tables. We have reason to know, that M. Prony experienced it on many occasions in the management of the great French tables, when he found three, and even a greater number of computers, working separately and independently, to return him the same numerical result, and that result wrong. Mr Stratford, the conductor of the Nautical Almanac, to whose talents and zeal that work owes the execution of its recent improvements, has more than once observed a similar occurrence. But one of the most signal examples of this kind, of which we are aware, is related by Mr Baily. The catalogue of stars published by the Astronomical Society was computed by two separate and independent persons, and was afterwards compared and examined with great care and attention by Mr Stratford. On examining this catalogue, and recalculating a portion of it, Mr Baily discovered an error in the case of the star, χ Cephei. Its right ascension was calculated wrongly, and yet consistently, by two computers working separately. Their numerical results agreed precisely in every figure; and Mr Stratford, on examining the catalogue, failed to detect the error. Mr Baily having reason, from some discordancy which he observed, to suspect an error, recomputed the place of the star with a view to discover it; and he himself, in the first instance, obtained precisely the same erroneous numerical result. It was only on going over the operation a second time that he accidentally discovered that he had inadvertently committed the same error.10
It appears, therefore, that the coincidence of different tables, even when it is certain that they could not have been copied one from another, but must have been computed independently, is not a decisive test of their correctness, neither is it possible to ensure accuracy by the device of separate and independent computation.
Besides the errors incidental to the process of computation, there are further liabilities in the process of transcribing the final results of each calculation into the fair copy of the table designed for the printer. The next source of error lies with the compositor, in transferring this copy into type. But the liabilities to error do not stop even here; for it frequently happens, that after the press has been fully corrected, errors will be produced in the process of printing. A remarkable instance of this occurs in one of the six errors detected in so many different tables already mentioned. In one of these cases, the last five figures of two successive numbers of a logarithmic table were the following:—
35875
10436.
Now, both of these are erroneous; the figure 8 in the first line should be 4, and the figure 4 in the second should be 8. It is evident that the types, as first composed, were correct; but in the course of printing, the two types 4 and 8 being loose, adhered to the inking-balls, and were drawn out: the pressmen in replacing them transposed them, putting the 8 above and the 4 below, instead of vice versa. It would be a curious enquiry, were it possible to obtain all the copies of the original edition of Vlacq's Logarithms, published at Gouda in 1628, from which this error appears to have been copied in all the subsequent tables, to ascertain whether it extends through the entire edition. It would probably, nay almost certainly, be discovered that some of the copies of that edition are correct in this