[31] It is not true, that if we choose any quantity as a unit, _any_ other quantity of the same kind can be exactly represented either by a certain number of units, or of parts of a unit. To understand how this is proved, the pupil would require more knowledge than he can be supposed to have; but we can shew him that, for any thing he knows to the contrary, there may be quantities which are neither units nor parts of the unit. Take a mathematical line of one foot in length, divide it into ten parts, each of those parts into ten parts, and so on continually. If a point A be taken at hazard in the line, it does not appear self-evident that if the decimal division be continued ever so far, one of the points of division must at last fall exactly on A: neither would the same appear necessarily true if the division were made into sevenths, or elevenths, or in any other way. There may then possibly be a part of a foot which is no exact numerical fraction whatever of the foot; and this, in a higher branch of mathematics, is found to be the case times without number. What is meant in the words on which this note is written, is, that any part of a foot can be represented as nearly as we please by a numerical fraction of it; and this is sufficient for practical purposes. The measures which are used in this country are not those which would have been chosen had they been made all at one time, and by a people well acquainted with arithmetic and natural philosophy. We proceed to shew how the results of the latter science are made useful in our system of measures. Whether the circumstances introduced are sufficiently well known to render the following methods exact enough for the recovery of _astronomical_ standards, may be matter of opinion; but no doubt can be entertained of their being amply correct for commercial purposes.