is so sublime 

 in his ideas, that there is no following him : and he loses him- 

 self, and forgets what is more natural, or he would not expect 

 to find a rational root in decimal parts when it cannot be found 

 in whole numbers; none of the numbers in the given equation 

 having any decimal parts, which certainly is his meaning at 

 page 7"9. 



The true account I have given in my preface, together with 

 the demonstration in the Supplement, clearly prove the simpli- 

 city of the ideas which produced it, I have not been beholden 

 to Mr. Nicholson for any of his complicated ideas. The ab- 

 struseness of his notation in his Essays on the combinatorial 

 Analyses, renders that book of little use to those who get hold 

 of it. 



Mr. Nicholson has called my demonstration in my Supplement, 

 a clumsv denu)nstration ; he lias therefore invented a neat de- 

 monstration of his own. There is no doubt but Nr. Nicholson 

 will undervjand his own neat demonstration; but 1 do not ex- 

 pect that one out often will besides himself. 



I knew nothing at all about Mr. Horner's nonfigurate method 

 until Mr. Nicholson's Essay on Invohition and Evolution came 

 to mv iiand. Tiie Evolution is not his own, but mine and Mr. 

 Horner's; and his Involution is only Evolution reversed (hke the 

 article he put into llie Philosophical Magazine of October 1818) ; 

 80 that no merit attaches to Mr. Nicholson for that work. 

 VoL.'iG. No. 271. Nov. 1820. 3 P, In 



