Page:Carroll - Tangled Tale.djvu/133

Rh apart, let me thank for some very kind words of sympathy, in reference to a correspondent (whose name I am happy to say I have now forgotten) who had found fault with me as a discourteous critic. O. V. L. is beyond my comprehension. He takes the given equations as (1) and (2): thence, by the process [(2)-(1)] deduces (rightly) equation (3) viz. $$\scriptstyle s\ +\ 3b\ =\ 3$$: and thence again, by the process [×3] (a hopeless mystery), deduces $$\scriptstyle 3s\ +\ 4b\ =\ 4$$. I have nothing to say about it: I give it up. says "it is immaterial to the answer" (why?) "in what proportion 3d. is divided between the sandwich and the 3 biscuits": so she assumes s = 1½d., b = ½d. is one of a very irregular metre. At first she (like ) identifies sandwiches with biscuits. She then tries two assumptions ($$\scriptstyle s\ =\ 1,\ b\ =\ \frac 2 3$$, and $$\scriptstyle s\ =\ \frac 1 2,\ b\ =\ \frac 5 6$$), and (naturally) ends in contradictions. Then she returns to the first assumption, and finds the 3 unknowns separately: quod est absurdum. identifies sandwiches and biscuits, as "articles." Is the word ever used by confectioners? I fancied "What is the next article, Ma'am?" was limited to linendrapers. first assume that biscuits are 4 a penny, and then that they are 2 a penny, adding that "the answer will of course be the same in both cases." It is a dreamy