must make a number of measures of the length between adjacent points and and test which formula fits. If, for example, we then find that is always equal to , we know that our mesh-system is like that in Fig. 11, and being the numbers usually denoted by the polar coordinates , . The statement that polar coordinates are being used is unnecessary, because it adds nothing to our knowledge which is not already contained in the formula. It is merely a matter of giving a name; but, of course, the name calls to our minds a number of familiar properties which otherwise might not occur to us.
For instance, it is characteristic of the polar coordinate system that there is only one point for which (or ) is equal to 0, whereas in the other systems gives a line of points. This is at once apparent from the formula; for if we have two points for which and , respectively, then . The distance between the two points vanishes, and accordingly they must be the same point.
The examples given can all be summed up in one general expression , where , , may be constants or functions of and . For instance, in the fourth example their values are 1, 0, . It is found that all possible mesh-systems lead to values of which can be included in an expression of this general form; so that mesh-systems are distinguished by three functions of position , , which can be determined by making physical measurements. These three quantities are sometimes called potentials.
We now come to a point of far-reaching importance. The formula for teaches us not only the character of the mesh-system, but the nature of our two-dimensional space, which is independent of any mesh-system. If satisfies any one of the first three formulae, then the space is like a flat surface; if it satisfies the last formula, then the space is a surface curved like a sphere. Try how you will, you cannot draw a mesh-system on a flat (Euclidean) surface which agrees with the fourth formula.