Professor Muir justly says of this achievement of Archimedes, that it is "a most notable piece of work; the immature condition of arithmetic, at the time, was the only real obstacle preventing the evaluation of the ratio to any degree of accuracy whatever."
And when we remember that neither the numerals now in use nor the Arabic numerals, as they are usually called, nor any system equivalent to our decimal system, was known to these early mathematicians, such a calculation as that made by Archimedes was a wonderful feat.
If any of my readers, who are familiar with the Hebrew or Greek numbers, and the mode of representing them by letters, will try to do any of those more elaborate sums which, when worked out by modern methods, are mere child's play in the hands of any of the bright scholars in our common schools, they will fully appreciate the difficulties under which Archimedes labored.
Or, if ignorant of Greek and Hebrew, let them try it with the Roman numerals, and multiply XCVIII by MDLVII, without using Arabic or common numerals. Professor McArthur, in his article on "Arithmetic" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, makes the following statement on this point:
"The methods that preceded the adoption of the Arabic numerals were all comparatively unwieldy, and very simple processes involved great labor. The notation of the Romans, in particular, could adapt itself so ill to arithmetical operations, that nearly all their calculations had to be made by the abacus. One of the best and most manageable of the ancient systems is the Greek, though that, too, is very clumsy."
After Archimedes, the most notable result was that given by Ptolemy, in the "Great Syntaxis." He made the ratio 3.141552, which was a very close approximation.
For several centuries there was little progress towards a more accurate determination of the ratio. Among the Hindoos, as early as the sixth century, the now well-known value, 3.1416, had been obtained by Arya-Bhata, and a little later another of their mathematicians came to the conclusion that the square root of 10 was the true value of the ratio. He was led to this by calculating the perimeters of the successive inscribed polygons of 12, 24, 48, and 96 sides, and finding that the greater the number of sides the nearer the perimeter of the polygon approached the square root of 10. He therefore thought that the perimeter or circumference of the circle itself would be the square root of exactly 10. It is too great, however, being 3.1622 instead of 3.14159... The same idea is attributed to Bovillus, by Montucla.