Notes, 95
| Logarithms computed by Napier's Method. |
Logarithms computed by Present Method. |
| 1.000000050000005000000500 | 1,000000050000003 |
| 100.000005000000500000050000 | 100.000005000000333 |
| 100.000500003333525000225002 | 100.000500003333358 |
| 5000.025000166676250011250094 | 5000.02500016667917 |
| 5001.250416822987527739839231 | 5001.250416822979193 |
| 100025.008336459750554796784618 | 100025.008336459583854 |
| 100503.358535014579332632226320 | 100503.358535014411835 |
| 6834228.380380991394618991389791 | 6834228.380380980004813 |
| 6934253.388717451145173788174409 | 6934253.388717439588668 |
| 6931471.805599464646041962236367 | 6931471.805599453094225 |
| 23025850.929940495214660989152136 | 23025850.929940456840180 |
this, the Magnus Canon may safely be used to correct the figures in the text and in the Canon of 1614, as the latter is to one place less.
I find no reference by Ursinus to the discrepancies between the logarithms of the two Canons. The mistake in the Second table may possibly not have been observed by him, as the preparatory tables for the Canons were different.
The mistake was observed by Mr Edward Sang in 1865, when recomputing in full the preparatory tables of Napier’s Canon to 15 places.
It had been previously pointed out by M. Biot, in his articles on Napier in the ‘Journal de Savants’ for 1835, p. 255. The following
translation
