_The trisector of an angle, if he demand attention from any mathematician, is bound to produce, from his construction, an expression for the sine or cosine of the third part of any angle, in terms of the sine or cosine of the angle itself, obtained by help of no higher than the square root._ The mathematician knows that such a thing cannot be; but the trisector virtually says it can be, and is bound to produce it, to save time. This is the misfortune of most of the solvers of the celebrated problems, that they have not knowledge enough to present those consequences of their results by which they can be easily judged. Sometimes they have the knowledge and quibble out of the use of it. In many cases a person makes an honest beginning and presents what he is sure is a solution. By conference with others he at last feels uneasy, fears the light, and puts self-love in the way of it. Dishonesty sometimes follows. The speculators are, as a class, very apt to imagine that the mathematicians are in fraudulent confederacy against them: I ought rather to say that each one of them consents to the mode in which the rest are treated, and fancies conspiracy against himself. The mania of conspiracy is a very curious subject. I do not mean these remarks to apply to the author before me. One of Mr. Upton's trisections, if true, would prove the truth of the following equation: 3 cos ([theta] / 3) = 1 + [root](4 - sin^2[theta]) which is certainly false.[34] {14} In 1852 I examined a terrific construction, at the request of the late Dr. Wallich,[35] who was anxious to persuade a poor countryman of his, that trisection of the angle was waste of time. One of the principles was, that "magnitude and direction determine each other." The construction was equivalent to the assertion that, [theta] being any angle, the cosine of its third part is sin 3[theta] . cos(5[theta]/2) + sin^2 [theta] sin (5[theta]/2) divided by the square root of sin^2 3[theta] . cos^2 (5[theta]/2) + sin^4 [theta] + sin 3[theta] . sin 5[theta] . sin^2 [theta]. This is from my rough notes, and I believe it is correct.[36] It is so nearly true, unless the angle be very obtuse, that common drawing, applied to the construction, will not detect the error. There are many formulae of this kind: and I have several times found a speculator who has discovered the corresponding construction, has seen the approximate success of his drawing--often as great as absolute truth could give in graphical practice,--and has then set about his demonstration, in which he always succeeds to his own content.