A Tangled Tale · Chapter
Answers to Correspondents explained
The author responds to correspondents regarding Knots II and VI, clarifying assumptions about house numbering and defending the mathematical reasoning behind the Double Rule of Three problems.
What happens
The author responds to correspondents regarding Knots II and VI, clarifying assumptions about house numbering and defending the mathematical reasoning behind the Double Rule of Three problems. He addresses criticisms of his tone, explaining that his 'trenchant expressions' were meant in jest, and distinguishes between severe language used in earnest and playful banter.
Themes in this chapter
Mathematical Reasoning
The chapter delves into the nuances of Double Rule of Three, illustrating how varying conditions require different solution methods, and critiques correspondents' misunderstandings.
Humor and Absurdity
The author uses playful language and anecdotes, such as the riddle with Brown and Smith, and defends his jesting tone against criticism.
Characters to notice
- Trojanus
Correspondent who assumed the street enters the square in the middle of each side for Knot II.
- Balbus
Correspondent who argued that only varieties (a) and (c) of the problem are possible.
- Fifi
Correspondent (Fifee) who claimed adding proportional numbers instead of multiplying is no error.
- Lieutenant Brown
Old friend who guessed a riddle correctly and praised it.
- Smith
Old friend who failed to guess the same riddle and dismissed it as poor.
Key passages
“I hold that to use language likely to annoy any of my correspondents would not be in the least justified by the plea that I was 'quite certain of being correct.'”
The author argues that being correct does not excuse using words that might upset readers.
Response to a correspondent's criticism of his tone.
“Why, even if addition had been the right method to use, not one of the writers (I speak from memory) showed any consciousness of the necessity of fixing a 'unit' for each subject.”
The author points out that even if addition were correct, the correspondents failed to consider the need for a standard unit of measurement.
Critique of correspondents' approach to the Double Rule of Three problem.