The Discovery of Logarithms

@article{TheDO,
  title={The Discovery of Logarithms},
  author={},
  journal={Nature},
  volume={74},
  pages={175}
}
THE note under criticism purports to be a “proof” that the base originally used by Napier was the reciprocal of e, and not e itself. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. The arithmetical details are both unnecessary and in- sufficient for the purpose, and their insertion is unfortunately calculated to deceive many readers by obscuring the real points at issue. The same “proof” might equally well be employed to show that the original base was e instead of its reciprocal, but that the minus… CONTINUE READING