Page:Edinburgh Review Volume 59.djvu/288

276 were submitted to the following test: They were first compared, number by number, with the corrected copy of Callet's logarithms; secondly, with Hutton's logarithms; and thirdly, with Vega's logarithms. The corrections thus suggested being marked in the proofs, corrected revises were received back. These revises were then again compared, number by number, first with Vega's logarithms; secondly, with the logarithms of Callet; and thirdly, as far as the first 20,000 numbers, with the corresponding ones in Briggs's logarithms. They were now returned to the printer, and were stereotyped; proofs were taken from the stereotyped plates, which were put through the following ordeal: They were first compared once more with the logarithms of Vega as far as 47,500; they were then compared with the whole of the logarithms of Gardner; and next with the whole of Taylor's logarithms; and as a last test, they were transferred to the hands of a different set of readers, and were once more compared with Taylor. That these precautions were by no means superfluous may be collected from the following circumstances mentioned by Mr Babbage: In the sheets read immediately previous to stereotyping, thirty-two errors were detected; after stereotyping, eight more were found, and corrected in the plates.

By such elaborate and expensive precautions many of the errors of computation and printing may certainly be removed; but it is too much to expect that in general such measures can be adopted; and we accordingly find by far the greater number of tables disfigured by errors, the extent of which is rather to be conjectured than determined. When the nature of a numerical table is considered,—page after page densely covered with figures, and with nothing else,—the chances against the detection of any single error will be easily comprehended; and it may therefore be fairly presumed, that for one error which may happen to be detected, there must be a great number which escape detection. Notwithstanding this difficulty, it is truly surprising how great a number of numerical errors have been detected by individuals no otherwise concerned in the tables than in their use. Mr Baily states that he has himself detected in the solar and lunar tables, from which our Nautical Almanac was for a long period computed, more than five hundred errors. In the multiplication table already mentioned, computed by Dr Hutton for the Board of Longitude, a single page was examined and recomputed: it was found to contain about forty errors.

In order to make the calculations upon the numbers found in the Ephemeral Tables published in the Nautical Almanac, it is necessary that the mariner should be supplied with certain permanent tables. A volume of these, to the number of about thirty,