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 versâ. 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 number, while others are incorrect; the former having been worked off before the transposition of the types.
It is a circumstance worthy of notice, that this error in Vlacq's tables has produced a corresponding error in a variety of other tables deduced from them, in which nevertheless the erroneous figures in Vlacq are omitted. In no less than sixteen sets of tables published at various times since the publication of Vlacq, in which the logarithms extend only to seven places of figures, the error just mentioned in the eighth place in Vlacq causes a corresponding error in the seventh place. When the last three figures are omitted in the first of the above numbers, the seventh figure should be 5, inasmuch as the first of the omitted figures is under 5: the erroneous insertion, however, of the figure 8 in Vlacq has caused the figure 6 to be substituted for 5 in the va-
