For, in respect to the latter branch of the supposition,
it should be considered that the most trifling variation
in the facts of the two cases might give rise to the
most important miscalculations, by diverting thoroughly
the two courses of events; very much as, in arithmetic,
an error which, in its own individuality, may be inappreciable,
produces, at length, by dint of multiplication at all
points of the process, a result enormously at variance
with truth. And, in regard to the former branch,
we must not fail to hold in view that the very Calculus
of Probabilities to which I have referred, forbids
all idea of the extension of the parallel: —
forbids it with a positiveness strong and decided
just in proportion as this parallel has already been
long-drawn and exact. This is one of those anomalous
propositions which, seemingly appealing to thought
altogether apart from the mathematical, is yet one
which only the mathematician can fully entertain.
Nothing, for example, is more difficult than to convince
the merely general reader that the fact of sixes having
been thrown twice in succession by a player at dice,
is sufficient cause for betting the largest odds that
sixes will not be thrown in the third attempt.
A suggestion to this effect is usually rejected by
the intellect at once. It does not appear that
the two throws which have been completed, and which
lie now absolutely in the Past, can have influence
upon the throw which exists only in the Future.
The chance for throwing sixes seems to be precisely
as it was at any ordinary time — that is to
say, subject only to the influence of the various
other throws which may be made by the dice. And
this is a reflection which appears so exceedingly
obvious that attempts to controvert it are received
more frequently with a derisive smile than with anything
like respectful attention. The error here involved
— a gross error redolent of mischief —
I cannot pretend to expose within the limits assigned
me at present; and with the philosophical it needs
no exposure. It may be sufficient here to say
that it forms one of an infinite series of mistakes
which arise in the path or Reason through her propensity
for seeking truth in detail.
~~~ End of Text ~~~
FOOTNOTES—Marie Rogêt
{*1} Upon the original publication of “Marie
Roget,” the foot-notes now appended were considered
unnecessary; but the lapse of several years since
the tragedy upon which the tale is based, renders it
expedient to give them, and also to say a few words
in explanation of the general design. A young
girl, Mary Cecilia Rogers, was murdered in the vicinity
of New York; and, although her death occasioned an
intense and long-enduring excitement, the mystery attending
it had remained unsolved at the period when the present
paper was written and published (November, 1842).
Herein, under pretence of relating the fate of a Parisian
grisette, the author has followed in minute detail,
