Answer to Mr. Quinby. 75 



Art. XII. — Answer to Mr. Quinby. 

 To the Editor of the Am. Journal of Science and Arts. 



Sir— The absence of argument in Mr. Quinby's reply, (in 

 the last number of your Journal,) to my examination of his 

 discussion of the crank problem, is so evident, that had not 

 misrepresentation been used, I should not have desired to be . 

 heard in defence of the principles asserted in that examina- 

 tion. That such has been the case will appear in the course 

 of this paper. 



I will first notice what Mr. Quinby says relative to my de- 

 monstration of his failure in an attempt to prove the incorrect- 

 ness of a principle assumed by Mr. Ward as applicable to the 

 crank problem. 



Mr. Quinby says " the writer next undertakes to demon- 

 strate that, in my reasoning to prove that the principle assum-. 

 ed by Mr. Ward is incorrect, I committed an oversight, which 

 altogether destroys my ' demonstration of the crank problem, 1 

 and then gravely adds, "But on this subject, I may re- 

 mark, that there is no connexion between my strictures on the 

 principle assumed by Mr. Ward and my ' demonstration of 

 the crank problem.' " No such remark as that attributed to 

 me occurs in the course of my examination. The words 

 which close the paragraph, in which Mr. Quinby's strictures 

 on Mr. Wards principle are criticised, are these : " and the 

 remaining part of Mr. Quinby's demonstration, founded upon 

 this assumption can be of no avail:" what demonstration? 

 certainly not that of the crank problem, but the " demonstra- 

 tion founded upon this assumption," (see Vol. XII. No. 1,) 

 clearly the very one under consideration, namely, Mr. Quin- 

 by's attempt to demonstrate that the principle assumed by 

 Mr. Ward is incorrect. Next Mr. Quinby admits that he 

 failed in his attempt to prove the incorrectness of Mr. Ward's 

 principle, but is amused that the author of the examination 

 should have fallen " into an error much greater than the one 

 he is endeavoring to correct :" in a note he says, " It is pos- 

 sible that the writer of this examination intended that the 

 terms of these proportions should be taken alternately. In 

 that case his demonstration would be true." Here it is only 

 necessary to state that Mr. Quinby was furnished with a copy 

 of those parts of the errata of Vol. XII. No. 1 , which apply 

 to my communication, and in which this very error is noted 



