Page:Edinburgh Review Volume 59.djvu/289

1834. was accordingly computed, and published at national expense, by order of the Board of Longitude, entitled 'Tables requisite to be used with the Nautical Ephemeris for finding the latitude and longitude at sea.' In the first edition of these requisite tables, there were detected, by one individual, above a thousand errors.

The tables published by the Board of Longitude for the correction of the observed distances of the moon from certain fixed stars, are followed by a table of acknowledged errata, extending to seven folio pages, and containing more than eleven hundred errors. Even this table of errata itself is not correct: a considerable number of errors have been detected in it, so that errata upon errata have become necessary.

One of the tests most frequently resorted to for the detection of errors in numerical tables, has been the comparison of tables of the same kind, published by different authors. It has been generally considered that those numbers in which they are found to agree must be correct; inasmuch as the chances are supposed to be very considerable against two or more independent computers falling into precisely the same errors. How far this coincidence may be safely assumed as a test of accuracy we shall presently see.

A few years ago. it was found desirable to compute some very accurate logarithmic tables for the use of the great national survey of Ireland, which was then, and still is in progress; and on that occasion a careful comparison of various logarithmic tables was made. Six remarkable errors were detected, which were found to be common to several apparently independent sets of tables. This singular coincidence led to an unusually extensive examination of the logarithmic tables published both in England and in other countries; by which it appeared that thirteen sets of tables, published in London between the years 1633 and 1822, all agreed in these six errors. Upon extending the enquiry to foreign tables, it appeared that two sets of tables published at Paris, one at Gouda, one at Avignon, one at Berlin, and one at Florence, were infected by exactly the same six errors. The only tables which were found free from them were those of Vega, and the more recent impressions of Callet. It happened that the Royal Society possessed a set of tables of logarithms printed in the Chinese character, and on Chinese paper, consisting of two volumes: these volumes contained no indication or acknowledgment of being copied from any other work. They were examined; and the result was the detection in them of the same six errors.