Folios 96-98: AAL to ADM
Ockham
Satdy 6th Feby
['1841' added by later reader]
Dear Mr De Morgan. Had I
waited a day or two longer,
I need not have troubled
you with my letter of Weddy,
& I can only reproach
myself now with having been
a little too hasty\, in my
examination of the Theorem in
pages 68, 69, and having
sent you an enquiry which
certainly indicates some
negligence. I fear this letter
[96v] may not be in time to
stop one from you. [something crossed out]
However I will try to
send it by an opportunity this
afternoon.
But, to show you that I
now understand the matter
completely :
In the first place the question
of the Denominator, or the
Numerator, being all of the
same sign, in such [something crossed out] collection of
expressions as
\( \frac{a-b}{m-n}\), \(\frac{c-a}{p-m}\), \(\frac{d-c}{r-p}\), \(\frac{e-d}{q-r}\) &c
has nothing whatever to do
with the letters effacing each
other when the above are
[97r] put into the form,
\( \frac{(a-b)+(c-a)+(d-c)+(e-d)}{(m-n)+(p-m)+(r-p)+(q-r)}\) &c;
whether \((a-b)\), &c be positive
or negative, or some one &
some the other, still
\( \frac{a-b+c-a+d-c+e-d}{m-n+p-m+r-p+q-r}\) &c
must \(=\frac{e-b}{q-n}\)
In the second place, the
Denominator must be all of
the same sign, in order
to fulfil the conditions of
the Lemma in page 48;
& this is the reason why
the condition is made respectively
\( \psi\ x\) always increasing or
[97v] always decreasing &c.
For \(\varphi\ x\), it matters not
whether it alternately increases
& decreases (provided always
that it be continuous).
I believe I now
have the whole quite clear;
& I shall be more careful
in future.
I enclose a paper upon
pages 70, 71, 72, 73.
It is merely the general
argument, put into my own
order & from; & I send
it in order to know if
you think I understand as
much about the matter as
[98r] I am intended to do.
You know I always have
so many metaphysical
enquiries & speculations which
intrude themselves, that I
never am really satisfied
that I understand anything;
because, understand it as
well as I may, my
comprehension can only be
an infinitesimal fraction of
all I want to understand
about the many connexions
& relations which occur to
me, how the matter in
question was first thought of
[98v] or arrived at, &c, &c.
I am particularly curious
about this wonderful Theorem.
However I try to keep
my metaphysical head in
order, & to remember Locke's
two axioms.
You should receive this about
6 o'clock this evening, if not
before. I fear you will
have written to me today
however. Believe me
Yours most truly
A. A. Lovelace
About this document
All Ada Lovelace manuscript images on the
Clay Mathematics Institute website are
© 2015 The Lovelace Byron Papers,
reproduced by permission of
Pollinger Limited. To re-use them in
any form, please apply to
katyloffman@pollingerltd.com.
The LaTeX transcripts of the letters
were made by Christopher Hollings
(christopher.hollings@maths.ox.ac.uk).
Their re-use in any form requires his
permission, and is subject to the
rights reserved to the owner of
The Lovelace Byron Papers.
Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK
Dep. Lovelace Byron