320 



APPENDIX. 



nV 

 n&quot; 



.. 0.7724952 



185 10 39&quot; 64 



189 25 42 .36 



0.4748696 



logr&quot; 0.4743915 



*(M + M) . . . . 264 21 50&quot; .64 

 * (&quot; ) .... 288 49 5 .57 



2/ 13 53 58 82 



2/ . 6 57 15 58 



2/&quot; 6 56 43 41 



In this case we distribute the difference 0&quot;.17so as to make 2/= 6 51 15&quot;.49 

 and 2/&quot;= 6 56 43&quot;.33. 



It would not be worth while to compute anew the reductions of the time on 

 account of the aberration, for they scarcely differ 1&quot; from those which we de 

 rived from the first hypothesis. 

 Further computations furnish 



log T? = 0.0011582, log?;&quot; = 0.0011558, whence are deduced 

 log ^=9.9999225, X= 0.0000000 

 log q = 9.6309955, T = 0.0000479 . 



From which it is apparent how much more, exact the second hypothesis is than 

 the first. 



For the sake of completing the example, we will still construct the third 

 hypothesis, in which we shall adopt the values of P and Q derived from the 

 second hypothesis for the values of P and Q. 



Putting, therefore, 



x = log P= 9.9999225 



y = log Q == 9.6309955 

 the following are obtained for the most important parts of the computation : 



543 56&quot;.10 



w + o 7 49 1.97 



log Qc sin w .... 0.9143111 



z 759 35&quot;.02 



log/ 0.4749031 



log^ 0.7724168 



n 

 nV 



. 0.7724943 

 185 10 39&quot;.69 



f&quot; 18925 42&quot;.45 



logr 0.4748690 



logr&quot; 0.4743909 



iw&quot;M .... 26421 50&quot;.64 



(a&quot; ) 



288 49 5 .57 



2/ 13 53 58 .94 



2/ 6 57 15 .65 



2/&quot; 6 56 43 .49 



