Abstract
THE scholastic method of dividing mathematics into various branches called geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, etc., has advantages from the point of view of the teacher, but according to Dr. A. Russell, in the Faraday House Journal for the Lent term 1936, there is no need for the engineering student to handicap himself by solving a problem by some particular method. This custom was fostered in Great Britain some fifty years ago by the old-fashioned syllabus for the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. In the old days, the Tripos used to last for nine days, and was divided into two periods of four and five days each, separated by an interval of ten days. Four of the papers were marked in the syllabus ‘easy problems’; but few of them were easy. The problem papers sometimes had between twenty and thirty questions, and so the time of most of the candidates was largely expended on reading them. The candidates were also harassed by hearing quill pens scratching and squeaking all round them, as fountain pens were not then used. During the first three days of the examination, the use of the calculus was taboo. In the Euclid paper, the use of algebra or trigonometry was not permitted. In another paper the candidates were examined on the first three sections of Newton's “Principia”. This was not difficult, but the riders were, as it was imperative to prove them by Newton's methods. These were the days in which there was a ‘senior wrangler’, and the mathematical coaches coveted the honour of having trained one almost as much as the owner of a racing colt covets winning the Derby. Dr. Russell illustrates the ‘all-in’ methods by applying them to geometrical problems.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mathematics in Engineering. Nature 137, 488 (1936). https://doi.org/10.1038/137488c0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/137488c0