As an example of the precautions which have been considered necessary to guard against errors in the calculation of numerical tables, we shall further state those which were adopted by Mr Babbage, previously to the publication of his tables of logarithms. In order to render the terminal figure of tables in which one or more decimal places are omitted as accurate as it can be, it has been the practice to compute one or more of the succeeding figures; and if the first omitted figure be greater than 4, then the terminal figure is always increased by 1, since the value of the tabulated number is by such means brought nearer to the truth.[8] The tables of Callet, which were among the most accurate published logarithms, and which extended to seven places of decimals, were first carefully compared with the tables of Vega, which extended to ten places, in order to discover whether Callet had made the above correction of the final figure in every case where it was necessary. This previous precaution being taken, and the corrections which appeared to be necessary being made in a copy of Callet's tables, the proofs of Mr Babbage's tables 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. [Footnote 8: Thus suppose the number expressed at full length were 3.1415927. If the table extend to no more than four places of decimals, we should tabulate the number 3.1416 and not 3.1415. The former would be evidently nearer to the true number 3.1415927.]