The most certain and effectual check upon errors which arise in the process of computation, is to cause the same computations to be made by separate and independent computers; and this check is rendered still more decisive if they make their computations by different methods. It is, nevertheless, a remarkable fact, that several computers, working separately and independently, do frequently commit precisely the same error; so that falsehood in this case assumes that character of consistency, which is regarded as the exclusive attribute of truth. Instances of this are familiar to most persons who have had the management of the computation of 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] [Footnote 10: Memoirs Ast. Soc. vol. iv., p. 290.] 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.