NAZIONiu^ BIBLIOTECA^* PROVINCIALE

BIBLIOTECA

NAPOLI
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
 B. XxiV- ivo

HISTORY OF

THE THEORY OF PROBABILITY.

Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
 A HISTORY

OF THE

MATHEMATICAL THEOKY OF PROBABILITY

FROM THE TIME OF PASCAL TO THAT

OF LAPLACE.

I. TODHUNTER, M.A., F.R.S.

MACMILLAN AND CO.

1865.

Digitized by Google
 Cambritisc
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY. M.A.
AT TUK UNtVEKdITY I'BEbB.

Digitized by Google
 PREFACE.

The favourable reception wliich has been granted to my History

of the Calculus of Variations dunng the Nineteenth Century has
encouraged me to undertake another work of the same kind.
The .subject to which I now invite attention has liigh claims to
Consideration on account of the subtle problems which it involve.s,
the valuable contributions to analysis which it has produced, its
important practical .applications, and the eminence of those who
have cultivated it.
The nature of the problems which the Theory of Probability
contemplates, and the influence which this Theory h.xs exercised
on the progress of matliematical science and also on the concerns
of pvacticiil life, cannot be discussed witliin the limits of a Preface;
we may however claim for our subject all the interest which illus-
trious names can confer, by the simple statement that nearly
every great mathematician within the range of a century .and a
half will come before us in the course of the history. To mention
—
only the most distinguished in this distinguished roll we shall
find here— P.xscal and Ferm.at, w'orthy to be associated by kindred
—
genius and character De Moivre with his rare powers of analysis,
which seem to belong only to a later epoch, and which justify the
—
honour in which he was held by Newton Leibnitz and the emi-
nent school of which he may be considered the founder, a school
—
including the Beruoullis and Euler D’Alembert, one of the most
conspicuous of those who brought on the French revolution, and
—
Condorcet, one of the most illustrious of its victims Lagrange
and Lkaplacc who suiwived until the present century, and may be
regarded as rivals at that time for the supremacy of the mathe-
matical world.

I will now give an outline of the contents of the book.

The first Chapter contains an account of some anticipations
of the subject which are contained in the writings of Cardan,
Kepler and Galileo.
The second Chapter introduces the Chevalier de Mdrd who
h.aving puzzled himself in vain over a problem in chances,
fortunately turned for help to Pa.scal the Problem of Points is
:

discussed in the correspondence between Pascal and Fermat, and

thus the Theory of Probability begins its career.

Digitized by Google
vl PREFACE.

The third Clmptcr analy.ses the treatise in which Huygens in

1659 e.xhibitod wliat wa.s then known of the subject. Works such
as tliis, whicli pre.sent to st\ulent.s the opportunity of becoming
acquainted with the speculations of the foreino.st men of the
time, cannot be too higldy commended in this respect our sub-
;

ject has been fortunate, for the example which was afforded by
Huygens lias been imitated by James Bernoulli, De Moivre and
—
Laplace and the same course might with great advantage be
pursued in connexion with other subjects by mathematicians in
the present d.ay.
The fourth Chajiter contains a sketch of the early history of
the theory of Permutations and Combinations and the fifth Chap-
;

ter a sketch of the early history of the researches on Mortality

and Life Insurance. Neither of the.se Chapters claims to be ex-
haustive but they contain so much as may suffice to trace the
;

connexion of the branches to which they relate with the main sub-
ject of our histoiy.
Tlie sixth Chapter gives an account of some miscellaneous in-
vestigations between the years 1670 and 1700. Our attention is
directed in succession to Caratuuel, Sauveur, James Bernoulli,
Leibnitz, a translator of Huygens’s treatise whom I take to be
—
Arbuthnot, Roberts, and Craig the last of whom is notorious for
an absurd abuse of mathematics in connexion with the probability
of te.stimony.
The seventh Chapter analyses the Ars Conjectandi of James
Bernoulli. This is an elaborate treatise by one of the greatest
mathematicians of the age, and although it was unfortunately
left incomplete, it affords abund.ant evidence of its author’s ability
and of his interest in the subject Especially we may notice the
famous theorem which justly l)car,s the name of James Bernoulli,
and which places the Theory of Probability in a more commanding
position than it h.ad hitherto occupied.
The eighth Chapter is devoted to Jlontmort. He is not to bo
compared for mathematical jiower with James Bernoulli or De
Moivre nor does ho seem to have forme<l a very exalted idea of
;

the true dignity and imp<irtance of the subject. But he was cn-
thn.siastically devoted to it; he .spared no labour him.self, and his
influence direct or indirect stimulated the exertions of Nicolas
Bernoulli and of I)e Moivre.
The ninth Chapter relates to De MoivTO, containing a full
analysis of his Doctrine of Chances. De Moivre brought to bear
on the subject mathematical jwwei-s of the highest order; these
]iowers are e.specially manifested in the results which he enun-
ciated respecting the great problem of the Duration of Play.
Unfortunately he did not publish demonstrations, and Lagrange

Digitized by Google
 preface. vii

him.seir more than years later found a good exercise for his
fifty
analytic.-il skill in supplying the investigations this circumstance
;

compels us to admiro De Moivre's powers, and to regret the lass

which his concealment of his methods has occasioned to mathe-
matics, or at least to mathematical history.
De Moivre’s Doctrine of Chances fonned a treatise on the
subject, full, clear and accurate ; and it maintained its place as a
standard work, at least in England, almost down to our own day.
Tlie tenth Chapter gives an account of some miscellaneous
investigations between the years 1700 and 1750. These inves-
tigations are due to Nicola.s Bernoulli, Arbtithnot, Browne, Mairan,
Nicole, Buffon, Ham, Thomas Simp.son and John Bernoulli.
The eleventh Chapter relates to Daniel Bernoulli, containing
an account of a series of memoirs publi-shed chiefly in the volumes
of the Academy of Petersburg ; the memoirs are remarkable for
boldness and originality, the first of them contains the celebrated
theory of Moral Exjwctation.
The twelfth Chapter relates to Euler ; it gives an account of
his memoirs, which relate principally to certain games of chance.
The thirteenth Chapter relates to D’Alembert ; it gives a full
account of the objections which ho urged against some of the
fundamental principles of the subject, and of his controversy with
Daniel Bernoulli on the mathematical investigation of the gain to
human life which would arise from the extirpation of one of the
most fatal diseases to which the human race is li.able.
The fourteenth Chapter relates to Bayes ; it explains the me-
thod by which he demonstrated his famous theorem, which may
be said to have been the origin of that part of the subject which
relates to the probabilities of causes as inferred from observed
effects.
The fifteenth Chapter is devoted to Lagrange ;
he contributed
to the subject a valuable memoir on the theory of the errors of
observations, and demonstrations of the results enunciated by De
Moivre res|Tecting the Duration of Play.
The .sixteentli Chapter contains notices of miscellaneous inves-
tigations between the years 1750 and 1780. This Chapter brings
liefore us Kaestner, Clark, Mallet, John Bernoulli, Beguelin,
Michell, Lambert, Buffon, Fu.ss, and some others. The memoir
of Michcll is remarkable ; it contains the famous argument for the
existence of design drawn from the fact of the closeness of certain
stars, like the Pleiades.
The seventeenth Chapter relates to Cordorcet, who published a
large book and a long memoir upon the Theory of Probability.
He chiefly di.scussed the probability of the correctness of judg-
ments determined by a majority of votes ;
he has the merit of first

Digitized by Google
Via PREFACE.

submitting tins question to mathematical investigation, but his

own results are not of great practical imjwrtance.
The eighteenth Chapter relates to Trembley. He wrote several
memoirs with the main design of establishing by elementary
methods results which had been originally obtained by the aid of
the higher branches of mathematics but he does not seem to
;

have been very successful in carrying out his design.

The nineteenth Chapter contains an account of mi.scellancous
investigations betw'een tlie years 1780 and 1800. It includes tho
following names ; B<5rda, Malfatti, Bicquillcy, the writers in the
mathematical portion of the Encycloj^idie Methodique, D’Anieres,
Waring, Prevost and Lhuilier, and Young.
The twentieth Chapter is devoted to Laplace this contains a
;

full account of all his writings on the subject of Probability. First

his memoirs in chronological order, are analysed, and then the great
work in which he embodied .all his own invcstig<ations and much
derived from other writers. I hope it will be found that all the
parts of Laplace’s memoirs and work have been carefully and
clearly e.xpounded ; I would venture to refer for examples to
Laplace’s method of approxim.ation to integrals, to the Problem of
Points, to James Bernoulli’s theorem, to the problem tiiken from
Buffon, and above all to the famous method of Lea.st S<)uare.s.
With respect to the last subject I have availed myself of the
guidance of Poisson’s luminous analysis, and have given a general
investigation, applying to the case of more than one unknown
element. I hope I have thus accomplished something towards ren-
dering the theory of this important method accessible to students.
In an Appendix I have noticed some writings which came
iinder my attention during the printing of the work too late to be
referred to their proper places.
I have endeavoured to be quite accurate in my statements,
and to reproduce the es.sential elements of the original works
which I have analy.sed. I have however not thought it indispen-
sable to pre.scrve the exact notation in which any investigation
w'as first presented. It did not appear to mo of any importance
to retain the specific letters for denoting the known and unknowui
quantities of an algebraical problem wTiich any writer may have
chosen to use. Very often the same problem has been dis-
cussed by various writers, and in order to compare their methods
with any facility it is nece.ssary to use one set of .symlx>ls through-
out, although each writer may have preferred his peculiar set.
In fact by exercising c.are in the choice of notation I believe that
my exposition of contrasted methods has gained much in brevity
and clearness without any .s,acrifice of real fidelity^.
I have used no symbols which are not common to all mathc-

Digitized by Google
 PREFACE. IX

matical literature, except |

n whicli is an abbreviation for the pro-

duct 1.2, ...n, frequently but not universally employed .some such
:

symbol is miich required, and I do not know of any which is pre-

ferable to this, and I have accordingly introduced it in all my
publications.
There are three important authors whom I have frequently
cited whose works on Probability have passed through more than
one edition, Montmort, De Moivre, and Laplace it may save trouble
;

to a person who may happen to consult the pre.sent volume if I

here refer to pages 79, 13(1, and 495 where I have stated which
editions I have cited.
Perhaps it may appear that I have allotted too much space to
some of the authors whose works I examine, especially the more
ancient but it is difficult to be accurate or interesting if the nar-
;

rative is confined to a mere catalogue of titles and as experience

:

shews that mathematical histories are but rarely undertaken, it

seems desirable that they should not bo executed on a meagre
and inadequate scale.
I will here advert to .some of my predecessors in this depart-
ment of mathematical bistor}' and thus it will appear that I have
;

not obtained much assistance from them.

In the thii'd volume of Montucla’s Ilistoire des Mathemaliques
—
pages 380 42(3 are devoted to the Theory of Probability and the
kindred subjects. I have always cited this volume simply by the
name Montucla, but it is of course well known that the tliini and
fourth volumes were edited from the author’s manuscripts after his
death by La Landc. I should be sorry to appear ungrateful to
Montucla; his work is indispensable to the student of mathema-
tical history, for whatever may be its defects it remains without
any rival But I have been much disappointed in what he says
respecting the Theory of Probability he is not copiou.s, nor accu-
;

rate, nor critical Hallam has characterised him with some severity,
by saying in reference to a point of mathematical history, “Mon-
tucla is as superficial as usual .see a note in the second Chapter
of the first volume of the History of the Literature of Europe.
There arc brief outlines of the hi.story involved or formally
incorporated in some of the elementary treatises on the Theory
of Probability I need notice only the best, which occurs in the
:

Treati.se on Probability published in the Library of Useful Know-

ledge. This little work is anonymous, but is known to have been
written by Lublwck and Drinkwatcr; the fonner is now Sir John
Lubbock, and the latter changed his name to Drinkwater-Betbune:
see Professor Do Morgan’s Arithmetical Books... page lOG, a letter
by him in the Assurance Magazine, Vol. tx. p.age 238, and another
letter by him in the Times, Dec. IG, 1862. The treatise is intcr-

Digitized by Google
X PREFACE.

csling and valuable, but I Lave not been able to agree uniformly
witli the historical statements which it makes or irn])lie.s.
A more ambitious work bears the title llistoire dii Calcul
des Probabilit^s depuis ses oripines jusi/u’d nos jours par Charles
Gouraud... Paiis, 1848. This consi.sts of lf8 widely printed octavo
pages ; it is a popular narrative entirely free from mathematical
symbols, containing however some imjiortant specific references.
Exact truth occasionally sufters for the .sake of a rhetorical style
unsuitable alike to hi.story and to science; nevertheless tlie general
readier will be gratified by a lively and vigorous exhibition of the
whole course of the subject. M. Gouraud recognises the value of
the purely mathematical part of the Theoiy of Probability, but
will not allow the soundness of the applications which have been
iinule of these mathematical formula; to questions involving moral
or political considerations. His history seems to be a portion of a
very extensive es.say in three folio volumes containing 192!) pages
written when he was very young in competition for a prize pro-
posed by the French Academy on a subject entitled Tht'orie de la
Certitude; see the liapport by M. Franck in the Seances et 'Tra-
vails; de VAcademie des Sciences morales et politiques, Vol. x,
piiges 372, 382, and Vol. Xi. p:ige 139. It is scarcely necessary
to remark that M. Gouraud has gained distinction in other branches
of literature since the publication of his work which we have here
noticed.
There is one history of our subject which is indeed only a
sketch but tniced in lines of light by the hand of the great
master himself; La|)lace devoted a few j)ages of the introduction
to his celebnited work to recording the names of his predecessors
and their contributions to the Theory of Probability. It is much
to be regretted that he did not siipjily specific references through-
out his treatise, in order to distinguish carefully between that
which he merely transmitted from preceding mathematicians and
that which he originated himself.
It is necessary to observe that in cases where I point out a
similarity between the investigations of two or more WTiters I do
not mean to imj)ly that these investigations could not have been
made independently. Such coincidences may occur easily and
naturally without any reason for imputing unworthy conduct to
those who succeed the author who had the priority in publication.
I draw attention to this circumstance because I find with regret
that from a pa.ssage in my former historical work an inference has
been draw'll of the kind which I here disclaim. In the case of a
writer like Laplace who agrees with his i>redecessor.s, not in one or
two points but in ver\' many, it is of course obvious that he must
have borrowed largely, and we conclude that he supposed the

Digitized by Google
 PREFACE. XI

erudition of his contemporaries would be sufficient to prevent

them from ascribing to liimsclf more than was justly due.
It will be seen that I have ventured to survey a very extensive
field of mathematical research. It has been my aim to estimate
carefully and impartially the character and the merit of the
numerous memoirs and works which I have examined my criti-
;

cism has been intentionally close and searching, but I trust never
irreverent nor unjust. I have sometimes explained fully the
errors which I detected; sometimes, when tlie detailed exposition
of the error would have required more space than the matter
deserved, I have given only a brief indication which may be
serviceable to a student of the original production itself. I have
not hesitated to introduce remarks and developments of my
own whenever the subject seemed to require them. In an
elaborate German review of my former publication on mathe-
matical history it was suggested that my own contributions were
too prominent, and that the purely historical character of the
work was thereby impaired; but I have not been induced to
change my plan, for I continue to think that such additions as I
have been able to make tend to render the subject more in-
and more complete, without disturbing in any serious
telligible
degree the continuity of the history. I cannot venture to expect
that in such a difficult subject I shall bo quite free from error
either in my exposition of the labours of others, or in my own
contributions; but I hope that such failures will not bo numerous
nor important. I shall receive most gratrifully intimations of any
errors or omi.ssions whicli may be detected in the work.
I have been carefid to corroborate my statements by exact
quotations from the originals, and these I have given in the lan-
guages in which they were published, instead of translating them ;

the course which I have here adopted is I understand more agree-

able to foreign students into w'hose hands the book may fall. I
have been careful to preserve the historical notices and references
wdiich occurred in the works I studied; and by the aid of the
Table of Contents, the Chronological List, and the Index, which
accompany the pre.sent volume, it will be ea.sy to a.scertaiu w'ith
regard to any proposed mathematician down to the close of the
eighteenth century, whether he has written anything upon the
Theory of Probability.
I have carried the history down to the close of the eighteenth
century; in tlie case of Laplace, however, I have passed beyond this
limit: but by far the larger part of bis lalwurs on the Tlieory of
Probability were accomplished during the eighteenth century,
though collected and rcpubli.shed by him in his celebrated work in
the early part of the present century, and it was therefore conve-

Digiiized by Google
 —

xn PREFACE.

nient to incUule a full account of all Ills researches in the present

volume. There is ample scope for a continuation of the work
which should conduct the history through the period which has
elapsed since the close of the eighteenth century ; and I have
already made some progi-ess in the analysis of the rich materials.
But when I consider the time and labour exixuided on the present
volume, cslthough reluctant to abandon a long cherished dc.sign,
I feel far le.ss sanguine than once I did that I shall have the
leisure to arrive at the termination I originally ventured to pro-
pose to myself.
Although I wi.sh the present work to Ije regarded prlncip.ally as
a history, yet there are two other aspects under which it may
solicit the attention of students. It may claim the title of a com-
prehensive treatise on the Theory of Probability, for it assumes
in the reader only so much knowledge as can be gained from
an elementary bo<jk on Algebra, and introduces liiin to almost
every proce.ss and every species of iiroblem which the literature of
the suiyect can funiish or the work may be consitlered more spe-
;

cially a.s a commentary on the celebrated treatise of Laplace,

and perhaps no matheinaticid treatise over more required or more
deserved such an accompaniment.
My sincere thanks are due to Professor Do iforgan, him.self
conspicuous among cultivators of the Theory of Probability, for
the kind interest which he has taken in my work, for the loan of
scarce books, and for the suggestion of valuable references. A
similar interest was manifested by one prematurely lost to science,
whose mathematical and metaphysical genius, attested by his
marvellous work on the Laivs of Thought, led him naturally and
rightfully in that direction which Pascal and Ijcibnitz had marked
with the unfading lustre of their approbation; and who by his
rfirc ability, his wide attainments, and his attractive character,
gained the affection and the reverence of all who knew him.

I. TODIIUNTEPv.
Caubbidor,
May, i86«.

Digitized by Google
 ;

CONTENTS.
rAos
Phaptf-r T. Cardan. Kepleh. Galileo , . i

ComineoUry on Dante, 1. Cnrdan, l)t Ludo Alecf, i. Kepler, De Stella

Nora, 4. Galileo, Coruidermione lojva il Giuco dei Dadi, 4 ;
LttUrt, y

Chapter II. Pascal and Fermat . . , . 7

Quotations from Laplace, Poiason, and Boole, 7. De M<Srd*B Problemg, 7.
Problem of Poiuts^ 9. De (lisaatisfoction, n. Opinion of Lelh»
nitz, 13 . Fermat’s solution of the Problem of Points, 13. RobervaJ, t3,
Pascal’s error, 14. The Arithmetical TriangUt T7» Pascal^a design, 10.
Contemporary mathematicians, 21.

Chapter III. Huygens ^ . . . . ^ 22

De Ratiociniii in Ludo Al^r, 22. English translations, 93. Huygens’s solu*
tion of a problem, 24 ; Problems proposed for solution, ^5.

Chapter IV. On Combinations ^ 2li

AVilliam Buckley, a6. Bernardus Banimaiua and Eryciua Puteanua, 17, Quo-
tation from J ameg Bernoulli, 38. Paaeal, iq. Sehooten, ^o. Leibnita,
Diuetialio de Arte Comiiiutloria, 31 ;
hia frnitlcga atteropta, 33. Wallia’a
Algebra, .44 ; his errors, AA.

Chapter V. Mortality and Life Insurance . .S 7

John Graunt, 37. Van Hudden and John dc Witt, 38. Sir AVilllam Petty, 39,
CorrespoDtlvnoe between Leibnitz and James Bernoulli, 40. iialley, 41
his table, 42 ;
geometrical illustration, 43.

Chapter VI. Miscellaneous Inyestioationh between

the years 1670 AND 1700 4 t

Caramuel’a Slaihctit Bierpt, 44 hU errors, 45, 46. Sauveur ou Baaaette, 46,

;

James Beraoulli'e two problema, 47. Leibnitz, 47; hU error, 48, Of

the Lam of Chance, ascribed to Motte, 48 ; really by Arbuthnot, 40 ;
quotation from the preface, 50 ; error, 5s ; problem proposed, 53,
Francis Roberts, An Arithmetical Paradox, 53. Craig’s Theologia Chrie-
timee Prineipia UatKematica, 54. Cred'i^Uily of Human Teelimomf, 55.

Chapter VIL James Bernoulli . . . , 56

Correspondence with Leibnitz, 56 ; Are Conjectandi, 57. Error of Montucla, 58.
Contents of the An
Conjeclandi, 58. Problem of Points, sq, James
Bernoulli’s own method for problems on chances, 60; his solution of a

Digilized by Google
XIV CONTENTS.

problem on Duration of Play, 6i be pointa out a plausible nuatake, 6.^;

;

treato of Permutations and Combipaiiona, 64 his Numberi, 65 ; Pro*

;

blem of PoinU, 66 ; hia problem with a ftUsc but plausible solution, 67 ;

hU famous Theorem^ 71 ; memoir on infiaite Bcriea, letter on the game ;

of TennU, 75. Gouraud'a opinion, 77.

Chapter VIII. Moxtmort 78

Fontenelle^a Elofff, 78. Two editiona of MontmorVa book^ 70; contepta of the
book, 80; l>e Moivre^B reference to Montmort, 8r Montmort ; treata

of Combinationfl and the Biuomial Theorem, 8t ; demonstratcB a formula

givcD by De Moivro, 84 ;
Bumi certain Series, 86; ItU researches on Pha»
raon, 87; Treize, 91 ; Baiwette, 03. Problem sol ecl by a lady, Qg. Pm *
blcm of Pointfl, 96; Bowls, 100; Duration of J ky, 101; Her, io6;
T>i, IIP. Letter from Jolin Bernoulli, 1 13. Nicolas Bemoulli'a game of
chance, Il6. Trelge, no. Summation of Series, m. Walilegravc*g
problem, m. SummaUon of Seriea, 115. Malebranche, 126. Paacal, iiS.
Sum Argnment by Arbutbnot and *a Gravesande on
of a Beriea, 129.
Pivino Providence, 130, Jamea BomouUi'g Tlieorem, 131. Montmort*8
views on a HUtory of Mathematics, 131. Problems by Nicolaa Ber»
nouUi, 133. Petersburg Problem, 134.

Chapter IX. De Moivre 13 j

Taitimopy of John Bernoulli and of Newton, i.in. Editions of the Doc-
trine of Chances, 1 36. De iicnmra Sortia, lit. Do Mnivre’» approximate
formula, 138; hia Lemma, 1 38 ; WaldegraTe'a problem, 130; Duration
of Play, 140; Docirine of Ckanra, 141; Introduction to it, 14.1; con -
tinued fractiona, i4j; De Moivro'a approximate formula, K4; Puration
of Play, 147; Woodcock's problem, 147; Bansette and Pharaon, ifo;
Kunibem of Bernoulli, tgi; Pharaon, ifi; TreiM or Rencontre, 153;
Bowli, iSO: Problem on Dice, i6o; Waldegrave’s problem, 162;
Hazard. i6.^; Whist, 16a: Piquet, 166; Duration of Play, 167; Recur-
ring Series, i;8; Cumtng'a problem, i8a; James Bernoulli's Theorem, 183;
problem on a Run of Evento, 184; Miaeellanea Analytica, 187; contro-
yemy with Montmort, 188; Stirlipg'a theorem, i8g; Arbuthnot’s argu -
ment, 193.

Chapter X. Miscellaneous Inyestigatioks between

THE YEARS ITOO AND 17.50 19 ^

Nicolas BemooUi, Z04. Barbeyrac, 1^. Arbuthnot’s argument on Divine

Providence, iq 7 . WalJegrave^s problem, iQQ. Browne’s translation of
Huygenses treatiy, 199. Mairan on Odd and Even, 200. Nicole, aoi,
Buffon, 203. 20,^. rrrn<g c/-*;tiar(nWf, 305. iinpson’s iVfriurg a«J
Lavs of Chancft ao6 be adds something to Do Moivre's retmlts,
;

sums certain Series, 310; his Miscillmtsotts Ti'acU^ 2 11. Problem by John
Bernoulli, an.

Digitized by Google
 ;

COXTENTS. XV

r\0B

Chaptek XL Daxif.l Bernoveli . . . , 1L3

Theory of Moral Expectation, a 13 Petorsburg Problem, no; Incliimtlt.n of
planet of PUneUry Orbite, m ;

; Small iK>x. 774 ; mean duration of mar»

riaget^ 77 g; Daniel Bomoiil1i*8 problem, 231 ;
Birtlis of boys and girls, ^35;
terror! of observationa, 1^6^

CnAPTER XII. Euler 23Ii

Treizf, J39; Mortality, J4o; Annuities, ^42; Pharaon, i43; Lottery, ij.s;
Lottery, 247; notea on Lagrange, ^49; Lottery, aao; Life Aiaurance, ^56.

Chapter XIIL D’Alembert 2.i8

Croix ou Pile, a{8; I^etenbur;; Problem, 159; Small pox, 165; Prtcralmrif
Problem, ^ 75 Matliem«tieal Expectation, i‘ 6 Inoculation, 277; Croix
; \

ou PiU, i7q; Petersburg Problem, -280: Inoculation. i8i: refera to

L»pl»ce, 387; Petersburg Problem, rS8; error in a problem, igo.

Chapter XIV. Bayes , , , . . . 2M

Bayes*! theorem, 195; Lis mo<le of investigation, 1^; area of a curve, ^;)8.

Price*! example, ^qq. Approximations to an area, 300.

Chapter XV. Lagraxoe 301

Theory of erront, 301; Recnrring ScricB, 313; Problem of Point*, 315 ; Dura -
tion of PUt. Ai 6; Annuitiea, 310.

Chapter XVI. Miscellaxeous TyvEsrioATioys re -

nvEEX the years 1750 and 1780 321
Kaertner, DotUon, an. Hoyle, Clark’a I.atc$ of Chnuce,
Mallet, W,. John Bemonlli, Begnelin, on a Lottery problem.
on the Petersburg Problem, 331. Micbell, 331. John Bernoulli, 33;.
Lamliert, 335- Mallet, 337. Emerson, 343. Buffon, on gambling, 344;
on the Petersburg Problem, 345 ;
big own problem, 347. Fum, 34Q.

Chapter XYII. Coxdorcet . . . 3.51

Ditcourt Prdiminairt, 3<i; JEuot, ,t;3; firat Hypothenui, 353; second Hypo -
theeU, ,t57 problem on a Run ot Evente, 361 ; election of candidates for
;

an office, t7o; problems on invetoe probability, 378; RUk which may bo

neglected, 386; Trial by Jury, 388; adyantageoue Tribunale, 391; ex -
pectation, 39^ ;
Petersburg Problem, 393 evaluation of feudal righta, 395
;

probability of future events, 398; extraordinary facte, 400; credibility

of Roman Hiatory, 406. Opiaiona on Condorcet’g meriU, t°9-

Digitized by Google
 ^ ;
;

XVI CONTESTS.

Chapter XVIII. Tremdley Ill

Problem of Pointg, 4H; probability of eauatg, 413; problem of birtl», 4t‘i;
lottery problem, 421 ; »mall-pox, 433; duratiop of marriagee, 426; theory
of errora, 4^8; Her, 420.

Chapter XIX. Miscellaneous Investioations be-

tween THE YEARS 17S0 AND 1800 , . . 432
IVevoBt, 431. IkirJa, 432, Malfatti, 434. ]3icquiiU'y, 438. Kucyclopcdk Mi-
thodiuue^ AAI- l)*Aniereg, 445. Waring, 446, AnciUon, 4.^.'^. PrevoBtand
Lhuilier, 453. Young, 463.

CllAI>TEB XX. L.U»LACE ^ ^ ^ . . 4114

Memoire of 1774, recumpg Bcriea, 464; Duration of Pky, 465; Odd

aod Even. 465; probability of causes, 465; theory of erront, 468; Peters
burg Problem, 470; Memoir of 1773. 473; Odd and Even, 4?.^; FrobUm
of PoinU, 474 Duration of Play, 474 Incliuation of OrblU of (.'ometa, 47«i
; ;

Memoir of 17811 476 Duration of Play, 476; approximation to mtcgralw,

;

4/8; problem of births, 482 theory of errors, 484: Memoir of i770i 484 ;
;

GenenfcUng Functiopg, 4H4; Memoir of 1 782, 485 MemoirB of I783» 485

;

Memoir of 1800, 487; Memoir of t8io, 484); Connamanct da Ttm*, 400;

Problem od Comets, 491; Tk^oric...d<8 Prohahiliict^ 405; editiaoB of
it, 405; dedication to Napoleon, 4^6; Laplace*B re^enrehes in Physical
Astronomy, 4QQ> Pagcar»i argument, 500; illu8ionf<. 5Q1 ; Bacon. 50.^;
Litre I. 505 ;
Generating Functions, 505 ; Method of approximation, 511;
examples, 516; Lurt IL first Chapter, s^7; second Chapter 527; Odd
and Even, 5^7 ; Problem of Points, 528 ; Fourth Supplement, 5.^1 ; Wdde «

grave*8 Problem, 535; Run of Events, 53Q; Inclination of the Orlnto of

Placets, 54a ; election of candidates, 547; third Cliapter, 548; James
Pomoulli^g Theorem, 548; Daniel Bernoulli’s problem, 558; fourth Chap-
ter. a6q; Poi88on*8 problem, J\6t ; Least Squares, history of this
588 6ftb Chapter, 58g. PufFon’s problem, 590; sixth Chapter, 5Qt;
subject, ;

a De6nite Integral, 594; seventh Cliaptor, 598; eighth Chapter, 6oi ;

Smalbpox, Cot duration of marriages, 602 ninth Clmptcr, 605
;
cxten » ; ;

sion of James Bernoulli’s Theorem, 607; tenth Chapter, 600; ineqnab

ity, 6og; eleventh Chapter, 609; first Su[)plement, 610; second Supple*
meet, 61 1 third Supplement, 611; quotation from Poisson, 613.
;

Appendix . 614
John de Witt, 614. Rizzetti, 614. Kalile, 6l.^ 'a Gravesanile, 6i6. QuoUtion
from John Bernoulli, 6i6. Mendelsohn, 616, Lhuilier, 6i8. Waring, 618.

Digitized by GoogI
 CHAPTER I.

CARDAN. KEPLER. GALILEO.

1. The games of chance must at all times have

practice of
directed attention to some of the elementary considerations of the
Theory of Probability. Libri finds in a commentary on the Divina
Commedia of Dante the earliest indication of the different proba-
bility of the various throws which can be made with three dice.
The passage from the commentary is quoted by Libri ;
it relates to
the first line of the sixth canto of the Purgatorio. The com-
mentary was published at Venice in 1477. See Libri, Histoire

des Sciences Math&matiques en Italic, Yol. ii. p. 188.

2. Some other intimations of traces of our subject in older

writers are given by Gouraud in the following passage, unfor-
tunately without any precise reference.

Les ancicns paraissent avoir entiSreraent ignor6 cette sorte de calcul.

L’^rudition modeme en a, il est vrai, trouv6 quelques traces dans un
p<ienie en latin barbare intitul6 : De Vetula, osuvre d’un moine du Bas-
Empire, dans un commentaire de Dante de la fin du XV' siScle, et
dans les Merits de plusicurs math6maticiens italiens du moyeu ^e et
de la renaissance, Pacioli, Tartaglia, Peverone ; Gouraud, .^iXotrs
du Calcul des ProbdbilUes, page 3.

3. A treatise by Cardan entitled Be Ludo Alece next claims

our attention. This treatise was published in 1663, in the first
volume of the edition of Cardan’s collected works, long after
Cardan’s death, which took place in 1576.
1

Digitized by Google
2 CARDAN.

Montmort says, “ Jcrfime Cardan a donne un Traits De Ludo

Aleae ;
mais on n’y trouve que de I’drudition et des r<*flexions

morales.” Easai (fAnaZyae. .. p. XL. Libri say.s, “Cardan a ^crit

un traitd special do Ludo Alea, oil so trouvent r<5.solues plusieurs

questions d’analyse combinatoire.” Histoire, Vol. III. p. 176. The
former notice ascribes too little and the latter too much to
Cardan.

4. Cardan’s treatise occupies fifteen folio pages, each containing

two columns; it is so badly printed as to be scarcely intelligible.
Cardan himself was an inveterate gambler ;
and his treatise may
be best described as a gambler’s manual. It contains much mis-
cellaneous matter connected with gambling, such as descriptions of
games and an accmint of the precautions necessary to bo employed
in order to guard against adversaries disposed to cheat : the
discussions relating to chances form but a small portion of the
treatise.

6. As a specimen of Cardan’s treatise we will indicate the

contents of his thirteenth Chapter. He shews the number of
cases which are favourable for each throw that can be made with
two dice. Thus two and tw'elve can each be thrown in only one
way. Eleven can be thrown in tw'o ways, namely, by six appear-
ing on either of the two dice and five on the other. Ten can be
thrown in three ways, namely, by five appearing on each of the
dice, or by six appearing on cither and four on the other. And
so on.

Cardan proceeds, “Sed in Ludo fritilli undecim puncta adjicere

decct, quiauna Alea potest ostendi.”. .'fhe meaning apparently is,
.

that the person who throws the two dice is to be considered to

have thrown a given number wdien one of the dice alone exhibits
that number, as well as when the number is made up by the sum
of the numbers on the two dice. Hence, for six or any smaller
number eleven more favourable cases arise besides those already
considered.

Cardan next exhibits correctly the number of cases which are

favourable for each throw that can be made with three dice. Thus
three and eighteen can each be thrown in only one way four and ;

Digitized by Google
 : ;

CARDAN. 3

seventeen can each be thrown in three ways ;

and so on. Cardan
also gives the following list of the number of cases in Fritillo

1
108
2
111
3
115
4
120 126
5
133
6789 33 36 37
10
36
11
33
12
26

Here we have corrected two misprints by the aid of Cardan’s

verbal statements. It is not obvious what the table means. It
might be supposed, in analogy with what has already been said,
that if a person throws three dice he is to be considered to have
thrown a given number when one of the dice alone exhibits that
number, or when two dice together exhibit it as their sum, as
well as when all the three dice exhibit it as their sum and this :

would agree wuth Cardan’s remark, that for numbers higher than
twelve the favourable cases are the same as those already given by
him for three dice. But this meaning does not agree with Cardan’s
table ;
for with this meaning we should proceed thus to find the
cases favourable for an ace : there are 5’ cases in which no ace
appears, and there are 6* cases in all, hence there are 6’ — 5’ cases
inwhich we have an ace or aces, that is 91 cases, and not 108 as
Cardan gives.

The connexion between the numbers in the ordinary mode of

using dice and the numbers which Cardan gives appears to
be the following. Let n be the number of cases which are favour-
able to a given throw in the ordinary mode of using three dice,
and N number of cases favourable to the same throw in
the
Cardan’s mode let m be the number of cases favourable to the
;

given throw in the ordinary mode of using two dice. Then for any
throw not less than thirteen, F=n , for any throw between seven and
twelve, both inclusive, JV= 3w» +n ;
forany throw not greater than
six, JV = 108 + 3m + n. There is only one deviation from this law
Cardan gives 26 favourable cases for the throw twelve, and our
proposed law would give 3 -h 25, that is 28.

We do not, however, see what simple mode of playing with

three dice can be suggested which shall give favourable cases
agreeing in number with those determined by the above law.

6. Some further account of Cardan’s treatise will be found

1—2

Digitized by Google
i KEPLER.

in the Life of Cardan, by Henry Morley, Vol. I. pages 92 — 95.

Mr Morley seems to misunderstand the words of Cardan which he
quotes on his page 92, in con.setiuence of which he says that
Cardan “ lays it down coolly and philosophically, as one of his first
axioms, that dice and cards ought to be played for money.” In
the passage quoted by Mr Morley, Cardan seems rather to admit
the propriety of moderation in the stake, than to assert that there
must be a stake; this moderation Ciirdan recommends elsewhere,
example in
as for his second Chapter. Cardan’s treatise is briefly
noticed in the article Probability of the English Cyclopwdia.

7. Some remarks on the subject of chance were made by

Kepler in his work De Stella Xova in pede Serpentarii, which was
published in 160G. Kepler examines the different opinions on the
cause of the appearance of a new star which shone with great
splendour in ICOt, and among these opinions the Epicurean notion
that the star had been produced by the fortuitous concurrence
of atoms. The whole passage is curious, but we need not repro-
duce it, for it is easily accessible in the reprint of Kepler’s works
now in the course of publication ;
see Joannis Kepleri Astronomi
Opera Omnia edidit Dr Ch. Frisch, Vol. ii. pp. 714 —716. See
also the Life of Kepler in the Library of Useftd Knowledge, p. 13.
The passage attracted the attention of Dugald Stewart see his ;

irorfo edited by Hamilton, Vol. I. p. G17.

A few words of Kepler may be quoted as evndence of the

soundness of his opinions ;
he shows that even such events as
throws of dice do not happen without a cause. He says,

Quare hoc jactu Venus cecidit, illo canis? Nirairum lusor hao vice
tessellam alio latere arripuit, aliter maim condidit, aliter intus agitavit,
alio impetu animi manusve projecit, aliter inteidlavit aura, alio loco
alvei impegit. Nihil hie est, quod sua causa sic caruerit, si quis ista
subtilia posset consectari.

8. The next investigation which we have to notice is that by

Galileo, entitled Considerazione sopra il Giuco dei Dadi. The date
of this piece is unknown; Galileo died in 1642. It appeal's that
a friend had consulted Galileo on the following difficulty : with
three dice the number 9 and the number 10 can each be produced
by six different combinations, and yet experience shows that the

Digitized by Google
 :

GALILEO. 5

number 10 is ofteiier tlii-uwu than the number 9. Galileo makes

a careful and accurate analysis of all the cases which can occur,
and he shows that out of 210 possible cases 27 are favourable
to the appearance of the number 10, and 25 are favourable to the
appearance of the number 9.

The piece will be found in Vul. Xiv. pages 293 — 296, of Le

Opere di Galileo Galilei, Firenze, 1X55. From the Biblio-
grafia Galileiuna given in Vol. xv. of this edition of Galileo’s
works we learn that the piece first appeared in the edition of the
works published at Florence in 1718: here it occurs in Vol. ill.
pages 119 121.—
9. Libri in his HUtoire dea Sciences Mathhnatiques en Italie,
Vol. IV. page 288, has the following remark relating to Galileo
...“Ton voit, par ses lettres, qu’il s’<5tait longtemps occupe d’une
question delicate et non encore rdsolue, relative k la manibre de
compter les erreurs en rai.son gdomdtrique ou en proportion
arithmdtique, question qui touche ^galement au calcul des pro-
babilities et k l’arithm<?tique politique.” Libri refers to Vol. II.

page 55, of the edition of Galileo’s works published at Florence

in 1718 there can, however, be no doubt, that he means Vol. III.
;

The letters will be found in Vol. xrv. pages 2.31 284 of Le —

Opere... di Galileo Galilei, Firenze, 1855; they are entitled Lettere
intomo la stinia di un cavallo. We are informed that in those
days the Florentine gentlemen, instead of wasting their time
in attention to ladies, or in the stables, or in excessive gaming,
were accustmned to improve themselves by learned conversation
in cultivated society. In one of their meetings the following
question was proposed ;
a horse is really worth a hundred crowns,
one person estimated it at ten crowns and another at a thousand ;

which of the two made the more extravagant estimate ? Among

the persons who wore consulted was Galileo ;
he pronounced the
two estimates to be equally extravagant, because the ratio of a
thousand to a hundred Is the same as the ratio of a hundred to
ten. On the other hand, a priest named Nozzolini, who was also
consulted, pronounced the higher estimate to be more extravagant
than the other, because the excess of a thousand above a hundred
is greater than that of a hundred above ton. Various letters of

Digitized by Google
0 (i.UJLEO.

Galileo and Nozzolini are printed, and also a letter of Benedetto

Castelli, who took the same side as Galileo it appears that Galileo
;

had the same notion as Nozzolini when the question was first
proposed to him, but afterwards changed his mind. The matter
is discu.s.sed by the disputants in a very lively manner, and some
amusing illustrations are introduced. It does not appear, however,
that the di.scu.s-sion is of any scientific interest or value, and the
terms in which Libri refers to it attribute much more importance
to Galileo’s letters than they deserve. The Florentine gentlemen
when they renounced the frivolities already mentioned might have
investigated questions of greater moment than that which is here
brought under our notice.

Digitized by Google
 CHAPTER II.

PASCAL AND FERMAT.

10. The indications which we have given in the preceding

Chapter of the subsequent Theory of Probability are extremely
and we find that writers on the subject have shewn a jus-
slight;
tifiable pride in connecting the true origin of their science with
the great name of Pascal Tlius,

Elle doit la naissance & deux (Jeoraetres fran^ais du dix-aeptilme

siSclo, si fccond eu grands homines et en grandes ddconvertes, et peut-
Stre de tons les sificles celui qui fait le plus d’honneur & I’esprit
humain. Pascal et Fermat se jiroposJrent et resolurent quelques pro-
blames sur les probabilit£s... Laplace, Theorie...dea Prob. 1st edition,
page 3.

Un problcme relatif au.x jcux de hasard, propos4 il un austilre jan-

s€niste par un homme du monde a 4t6 I’origine du calcul des probabilit4s.

Poisson, Recherchea aur la Prob. jiage 1.

The problem which the Chevalier de M6r4 (a reputed gamester)

proposed to the recluse of Port Royal (not yet withdrawn from the in-
terests of science by the more distracting contemplation of the “great-
ness and the misery of man ”), was the first of a long series of problems,
destined to call into existence new methods in mathematical analysis,
and to render valuable service in the practical concerns of life.” Boole,
Lavoa of Thought, page 243.

11. It appears then M4rd proposed

that the Chevalier de
certain questions to Pascal and Pascal corresponded with Fer-
;

mat on the Unfortunately only a

subject of these questions.
portion of the correspondence is now accessible. Three letters

Digitized by Google
8 PASCAL AND FERMAT.

of Pascal to Fennat on this subject, which were all written in

165-t, were published in the Varia Opera Mathematica D. Petri

de i^er»ia<...Tolosa?, 1679, pages 179 188. These letters are —

reprinted in Pascal’s works ; in the edition of Paris, 1819, they
occur in Vol. IV. pages 360 — 388. This volume of Pascal’s works
also contains some letters written hy Fennat to Pascal, which are
not given in Fermat’s works ;
two of these relate to Probabilities,
one of them is in reply to the second of Pascal’s three letters, and
the other apparently is in reply to a letter from Pascal which
has not been preserved ;
see pages 383 —
388 of the volume.

We will quote from the edition of Pascal’s works just named.

Pascal’s first letter indicates that some previous correspondence
had occurred which w'e do not possess; the letter is dated July 29,
1651;. He begins.

Monsieur, L’impatience me prend aussi-bieu qu’k vous ;

et quoique
je sois encore au lit, je ne puis m’emp^her de vous dire que je reijus
hier au soir, do la i>art de M. de Carcavi, votre lettre sur les partis,
que j’admire si fort, que je ne puis vous le dire. Je n’ai pas le loisir de
m’6tendre ; mais en un mot vous avez trouv6 les dexix partis des d6a et
des parties dans la parfaite justesae : j’en suis tout sati.sfait ;
car je ne
doute plus maintenant que je ne sois dans la v6rit^, aprSs la rencontre
admirable oil jo mo trouve avec vou.s. J’admire bien davantage la
mCthode des parties que celle des d6s ;
j’avois vu plusieurs personnes
trouver cello des d&i, corame M. le chevalier de Mor6, qui est celui qui
ni’a propo.sd ces questions, et aussi M. de Roberval ; mais M. de Merd
n’avoit jamais pu trouver la juste valour des parties, ni de biais pour
y arriver : de sorte que je me trouvois seul qui eusse connu cette
projwrtion.

Pascal’s letter then proceeds to discuss the problem to which it

appears from the above e.vtract he attached the greatest importance.
It is called in English the Problem of Points, and
is thus enun-

ciated two players want each a given number of points in order

;

to winif they separate without playing out the game, how

;

should the stakes be divided between them ?

The question amounts to asking what is the probability which

each player has, at any given stage of the game, of winning the
game. In the discussion between Pascal and Fermat it is sup-

Digitized by Google
 r.VSCAL AND FEftMAT. 9

posed that the players have equal chances of winning a single

point.

12. We will now give an account of Pascal’s investigations

on the Problem of Points ;
in substance we translate his words.

The following is my method for determining the share of each

player, when, for example, two players play a game of three points
and each player has staked 32 pistoles.

Suppose that the first player has gained two points and the
second player one point ;
they have now to play for a point on
this condition, that if the first player gains he takes all the money
which is at stake, namely 6-1 pistoles, and if the second player
gains each player has two points, so that they are on terms of
equality, and if they leave off playing each ought to take 32
pistoles. Thus, if the first player gains, 64 pistoles belong to

him, and if he loses, 32 pistoles belong to him. If, then, the

players do not wish to play this game, but to separate without
playing it, the first player would say to the second “ I am certain of
32 pistoles even if I lose this game, and as for the other 32 pistoles
perhaps I shall have them and perhaps you wUl have them the ;

chances are equal Let us then divide these 32 pistoles equally

and give me also the 32 pistoles of which I am certaia” Thus
the first player will have 48 pistoles and the second 16 pistoles.

Next, suppose that the first player has gained two points and
the second player none, and that they are about to play for a
point ;
the condition then is that if the first player gains this
]K)int he secures the game and takes the 64 pistoles, and if the
second player gains this point the players will then be in the
situation already examined, in which the first player is entitled
to 48 pistoles, and the second to 16 pistoles. Thus if they do not
wish to play, the first player would say to the second “ If I gain

the point I gain 64 pistoles if I lose it I am entitled to 48

;

pistoles. Give me then the 48 pistoles of which I am certain,

and divide the other 16 equally, since our chances of gaining the
point are equal." Thus the first player will have 56 pistoles and
the second player 8 pistoles.

Finally, suppose that the first player has gained one point and

Digitized by Google
10 PASCAL AND FEOUAT.

the second player none. If they proceed to play for a point the
condition is that if the first player gains it the players will be in
the situation first examined, in which the first player is entitled to

56 pistoles if the ;
first player loses the point each player has then
a point, and each is entitled to 32 pistoles. Thus if they do not
wish to play, the first player would say to the second “ Give me
the 32 pistoles of which I am certain and divide the remainder of
the 56 pistoles equally, that is, divide 2+ pistoles equally.” Thus
the first player will have the sum of 32 and 12 pistoles, that is

44 pistoles, and consequently the second will have 20 pistoles.

13. Pascal then proceeds to enunciate two general results

without demonstrations. We will give them in modem notation.

Suppose each player to have staked a sum of money

(1)
denoted by A let the number of points in the game be n + 1, and
;

suppose the first player to have gained n points and the second
player none. If the players agree to separate without playing

any more the first player is entitled to 2 A— .

(2) Suppose the stakes and the number of points in tlie game
as before, and suppose that the first player has gained one point
and the second player none. If the players agree to separate
w’ithout playing any more, the first player is entitled to

1.3.5 (2n - 1)
A+ A 2.4.6

Pascal Intimates that the second theorem is difficult to prove.

He says it depends on two propositions, the first of which is purely
arithmetical and the second of which relates to chances. The
firstamounts in fact to the proposition in modern works on
Algebra which gives the sum of the co-efficients of the terms in
the Binomial Theorem. The second consists of a statement of
the value of the first player’s chance by means of combinations,
from which by the aid of the arithmetical proposition the value
above given is deduced. The demonstrations of these tw’o results
may be obtained from a general theorem which will be given later
in the present Chapter see Art. 23. Pascal adds a table which
;

Digitized by Google
 PASCAL AND FERMAT. 11

exhibits a complete statement of all the cases which can occur in

a game of six p:>ints.

l-l. Pascal then proceeds to another topic. He says

Je n’a pas le temps de vous envoyer la dfimonstration d'une difficult^

qui ^tonnoit fort M. de Mer6 : car il a trSs-bon esprit, mais il n’est pas
g^omfitre ;
c’est, comme vous savez, nn grand d6faut; etm6me il ne com-
prend pas qu’une ligne math6matique soit divisible 4 I’infini, et croit
fort bien entendre qu’elle est composle de points en nombre fini, et
jamais je n’ai pu Ten tirerj si vous pouviez le faire, on le rendroit
parfait. Il me disoit done qu’il avoit trouv6 fausset4 dans les nombres
par cette raison.

The diflSculty is the following. If wo undertake to throw a

six with one die the odds are in favour of doing it in four throws,
being as 671 to 625 ;
if we undertake to throw two sixes w’ith two
dice the odds are not in favour of doing it in twenty-four throws.
Nevertheless 24 is to 36, which is the number of cases with two
dice, as 4 is to 6, which is the number of cases with one die.
Pascal proceeds

VoilA quel €toit son grand scandale, qui lui faisoit dire hautement
que les propositions n’dtoient pas constantes, et que Tarithm^tique se
dimentoit. Mais vous en verrez bien ais6ment la raison, ])ar les prin-
cipes oil vous §tes.

15. In Pascal’s letter, as it is printed in Fermat’s works, the

name de MirS Ls not given in the passage we have quoted in the
preceding article ;
a blank occurs after the 31. It seems, however,
to be generally allowed that the blank has been 6 lied up correctly
by the publishers of Pascal’s works : Montmort has no doubt on
the matter ;
see his p. xxxii. See also Gouraud, p. 1 Lubbock ;

and Drinkwater, p. 41. But there is some difiSculty. For

certainly
in the extract which we have given in Art. 11, Pascal states that
M. de M^r^ could solve one problem, celle des dSs, and seems to
imply that he failed only in the Problem of Points. Montucla
says that the Problem of Points was proposed to Pascal by the
Chevalier de M<5r^, " qui lui en proposa aussl quelques autres sur le

jeu de d^s, comme de determiner en combien de coups on peut

parier d’amener une rafle, &c. Ce chevalier, plus bel esprit que

Digitized by Google
12 PASCAL AND FERMAT.

gTODofetre ou analyste, r&olut i la vdritd ces dernidres, qui ne sont

pas bien difficiles ;
mais il dchoua pour le prdcddent, ainsi que
Roberval, & qui Pascal These words would
le proposa.” p. 384.

seem to imply that, in Montucla’s opinion, M. de Mdrd was not the

person alluded to by Pascal in the passage we have quoted in
Article 14. We may remark that Montucla was not justified in
suggesting that M. de Mdrd must have been an indifferent mathe-
matician, because he could not solve the Problem of Points for ;

the case of Roberval shews that an eminent mathematician at that

time might find the problem too difficult.

Leibnitz says of M. de Mdrd, “ II est vrai cependant que le Che-

valier avoit quelque gdnie extraordinaire, mdme pour les Mathd-
matiques and the.se words seem intended seriously, although in
the context of this passage Leibnitz is depreciating M. de Mdrd.
Leibnitii, Opera Omnia, ed. Dutens, VoL II. part 1. p. 92.

In the Nouveaux Essais, Liv. iv. Chap. 16, Leibnitz says,

“Le Chevalier de Mdrd dont les Agriments et les autres ouvrages
ont dtd imprimds, homme d’un esprit pdndtrant et qui dtoit joueur
et philosophe.”

It must be confe.ssed that Leibnitz speaks far less favourably of

M. de Mdrd in another place. Opera, Vol. V. p. 203. From this pas-
sage,and from a note in the article on Zeno in Bayle’s Dictionary,
to which Leibnitz refers, it appears that M. de Mdre maintained
that a magnitude was not infinitely divisible : this assists in identi-
fying him with Pascal’s friend who would have been perfect had it

not been for this single error.

On the whole, in spite of the difficulty which we have pointed

out, we conclude that M. de Merd really was the person who so
strenuously asserted that the propositions of Arithmetic were in-
consistent with themselves ;
and although it may be unfoidunate
for him that he is now known principally for his error, it is some
compensation that his name is indissolubly associated with those of
Pascal and Fermat in the history of the Theory of Probability.

16. The remainder of Pascal’s letter relates to other mathe-

matical topics. Fermat’s reply is not extant ;
but the nature of it

may be inferred from Pascal’s next letter. It appears that Fermat

Digitized by Google
 PASCAL AXD KERMAT. 13

sent to Pascal a solution of the Problem of Points depending on

combinations.

Pascal’s second letter is dated August 24tb, 1654. He says that

Fermat’s method is satisfactory when there are only two players,
but unsatisfactory when there are more than two.
Here Pascal
was wrong as we shall see. Pascal then gives an example of
Fermat’s method, as follows. Suppose there are two players, and
that the first wants two points to win and the second three points.
The game will then certainly be decided in the course of four
trials. Take the letters a and h and write down all the combina-
tions that can be formed of four letters. These combinations are
the following, 16 in number:

a a a a a b a a b a a a b b a a
a a a h a b a b b a a b b b a b
a a h a a b b a b a b a b b b a
a a h h a b b b b a b b b b b h

Now let A denote the player who wants two points, and B the
player who wants three points. Then in these 16 combinations
every combination in which a occurs twice or oftener represents a
case favourable to A, and every combination in which h occurs
three times or oftener represents a case favourable to B. Thus on
counting them be found that there are 11 cases favourable to
it will
A, and 5 cases favourable to B
and as these cases are all equally ;

likely, A'a chance of winning the game is to .ffs chance as

11 is to 5.

17. Pascal says that he communicated Fermat’s method to

Roberval, who objected to it on the following ground. In the
example just considered it is supposed that four trials will be
made ;
but this is not necessarily the case ;
for it is quite possible
that the first player may win in the next two trials, and so the
game be finished in two trials. Pascal answers this objection by
stating, that although it is quite possible that the game may be
finished in two trials or in three trials, yet we are at liberty to
conceive that the players agree to have four trials, becarise, even if

the game be decided in fewer than four trials, no difference will bo

Digitized by Google
 ;

u PASCAL AND FERMAT.

made in the decision by the superfluous trial or trials. Pascal

puts this point very clearly.

In the context of the first passage quoted from Leibnitz in

Art. 15, he refers to “ Ics belles pcnsces de Alea, de Messieurs
Fermat, Pascal et Huygens, oh Mr. Roberval ne pouvoit ou ne
vouloit ricn comprendre.”

The difficulty raised by Roberval was in effect reproduced by

D’Alembert, as we shall see hereafter.

18. Pascal then proceeds to apply Fermat’s method to an

example in which there are three players. Suppose that the first

player wants one point, and each of the other players two points.
The game will then be certainly decided in the course of three
trials. Take the letters a, h, c and write down all the combinations

which can be formed of three letters. These combinations are the

following, 27 in numlxir:

a a a baa c a a
a a h b a b cab
a a c b a c c a c

a b a b b a c b a
abb b b b c b b
a b c h b c c b c

a c a h c a c c a
a c h b c b c c b
a c c b c 0 c c c

Let A B and C the

denote the player who wants one point, and
other two players. By examining the 27 cases, Pascal finds 13
which are exclusively favourable to A, namely, those in which a
occurs twice or oftener, and those in which a, b, and c each occur
once. He finds 3 cases whicli he considers equally favourable to
A and B, namely, those in which a occurs once and b twice and ;

similarly he finds 3 cases equally favourable to A and C. On the

whole then the number of cases favourable to A may be considered
to be 13 + 5 + f. that is 16. Then Pascal finds 4 cases which
are exclusively favourable to B, namely those represented by bbb,
ebb, beb, and bbc and thus on the whole the number of cases

Digitized by Google
 PASCAL AND FERMAT. 15

favourable to B may be considered to be 4 + |, that is 5^. Simi-

larly the number of cases favourable to G may be considered to
be 54 . Tims it -would appear that the chances of A, B, and C are
respectively as 16, 5^, and 5J.

Pascal, however, says that by his o-wn method he had found

that the chances are as 17, 5, and 5. He infers that the differ-
ence arises from the circumstance that in Fermat’s method it is

assumed that three trials will necessarily be made, which is not

assumed in his o-wn method. Pascal was -wrong in supposing that
the true result could be affected by assuming that three trials
would necessarily be made find indeed, as we have seen, in the
;

case of two players, Pascal himself had correctly maintained

against Roberval that a similar assumption was legitimate.

19. A letter from Pascal to Fermat is dated August 29th, 1654.

Fennat refers to the Problem of Points for the case of three
players; he says that the proportions 17, 5, and 5 are correct for
the example which we have just considered. This letter, how-
ever, does not seem to be the reply to Pascal’s of August 24th, but
to an earlier letter which has not been preserved.

On the 25th of September Fermat writes a letter to Pascal,

in which Pascal’s error is pointed out. Pascal had supposed
that such a combination as acc represented a case equally favour-
able to A
and (7; but, as Fermat says, this case is exclusively
favourable to A, because here A gains one point before C gains
one and as A only wanted one point the game is thus decided
;

in his favour. When the necessary correction is made, the result

is, that the chances of A, B, and C are as 17, 5, and 5, as Pascal

had found by Ids own method.

Fermat then gives another solution, for the sake of Roberval,
in -which he does not assume that three trials -will necessarily be
made and he
;
arrives at the same result as before.

In the remainder of his letter Fermat enunciates some of his

memorable propositions relating to the Theory of Numbers.
Pascal replied on October 27th, 1654, to Fermat’s letter, and
said that he was entirely satisfied.

Digitized by Google
IG PASCAL AND FERMAT.

20. There is another letter from Fermat to Pascal which is

not dated. It relates to a simple question which Pascal had pro-

posed to Fermat. A person undertakes to throw a six with a die
in eight throws ;
supposing him to have made three throws with-
out succe.ss, what portion of the stake should he be allowed to take
on condition of giving up his fourth throw ? The chance of success
is so that he should be allowed
to take J of the stake on con-
dition of giving up But suppose that we wish to esti-'
his throw.
mate the value of the fourth throw before any throw is made. The
first throw is worth
J of the stake the second is worth J of what
;

remains, that is ^
of the stake the third throw is worth ^ of what
;

now remains, that is

^ of the stake ;
the fourth throw is worth
J of what now remains, that is of the stake.

It seems possible from Fermat’s letter that Pascal had not dis-
tinguished between the two cases ;
but Pascal’s letter, to which

Fermat’s is a reply, has not been preserved, so that we cannot

be certain on the point.

21. We Problem of Points was the prin-

see then that the
cipal question discussedby Pascal and Fermat, and it was certainly
not exhausted by them. For they confined them.selves to the case
in which the players are supposed to possess equal skill; and their
methods would have been extremely laborious if applied to any
examples except those of the most simple kind. Pascal’s method
seems the more refined the student will perceive that it depends
;

on the same principles as the modem solution of the problem

by the aid of the Calculus of Finite Differences see Laplace, ;

Th^orie...des Prob. page 210.

Qouraud awards to Fennat’s treatment of the problem an

amount of praise which seems excessive, whether we consider that
treatment absolutely or relatively in comparison with Pascal’s ;
see

his page 9.

22. We have next to consider Pascal’s Traiti du triangle

arithmitique. ’This treatise was printed about 165-t, but not
published until 1665 see Montucla, p. 387. The treatise will be
;

found in the fifth volume of the edition of Pascal’s works to which

we have already referred.

Digitized by Google
 :

PASCAL ASD FERMAT. 17

The Arithmetical Triangle in its simplest form consists of the

following table

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 .. ,

1 4 10 20 35 56 84. ,

1 5 15 35 70 126 .

1 6 21 56 126 . ..

1 7 28 84. , ,

1 8 36 . , ,

I 9 ...

1 ...

In the successive horizontal rows we have what are now called

the figurate numbers. Pa.scal distinguishes them into orders. He
calls the simple units 1, 1, 1, 1,... wliich form the first row, num-
bers of the first order; he calls the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4,... which
form the second row, numbers of the second order; and so on.
The numbers of the third order 1, 3, 6, 10,... had already received
the name of triangular numbei-s; and the numbers of the fourth
order 1, 4, 10, 20,... the name oi pyramidal numbers. Pascal says
that the numbers of the fifth order 1, 5, 15, 35,... had not yet
received an exprc.ss name, and he proposes to call them triangtdo-
triangulaires.

In modem notation the term of the r“‘ order is

n (n + 1) ... (?» + r— 2)

Pascal constructs the Arithmetical Triangle by the following

definition ;
each number is the sum of that immediately above it

and that immediately to the left of it. Thus

10 = 4 + 6, 35 = 20 + 15, 126 = 70 + 56,...

The properties of the numbers are developed by Pascal with
great skill and distinctness. For example, suppose we require the
sum of the first n terms of the i*^ order : the sum is equal to the
number of the combinations of n +r—1 things taken r at a
time, and Pascal establishes this by an inductive proof.
o

Digitized by Google
 ;

18 PASCAL AND FERMAT.

23. Pascal applies his Arithmetical Triangle to various subjects

among thesewe have the Problem of Points, the Theory of Com-
binations, and the Powers of Binomial Quantities. We are here
only concerned with the application to the first subject.

In the Arithmetical Triangle a line drawn so as to cut off

an equal number of units from the top horizontal row and the
extreme left-hand vertical column is called a base.

The bases are numbered, beginning from the top left-hand

comer. Thus the tenth base is a fine drawn through the num-
bers 1, 9, 36, 8t, 126, 126, 8 t, 36, 9, 1. It will be perceived that
the ?•“* base contains r numbers.

Suppose then that A wants m points and that B wants n

points. Take the (m-|-n)“‘ base; the chance of .d is to the chance
of B as the sum of the first n numbers of the base, beginning at
the highest row, is to the sum of the last m numbers. Pascal
establishes this by induction.
Pascal’s result may be easily shewn to coincide with that
obtained by other methods. For the terms in the (m n)““ base
are the coefficients in the expansion of (1 by the Binomial
Theorem. Let m+n — l=r; then Pascal’s result amounts to
saying that the chance of .d is proportional to

>-(^-1 ) ••• (r-n + 2)

+
i+r-r I

j 2 n-1 '

and the chance of B proportional to

1.2 »t —1
Tliis agrees with the result now usually given in elementary
treatises; see Algebra, Cliapter Liil.

2-t. Pascal then notices some particular examples. (1) Sup-

pose that A wants one point and B wants n points. (2) Suppose
that A wants —1
ji points and B wants n points. (3) Suppose
that A wants n—2 points and B wants n points. An interesting
relation holds between the second and third examples, which we
will exhibit.

Digitized by Googli
 PASCAL AND FERMAT. 19

Let M denote the number of cases

which are favourable to A,
and iV the number of cases which are favourable to B. Let
r = 2» — 2.

In the second example we have

M—N= .

|n— 1 » - 1
=\ say.
•'
I

Then if 2 iS denote the whole sum at stake, A is entitled to

_
2
,
2**
4- X
,
that is to
S
^
(2’'+ X) ;
so that he may be considered

to have recovered his own stake and to have won the fraction

— of his adversary’s stake.

In the third example we have

M->rN= 2 ->,

M-N=
I
n
'
— — = —2(n-l)|r-l
2|r-l
=
- 1 a- |«-1
I
2
^

« - 1
2X(w-l)
r
= X.

Thus we shall find that A may be considered to have recovered

his own stake, and to have won the fraction of his adversary’s
A
stake.

we see that if
Hence, comparing the second and third examples,
the player who wins the first' point also wins the second point,
his advantage when he has gained the second point is double what
it was when he had gained the first point, whatever may be the

number of points in the game.

25. We have now analysed all that has been preserved of

Pascal’s researches on our subject. It seems however that he had
intended to collect these researches into a complete treatise. A
letter is extant addressed by him Celeherrimce Matheseoa A cademice
Parisiensi; this Academy was one of those voluntary a.ssociations
which preceded the formation of formal scientific societies : see
Pascal’s Works, Vol. iv. p. 356. In the letter Pa.scal enumerates
various treatises which he had prepared and which he hoped to
2—2

Digitized by Google
20 PASCAL AND FERMAT.

publish, among which was

to be one on chances. His language
shews that he had a high opinion of the novelty and importance
of tlie matter he proposed to discuss ; he says,

Novissima autem ac penitiis intentatfs materise tractatio, scilicet de

compotilum« alea in ludis ipsi subjects, quod gallico nostro idiomate
dicitur (Jatre Us partis des jeux) ubi anceps fortuna eequitate rationis
:

ita reprimitur ut utrique lusoram quod jure competit exacts semper

assignetur. Quod quidem eo fortiila ratiocinando quffirendum, quo
min^ tentando investigari possit ; ambigui enim sortis eventus fortuit®
contingenti® poti^ quam naturali necessitati meritb tribuuntur. Itleb

res hactenus erravit incerta n\mc autem qu» ex)ierimento rebellis

;

fuerat, rationis dominium cffugere non potuit earn quippe tanta se-
:

curitate in artem per gcometriam rcduximus, ut certitudinis cjus

particeps facta, jam audacter prodeat ; et sic matheseos demonstrationes
cum ale® incertitudine jungendo, et qu® contraria videntur conciliando,
ab utraque nominationem suam accipiens stupendum hunc titulum jure
sibi arrogat : aU<e geometria.

But the design was probably never accomplished. The letter

is dated 1654; Pascal died in 1662, at the early age of 39.

26. Neglecting the trifling hints which may be found in pre-

ceding writers we may say that the Theoiy of Probability really
commenced with Pascal and Fermat and it would be difficult to ;

find two names which could confer higher honour on the subject.

Tlie fame of Pascal rests on an extensive basis, of which

mathematical and physical science form only a part; and the
regret which we may feel at his renunciation of the studies in
which he gained his earliest renown may be diminished by reflect-
ing on his memorable Letters, or may be lost in deeper sorrow
when we -contemplate the fragments which alone remain of the
great work on the evidences of religion that was to have engaged
the efforts of his maturest powers.
The fame of Fermat is confined to a narrower range ; but it is

of a special kind which is without a parallel in the history of

science. Fermat enunciated various remarkable propositions in
the theory of numbers. Two of these are more important than
the rest; one of them after baffling the powers of Euler and La-
grange finally yielded to Cauchy, and the other remains still un-

Digitized by C >gle
 PASCAL AND FERJIAT. 21

conquered. The which attaches to the propositions is

interest
increased by the uncertainty which subsists as to whether Fermat
himself had succeeded in demonstrating them.

The French government in the time of Louis Philippe assigned

a grant of money for publishing a new edition of Fermat’s works ;

but unfortunately the design has never been accomplished. The

edition which we have quoted in Art. 11 has been reprinted in
facsimile by Friedlandcr at Berlin in 1861.

27. At the time when the Theory of Probability started from

the hands of Pascal and Fermat, they were the most distinguished
mathematicians of Europe. Descartes died in 1650, and Newton
and Leibnitz were as yet unknown Newton was bom in 16l!2,
;

and Leibnitz in 1646. Huygens was bom in 1629, and had

already given specimens of his powers and tokens of his future
eminence; but at this epoch he could not have been placed on the
level of Pascal and Fermat. In England Wallis, bom in 1616,
and appointed Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford in 16k9,
was steadily rising in reputation, while Barrow, bom in 1630, was
hot appointed Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge
untU 1663.
It might have been anticipated that a subject interesting in
itself and discussed by the two most distinguished mathematicians
of the time would have attracted rapid and general attention ;
but
sucb does not appear to have been the case. The two great men
themselves seem to have been indifferent to any extensive publi-
cation of their investigations; it was sufficient for each to gain
the approbation of the other. Pascal finally withdrew from science
and the world ;
Fermat devoted to mathematics only the leisure of

a laborious life, and died in 1665.

Hie invention of the Differential Calculus by Newton and
Leibnitz soon offered to mathematicians a subject of absorbing
interest and we shall find that the Theory of Probability advanced
;

but little during the half century which followed the date of the
correspondence between Pascal and Fermat.

Digitized by Google
 ; :
C”

CHAPTER III.

HUYGENS.

28. We have now to speak of a treatise by Huygens entitled

De Ratiociniia in Ludo AUie. This treatise was first printed by
Schooten at the end of his work entitled Francisci d Schooten
Exercitationum Mathematicarum Libri quinque it occupies pages
519...53-t of the volume.The date 1658 is assigned to Schooten’s
work by Montucla, but the only copy which I have seen is dated
1657.

Schooten had been the in.structor of Huygens in mathematics ;

and the treatise which we have to examine was communicated by

Huygens to Schooten written in their vernacular tongue, and
Schooten translated it into Latin.

It appeal’s from a letter written by Schooten to Wallis, that

Wallis had seen and commended Huygens’s treatise ;
see Wallis’s
Algebra, 1693, p. 833.

Leibnitz commends it Leibnitil Opera Omnia, ed. Dutens,

VoL VI. part 1, p. 318.

29. In his letter to Schooten which is printed at the beginning

of the treatiseHuygens refers to his predecessors in these words
Sciendum verb, quod jam pridem inter prsestantissimos totS.
QallH Geometras calculus hie agitatus fuerit, ne quis indebitam
mihi primse inventionis gloriam hac in re tribuat. Huygens ex-
presses a very high opinion of the importance and interest of the
subject he was bringing under the notice of mathematicians.

30. The treatise is reprinted with a commentary in James

Bernoulli’s Are Conjectandi, and forms the first of the four parts

Digitized by Google
 HUYOKSS. 23

of which that work is composed. Two English translations of the

treatise have been published one which has been attributed to
;

Motte, but which was probably by Arbuthnot, and the other by

W. Browne.

31. The treatise contains fourteen propositions. The first pro-

position asserts that if a player has equal chances of gaming a sum
represented by o or a sum represented by h, his expectation is

^ {a + b). The second proposition a.sserts that if a player has equal

chances of gaining o or ii or c, his expectation The
is
J (a +6 -)- c).

third proposition a.sserts that if a player has

p chances of gaining a
and q chances of gaining b, his expectation is .

j) + q
It has been stated with reference to the last proposition :

“ Elementary as this truth may now appear, it was not received

altogether without opposition.” Lubbock and Drinkwater, p. 42.
It is not obvious to what the.se words refer; for there does not
appear to have been any opposition to the elementary prinOiple,
except at a much later period by D’Alembert.

32. The fourth, fifth, sixtli, and seventh propositions discuss

simple cases of the Problem of Points, when there are two players;
the method is similar to Pascal’s, see Art. 12. The eighth and
ninth propositions discuss simple cases of the Problem of Points
when there are t/iree players ;
the method is similar to that for two
players.

33. Huygens now proceeds to some questions relating to dice.

In his tenth proposition he investigates in how many throws a

player may undertake to throw a six with a single die. In his
eleventh proposition he investigates in how many throws a player
may undertake to throw twelve with a pair of dice. In his
how many dice a player must
twelfth proposition he investigates
have in order to undertake that in one throw two sixes at least
may appear. The thirteenth proposition consists of the following
problem. A and B play with two dice; ifa seven is thrown,
A wins; if a ten is thrown, B wins; if any other number is
thrown, the stakes are divided : compare the chances of A and B.
They are shewn to be as 13 is to 11.

Digitized by Google
24 HUVUENS.

34. The fourteenth proposition consists of the following

problem. A and B play with two dice on the eondition that A
is to have the stake if he throws six lx;fore B throws seven, and
that .B have the stake if he throws seven before A throws
is to
six ; .4 is to begin, and they are to throw alternately ; compare
the chances of and B. A
We will give the solution of Huygens. Lot B's chance be
worth X, and the stake a, so that a — a; is the worth of A's chance ;

then whenever it is 4[’s turn to throw x will express the value

of Bs chance, but when it is B's own turn to throw his chance
will have a different value, say y. Suppose then A is about to
throw ;
there are 36 equally likely cases ;
A wins and B
in 5 cases
takes nothing, in the other 31 cases A and B’s turn comes
loses

on, which is worth y by supposition. So that by the third propo-

^ ^
sition of the treatise the expectation of B is ^ ,
that is,

Thus
36
36

Now suppose B about to throw, and let us estimate B’s chance.

There are 36 equally likely cases ;
in 0 cases B wins and A takes
nothing ;
in the other 30 cases B and A’s turn comes on
loses

again, in which case .B’s chance is worth x by supposition. So

1 ,
that the cxpectatio.n of .B
• •
is
fl®
—
—+^30x . Inus

6a + 30 j;
y= 36
'

31a
From these equations it will be found that x = -gj- ,
and thus

a — x= ,
so that A’s chance is to B’s chance as 30 is to 31.
01

35. At the end of his treatise Huygens gives five problems

without analysis or demonstration, which he leaves to the reader.
Solutions are given by Bernoulli in the Are Conjectandi. The
following are the problems.

0) A and B play with two dice on this condition, that A gains

if he throws six, and B gains if he throws seven. A first has one

Digitized by Coogle
 ;

HUYGENS. 25

throw, then B haa two throws, then A two throws, and so on until
one or the other gains. Shew that A’a chance is to B’a as 10355 to
12276.

(2) Three players A, B, G take twelve balls, eight of which

are black and four white. They play on the following condition ;

they are to draw blindfold, and the first who draws a white ball

wins. have the first turn, B the next, C the next, then
-4 is to
A again, and so on. Determine the chances of the players.

Bernoulli solves this on three suppositions as to the meaning ;

first he supposes that each ball is replaced after it is drawn ;

secondly he supposes that there is only one set of twelve balls,

and that the balls are not replaced after being drawn ;
thirdly he
supposes that each player has his own set of twelve balls, and that
the balls are not replaced after being drawn.

(3) There are forty cards forming four sets each of ten cards
A plays with B and undertakes in drawing four cards to obtain
one of each set. Shew that A'a chance is to B's as 1000 is to 8139.

(4) Twelve balls are taken, eight of which are black and four
are white. A plays with B and undertakes in drawing seven balls
blindfold to obtain three white balls. Compare the chances of
A and B.

(5) A and B take each twelve counters and play with three
dice on this condition, that if eleven is throwm A gives a counter
to B, and if fourteen is thrown B gives a counter to A ;
and ho
wins the game who first obtains all the counters. Shew that A ’s

chance is to B’s as 244140625 is to 282429536481.

36. The treatise by Huygens continued to form the best

it was superseded by the more elabo-
-
account of the subject untU
rate works of James Bernoulli, Montmort, and De Moivre. Before
we speak of the.se we shall give some account of the history of the
theory of combinations, and of the inquiries into the laws of
mortality and the principles of life insurance, and notices of
various miscellaneous investigations.

Digitized by Coogle
 CHAPTER IV.

ON COMBINATIONS.

37. The theory of combinations is closely connected with the

theory of probability ;
so that we shall find it convenient to imi-
tate Montucla in giving some account of the writings on the
former subject up to the close of the seventeenth century.

38. The earliest notice we have found respecting combinations

iscontained in Wallis’s Algebra as quoted by him from a work by
William Buckley; see Wallis’s Algebra 1693, page I89. Buckley
was a member of King’s College, Cambridge, and lived in the time
of Edward the Sixth. He wrote a small tract in Latin verse con-
taining the rules of Arithmetic. In Sir John Leslie’s Philosophy
of Arithmetic full citations are given from Buckley’s work in ;

Dr. Peacock’s History of Arithmetic a citation is given; see also

De Morgan’s Arithmetical Books from the invention of Printing...

Wallis quotes twelve lines which form a Regula Comhinationis,

and then explains them. We may say briefly that the rule
amounts to assigning the whole number of combinations which can
be formed of a given number of things, when taken one at a time,
or two at a time, or three at a time,. and so on until they are taken
. .

all together. The rule shews that the mode of proceetling was
the same as that which we shall indicate hereafter in speaking
of Schooten thus for four things Buckley’s rule gives, hke Schoo-
;

ten’s, 1 + 2 + 4 + 8, that is 15 combinations in all.

By some mistake or misprint Wallis apparently overestimates

the age of Buckley’s work, when he says “...in Arithmetica sua,

Digitized by Google
 BAUHUSIUS.

versibus scripta ante annos plus minus 190;” in the ninth Chapter
of the Algebra the date of about 1550 is assigned to Buckley’s
death.

39. We must now notice an example of combinations which

is of historical notoriety although it is very slightly connected
with the theory.
A
book was published at Antwerp in 1617 by Erycius Pu-
teanus under the title, Erijcii Puteani PietaU's Thaumata in
Bernardi Bauhusii h Societate Jesu Proteum Parthentum. The
book consists of 116 quarto pages, exclusive of seven pages, not
numbered, which contain an Index, Censura, Summa Priyilegii,
and a typographical ornament.
It appears that Bemardus Bauhusius composed the following
line in honour of the Virgin Mary:
Tot tibi sunt dotes, Virgo, quot sidera caelo.

This verse is arranged in 1022 diflFerent ways, occupying 48 pages

of the work. First we have 54 arrangements commencing Tot tibi;
then 25 arrangements commencing Tot sunt; and so on. Although
these arrangements are sometimes ascribed to Puteanus, they ap-
pear from the dedication of the book to be the work of Bauhusius
himself ; Puteanus supplies verses of hisown and a scries of chap-
which he calls Thaumata, and which are distingui.shed
ters in prose
by the Greek letters from A to fl inclusive. Tlie number 1022 is
the same as the number of the stars according to Ptolemy’s Cata-
logue, which coincidence Puteanus seems to consider the great
merit of the labours of Bauhusius see his page 82.
;

It is to be observed that Bauhusius did not profess to include

all the possible arrangements of his line; he expre.ssly rejected those
which would have conveyed a sense inconsistent with the glory of
the Virgin Mary. As Puteanus says, page 103,
Dicere horruit Vates:
Sidera tot caelo, Virgo, quot sunt tibi Dotes,
imb in hunc sensum producere Proteum recusavit, ne laudem immi-
nueret. Sic igitur contraxit versuum numerum ut Dotium augeret. ;

40. The line due to Bauhusius on account of its numerous

arrangements seems to have attracted great attention during the
following century ;
the discussion on the subject was finally settled

Digitized by Google
 :

28 PASCAL.

by James Bernoulli in his Ars Conjectandi, where he thus details

the history of the problem.
...Quemadmodiim ceruereest in hexametro L Bemh. Bauhusio Jesuita
Loraniensi in laudem Virginia Deiparse constructo
Tul tibi aunt Dotes, Virgo, quol sidera ccelo;
quern dignum peculiari opera duxerunt plures Viri celebrea. Eiycius
Futeanus in libcllo, quern Thaumata Fietutis inacripait, variationes ejua
utilea integria48 paginia emunerat, eaaque numero atellarum, quarum
vulgb 1022 recensentur, accommodat, omiasia acrupuloaiila illia, qute di-
cere videntur, tot aidei-a caelo esse, quot Wariaa dotes; nam Marias
dotes esse multo plures. Eundem numerum 1022 ex Futeano repetit
Gerh. Voasius, cap. 7, de ScienL Matbemat. Frestetus Gallua in prima
editione Element. Matbemat. pag. 358. Froteo huic 2196 variationea
attribuit, sed facefi resdsione in altera edit. tom. pr. jsag. 133. numerum
earum dimidio fere auctum ad 3276 exteudit. Industrii Actoinm Lijss.

Collectores m. Jun. 1686, in recensione Tractatua Wallisiani de Algebra,

numerum in quaestione (quern Auctor ipse definire non fuit ausus) ad
2580 determinant. Et ipee postmodum Wallisius in edit, latina operis
sui Oxon. anno 1693. impreasA, pagin. 494. eundem ad 3096 profert.
Sed omnea adhuc & vero deticientea, ut delusam tot Virorum post
adhibitas quotjue sccundaa curaa in re leri perspicaciam meritb mireris.
Ar« Conjectandi, page 78.
James Bernoulli seems to imply that the two editions of
Wallis’s Algebra differ in their enumeration of the arrangements
of the line due to Bauhusius but this is not the case
;
: the two
editions agree in investigation and in result.

James Bernoulli proceeds he had found that there

to say that

could be 3312 arrangements without breaking the law of metre;

this excludes spondaic lines but includes those which have no
caesura. The analysis which produces this number is given.

41. The on combinations which we have ob-

earliest treatise

served is due to Pascal. It is contained in the work on the

Arithmetical Triangle which we have noticed in Art 22; it will

also be found in the fifth volume of Pascal’s works, Paris 1819,

pages 86 —107.
’The investigations of Pascal on combinations depend on his
Arithmetical Triangle. The following is his principal result; we
express it in modern notation.

Digitized by Google
 ;

PASCAL. 29

Take an Arithmetical Triangle with r numbers in its base

then the sum of the numbers in the p*** horizontal row is equal to
the multitude of the combinations of r things taken p at a time.
For example, in Art 22 we have a triangle with 10 numbers in
its base ;
now take the numbers in the 8th horizontal column
their sum is 1 + 8 + 36, that is 45 and there are 45 combinations
;

of 10 things taken 8 at a time. Pa-scal’s proof is inductive. It

may be observed that muUitudo is Pascal’s word in the Latin of
his treatise, and multitude in the French version of a part of the
treatise which is given in pages 22 30 of the volume. —
From this he deduces various inferences such as the following.
Let there be n things ;
the sum of the multitude of the combinations
which can be formed, one at a time, two at a time,... ,
up to n at
a time, is 2" — 1.

At the end Pascal considers this problem. Datis duobus numeris

inaequalibus, invenire quot modis minor in majore combinetur.
And from his Arithmetical Tnangle he deduces in effect the follow-
ing result; the number of combinations of r things taken
p at
a time is

(p+1) (p + 2) ( p + 3) ...r
\r-p
After this problem Pa.scal adds.
Hoc problematc tractatum hunc absolvere constitaeram, non tamen
omniab sine molestia, ciim malta alia parata habeam ; sed ubi taiita
ubertas, vi moderauda est fames his ergo pauca htec subjiciam.
:

Eruditissimus ac mihi charisimus, D.D. de Ganifires, circa combina-

tiones, assiduo ac peimtili labore, more sao, incumbens, ac indigeiis

facili constructione ad inveniendum quoties nnmerus datus in alio dato

combinetur, hanc ipse sibi praxim instituit.

Pascal then gives the rule ; it amounts to this ;

the num-
ber of combinations of r things taken p at a time is
r(r-l)... (r-p+1)

This is the form with which we are now most familiar. It

may be immediately shewn to agree with the form given before

by Pascal, by cancelling or introducing factors into both numerator
and denominator. Pascal however says, Excellentem hanc solu-

Digitized by Coogle
30 SiHOOTEN.

tionem ipse mihi ostendit, ac etiam demonstrandam proposuit, ipsam

ego sanfe miratus sum, sed difficultate territus vix opus suscepi,
et ipsi authori relinquendum existimavi ;
attamen trianguli aritli-
metici auxilio, sic proclivis facta est via. Pascal then establishes
the correctness of the nile by the aid of his Arithmetical Triangle;
after which he concludes thus, Hac demon.stratione assecutd, jam
reliqua quae invitus supprimebam libeuter omitto, adeo dulce est
amicorum memorari.
42. In the work of Schooten to which we have already re-
ferred in Art. 28 we find some very slight remarks on combinations
and their applications; see pages 373 — 403. Schooten’s first sec-

tion is entitled. Ratio inveniendi electiones omnes, quse fieri pos-

sunt, data nuiltitudine rerum. He takes four letters a, h, c, d,

and arranges them thus,

a.

b. ab.

c. ac. Ik. abc.

d. ad. bd. abd. cd. acd. bed. abed.

Thus he finds that 15 elections can be made out of these four

letters. So he add.s, Hinc si per a designator unum malum, per b
unum pinim, per c unum prunum, et per d unum cerasum, et ipsa
aliter atque aliter, ut supra, eligantur, electio eorum fieri poterit 15
diveiais modis, ut .setjuitur....

Schooten next takes five letters and thus he infers the result
;

which we should now express by saying that, if there are n letters

the whole number of elections is 2” — 1.

Hence if a, b, c, d are prime factors of a number, and all dif-

ferent, Schooten infers that the number has 15 divisors excluding

unity but including the number itself, or 16 including also unity.

Next suppose some of the letters are repeated; as for example

suppose we have a, a, b, and c ;
it is recpiired to determine how
many elections can be made. Schooten arranges the letters thus,

a.

a. aa.
b. ab. aab.

c. ac. aac. be. abc. aabc.

We have thus 2 +3+6 elections.

Digitized by Google
 ;

LEIBNITZ. 31

Similarly if the proposed letters are a, a, a, b, b, it is found

that 11 elections can be made.

In his following sections Schooten proceeds to apply these

results to questions relating to thenumber of divisors in a number.
Thus, for example, supposing a, b, c, d, to be different prime

factors, numbers of the following forms all have 16 divisors,

abed, a*bc, a'b, a“. Hence the question may be asked, what is
the least number which has 16 divisors? This question must
be answered by trial we must take the smallest prime numbers
;

2, 3,. and substitute them in the above forms and pick out the least
. .

number. It will be found on trial that the least number is 2*. 3. 5,

that is 120. Similarly, suppose we require the least number which
has 24 divisors. The suitable forms of numbers for 24 divLsors
are a'bcd, a'b'c, a‘bc, aV, a'b*, a"6 and a”. It will be found on
trial that the least number is 2*. 3*. 5, that is 360.
Schooten has given two tables connected with this kind of
question. (1) A table of the algebraical forms of numbers which
have any given number of divisors not exceeding a hundred ; and
in this table, when more than one form is given in any ca.se, the
first form is that which he has found by trial will give the least
number with the corre.sponding number of divisors. (2) A table
of the least numbers which have any assigned number of divisors
not exceeding a hundre<l. Schooten devotes ten pages to a list of
all the prime numbers under 10,000.

43. A dissertation
was published by Leibnitz in 1666, entitled
Dissertatio de Arte Combtnatona part of it had been previously
published in the same year under the title of Disputatio arith-
metica de complextoiiibus. The dissertation is interesting as the
earliest work of Leibnitz connected with mathematics ;
the con-
nexion however is very slight. The dissertation is contained in
the second volume of the e<lition of the works of Leibnitz by
Dutens ; and in the first volume of the second section of the
mathematical works of Leibnitz edited by Gerhardt, Halle, 1858.
The dissertation is also included in the collection of the philoso-
phical writings of Leibnitz edited by Erdmann, Berlin, 1840.

44. Leibnitz constructs a table at the beginning of his dis-

Digitized by Google
 ;

32 LEIBNITZ.

sertation similar to Pascal’s Arithmetical Triangle, and applies it

to find the number of the combinations of an assigned set of things

taken two, three, four,... together. In the latter part of his disser-
tation Leibnitz shews how to obtain the number of permutations
of a set of things taken all together ;
and he forms the product of
the first 24 natural numbers. He brings forward several Latin
lines, including that which we have already quoted in Art. 39,
and notices the great number of aiTangements which can be
formed of them.
The greater part of the dissertation however is of such a
character as to confirm the correctness of Erdmann’s judgment in
including it among the philosophical works of Leibnitz. Thus,
for example, there is a long discussion as to the number of moods
in a(1)
syllogism. Tliere is also a demonstration of the existence of
the Deity, which is founded on three definitions, one postulate,
four axiom-s, and one re.sult of observation, namely, aliquod corpus
movetur.
(2)

4.5. We wll notice some points of interest in the dissertation.

Leibnitz proposes a curious mode of expression. Wlien

a set of things
is to be taken two at a time he uses the symbol

com2natio (combinatio) ; when three at a time he uses conSnatio

(contematio) ;
when four at a time, con4natio, and so on.

The mathematical treatment

of the subject of combina-
tions is given by Pa-scal probably Leibnitz
far inferior to that ;

had not seen the work of Pascal. Leibnitz seems to intimate

(3)
that his predecessors had confined them.selves to the combina-
tions of things two at a time, and that he had himself extended
the subject so far as to shew how to obtain from his table the
combinations of things taken together more than two at a time
generaiiorem modum nos deteximus, specialis est mdgatus. He
gives the rule for the combination of things two at a time, namely,

that which we now express by the formula —^”^2

not give the similar rule for combinations three, four,... at a time,
which is contained in Pascal’s work.

After giving his table, which is analogous to the A rith-

Digitized by Google
 LEIBNITZ. 33

metical Triangle, he adds, " Adjiciemus hie Theoremata quorum

TO 2rt ex ipsa tabula manifestum est, to SioTt ex tabulse funda-
mento.” The only theorem here that is of any importance is that
which we should now express thus if n bo prime the number of
:

combinations of n things taken r at a time is divisible by n.

(4) A passage in which Leibnitz names his predece.ssors may

l)e quoted. After saying that he had partly furnished the matter
himself and partly obtained it from others, he adds,
Quis ilia primus detexerit ignoramus. Schwenterus Ddie. L 1, Sect. 1,
prop. 32, apud Hieronymum Cardanum, Johannem Buteouem et
Nicolaum Tartaleam, extare (licit. In Cardani tameu Fractica Arith-
meti<!a quse prodiit Mediolani anno 1539, nihil reperimus. luprimis
dilucide, quicquid dudum habetur, propoauit Christoph. Clavius in Com.
supra Joh. de Sacro Bosco Sphmr. edit. Bomte forma 4tu anno 1785.
p. 33. seqq.

With respect to Schwenter it has been obser\'ed,

Schwenter probably alluded to Cardan’s book, “ De Proportionibus,”
in which the iigurate numbers are mentioned, and their u.se shown in
the extraction of roots, as employed by Stifel, a German algebraist,
who wrote in the early part of the sixteenth centuiy. Lubbock and
DrinkuxUer, page 45.

(5) Leibnitz uses the symbols 4 —= in their present sen.se ;

he uses ^
for multiplication and for division. He uses the
word productum in the sense of a sum thus he calls 4 the pro-
:

ductum of 3 + 1.

46. The dis.sertation shews that at the ago of twenty years

the distinguishing characteristics of Leibnitz were strongly de-
veloped. The extent of his reading is indicated by the numerous
references to authors on various subjects. We see evidence too

that he had already indidged in those dreams of impossible achieve-

ments in which his vast powers were uselessly squandered. He
vainly hoped to produce substantial realities by combining the
precarious definitions of metaphysics with the elementary truisms
of logic, and to these fruitless attempts he gave the aspiring titles
of universal science, general science, and philosophical calculus.

See Erdmann, pages 82 — 91, especially page 84.

3

Digitized by Google
34 WAI.US.

47. A discourseof comhinaftons, alternations, and aliquot

parts is attached to the Engli.sh edition of Wallis’s Algebra pub-
lished in 168.0. In the Latin edition of the Algebra, published in
1693, this part of the work occupies pages 48o — .529.

In refening to Wallis’s Algebra wo shall give the pages of the

Latin edition ;
but in quoting from him we shall swlopt his own
English version, was reprinted by Maseres in
'rho English version
a volume of reprints which was published at London in 179.5 under
the title of The Doctrine of Permutations and Combinations, being
an essential and fundamental quirt of the Doctrine of Chances.

48. Wallis’s firet Cliajitcr is Of the variety of Elections, or

Choise, in taking or leaving One or more, out of a certain Num-
ber of things jiroposcd. He
draws up a 'rablc which agrees
with Pascal’s Arithmetical Triangle, and shews how it m.ay be
used in finding the number of combinations of an assigned set
of things taken two, three, four, five,... at a time. Wallis does
not add any thing to what Pa.scal had given, to whom however
he does not refer; and Wallis’s clum.sy ]iarenthetic:d stylo con-
trasts very unfavourably with the clear bright stream of thought
and language which flowed from the genius of Pascal. The
chapter closes with an extract from the Arithmetic of Buckley
and an explanation of it ;
to this we have already referred in
Art. 38.

49. Wallis’s second Cdiapteris Of Alternations, or the different

change of Order, in any Number of things ptroposed. Here he
gives .some examples of what arc now usually called permutations ;

thus if there are four letters a, h, c, d, the numl)er of permutations

when they .arc taken all together is 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. Wallis accord-
ingly exhibits the 24 permutations of these four letters. He forms
the product of the first twenty-four natural numbers, which is the
number of the permutations of twenty-four things taken all toge-
ther.

WaUis exhilnts the 24 pennutations of the lettei-s in the word

Roma taken all together ;

and then he subjoins, “ Of which (in
Latin) these seven are onlyu.seful; Roma, ramo,oram,mora, maro,
armo, amor. The other forms are useless ;
as affording no (Latin)
word of known signification.”

Digitized by Google
 WALLIS. 35

Wallis then considers the case in which there is some repetition

among the quantities of which we require the permutations. He
takes the letters which compose the word Messes. Here if there
were no repetition of letters the number of permutations of the
letters all together would be Ix2x3x4x5x(i, that is
taken
720 ;
but as Wallis
e.xplains, owing to the occurrence of the letter
e twice,and of the letter s thrice, the number 720 must be divided
by 2 X 2 X 3, that is by 12. Thus the number of permutations is
reduced to 60. Wallis exhibits these permutations and then sub-
joins, “ Of all which varieties, there is none beside messes itself,

that affords an useful Anagram.”The chapter closes with Wallis’s

attempt at detenuining the number of arrangements of the verse

Tot tibi sunt dotes, virgo, ([uot sidera ca;lo.

The attempt is followed by these words, “ I will not be posi-

tive, that there may not be some other Changes :
(and then, those
may be added to these :)
Or, that most of these be twice repeated,
(and if so, those are to l>e abated out of the Number :) But I do
not, at pre.sent, discern either the one and other.”
Walli.s’s attempt is a very b.id specimen of analy.sis ;
it involves
both the erroi's he himself anticipates, for some cases arc omitted

and some counted more than once. It seems strange that he

should have failed in such a problem con.sidering the extraordinary
powers of abstraction and memorj’ which he possessed so that ;

as he states, he extracted the srjuare root of a number taken at

random with 53 figures, in tenebris decumbens, sola fretus
memoria See his Algebra, page 450.

50. Walli-s’s third Cliapter is Of the Divisors and Aliquot

parts, of a 2\'’uniber proposed. This Chapter treats of the resolu-
tion of a number into its prime factors, and of the numljer of
divisors w'hich a given number has, and of the least numbers
which have an assigned number of divisors.

Monsieur Fermat’s Problems con-

51. Wallis’s fourth Cliapter is
cerning Divisors and Aliquot Paris. It contains solutions of two

problems which Fermat had proposed as a challenge to Wallis and

the English mathematicians. The problems relate to what is now
called the Theory of Numbers.
3-2

Digitized by Google
 ;

3G PRESTET.

Thus the theory of combinations is not applied by Wallis

52.
in any manner that materially bears upon our subject. In fact
the influence of Fermat seems to have lK>en more powerful than
that of Pascal and the Theory of Numbers more cultivated than
;

the Theory of Probability.

The judgment of Montmort seems correct that nothing of any

importance in the Tlicory of Combinations previmis to his own
work had been added to the results of Pascal. Montmort, on his
page XXXV, names as writers on the subject Prestet, Tacquet, and
Wallis. I have not seen the works of Prestet and Tacquet
Gouraud refers to Pre.stet’s Noitveaux Elements de matliematiqnes,
2' <?d., in the following terms, Le p6re Prestet, enfin, fort habile
geombtre, avait explique avec infiniment de clartti, en 1G89, les

principaux artifices de cet art ingenieux de composer et de varier

les grandeurs. Gouravd, page 23.

Digitized by Google
 CHAPTER V.

MORTALITY AND LIFE INSURANCE

63. The history of the investigations on the laws of mortality

and of the calculations of life insurances is sufficiently important
and extensive to demand a separate work these subjects were;

originally connected with the Theory of Probability but may now

be considered to form an independent kingdom in mathematical
science : we shall therefore confine ourselves to tracing their
origin.

64. According to Gouraud the use of tables of mortality was

not quite unknown to the ancients: after speaking of such a
table as unknown until the time of John de Witt he subjoins
in a note,
Inconnue dn moins dos modemes. Car il paraitrait par un passage
du Digeste, ad legem Falcidiam, xxxv. 2, 68, que les Romains n’en
ignoraient pas absolument I'usage. Voyez & ce sujet M. V. Lcclorc,
Dee Jouma/ux chez lea Romaina, p. 198, et une curieuse dissertation;
De prdbahilUate vita ejtiaque uau forenai, etc., d’un certain Scbmelzer
(Goettingue, 1787, in-8). Gouraud, page 14.

65. The first name which is usually mentioned in connexion

with our present subject is that of John Graunt: I borrow a
notice ofhim from Lubbock and Driiikwater, page 44. After
referring to the registers of the annual numbers of deaths in
London which began to be kept in 1592, and which with some

Digitized by Google
 ;

38 ORAUNT.

intermissions between 1594 and 1G03 have since been regularly

continued, they proceed thus,

They were first intended to make known the progress of the plague
and it was not till 1 663 that Captain Graunt, a most acute and intel-

ligent man, conceived the idea of rendering them subservient to the

ulterior objects of determining the population and growth of the me-
tropolis; as before his time, to use his own words, “most of them who
constantly took in the weekly bills of morbility, made little or no use
of them than so as they might take the same as a text to talk ujion in
the next company; and withal, in the jdague time, how the sickness
increased or decreased, that so the rich might guess of tlie necessity of
their removal, and tradesmen might conjecture what doings they were
like to have in their i-espective dealings.” Graunt was careful to pub-
lish with his deductions the actual returns from which they were

obtained, comparing himself, when so doing, to “a silly schoolboy,

coming to say his lesson to the world (that peevish and tetchie master,)
who brings a bundle of rods, wherewith to be whipped for every mistake
he has committed.” Many subsequent writers have betrayed more fear
of the punishment they might be liable to on making similar disclosures,
and have kept entirely out of sight the sources of their conclusions.
The immunity they have thus purchased from contradiction could not
bo obtained but at the e.xpense of confidence in their results.

Those re.searches procured for Graunt the honour of being chosen a

fellow of the Royal Society, ...

Gouraud says in a note on bis page IG,

...John Graunt, homme sans g6om6trie, mais qui ne manquait ni
de sagacitc ni do bon sens, avait, dans unc sorte de traiW d’Arithme-
tique politique intitul6 : Kalural awl political obsert'otiom... made upon
the bills of mortality, etc., rassemble ces differentes listc-s, et donn6 memo
{ibid. chap, xi.) un calcul, h la v6rit6 fort grossier, mais du moins fort
original, de la mortality probable k eluvque ago d’un certain nombre
d’indi%ddus supposes nfis viables tons au memo instant.

See also the Athenceinn for October 31st, 18G3, page 537.

5G. The names of two Dutchmen next present themselves.

Van Hudden and John de Witt. Montucla says, page 407,
Le probl6me des Van Hudden, qui
rentes viagfires fut trait6 par
quoique g4om6tre, ne laisaa pas que d’etre bourguemestre d’Amstenlam,

Digitized by Google
 ;

JOUN DE WITT. 39

ct par le c^lfibre pensionnaire d’Hollande, Jean de Witt, un des pre-

miers promoteura do la geom6trie de Descartes. J'ignoro le titre de
I’ecrit de Iludden, mais celui dc Jean de Witt <;toit intitule: De vardye
van de lif-renlen na }>roi)ortie van de loe-renien, ou la Vahur dee rentes
viageres en raison dee rentes lihres ou remboursables (La Haye, 1C71).
Ils fitoicnt I’un et I’autro plus a iKjrtde que per.soime d’eu seutir I’inipor-
tanco et de se procurer les depouillemona uecessaires de registi es de luor-
talit6; aussi Leibnitz, pas.sant en Hollande quelques aiinees apris, fit

tout sou possible pour se procurer I’ecrit do Jean de Witt, mais il no

pent y parvenir; il n’etoit cependant pas absolumcnt perdu, car M. Ni-
colas Stniyck (Inleiding tot het algemeine geography, itc. Amst. 17-10,
in 4o. p. 345) nous apprend qu’il en a cu un exemj)laire entre les mains;
il nous en donne un precLs, par le<piel ou voit eombieu Jean de Witt
raisonnoit ju.ste sur cetto matici-c.

Le chevalier Petty, Anglois, qui s’occupa beaucoup de calculs poli-

tiqucs, entre'S'it le jiroblemo, mais il n’etoit pas assez geometro pour lo

traitor fnictueusemcnt, en sorte que, jusqu’a Halley, I’Angleterre et la

Prance qui empruntSrent tant et out taut cinpnintfi depuis, le tirent

comme des aveugles ou comnio de jeunes debauches.

57. With respect to Sir William Petty, to whom Montucla

refers, we may remark that hi.swriting.s do not seem to have been
very important in couue.xion with our pre.sent subject. Some
account of them is given in the &r\\c\e A rithnutique Politique oi
the original French Encychpedie the article i.s reproduced in
tlio Encychpt'die Mi'thodirpie. Gouraud speaks of Petty thus in a
note on his page IG,

Apris Graunt, le chevalier W. Petty, dans diflerents essais d’eco-

nomie politique, oh il y avail, il est vnii, plus d’imiigination que de
jugement, s’etait, do 1082 h 1687, occujk' de scmblables rccherches.

58. With respect to Van Iludden to whom Jlontucla also

refers we can only add that hi.s name is mentioned with appro-
bation by Leibnitz, in conjunction with that of John de W'^itt,
for his researches on annuities. See Leibnitii Opera Omnia, ed.

Dutens, Vol. II. part 1, page 93; VoL Vi. part 1, page 217.

59. With re.spcct to John de Witt we have

the work of
some notices in the correspondence between Leibnitz and James
Bernoulli; but these notices do not literally confirm Montucla’s

Digitized by Google
40 JOHN DE WITT.

statement re.specting Leibnitz ; see Leibntzens Mathematische

Schriflen hemusgegehen von C. I. Gerhardt, Erstc Abtheilung.
Band HI. Halle lbo5. Jame.s Bernoulli says, page 78,
Nuper in Menstruis Excerptis Hauovcrao impre-ssia citatum invcni
Tractatum quendam mihi igiiotum Pcusionarii de Wit von Subtiler
Auarcchuung des valoris der Leib-Renten. Fortaase is quaedam hue
habet; quod si sit, copiam cjua mihi alictmde
iikcientia fieri percuperem.

In bis reply Leibnitz says, page 84,

Fenaionarii de Wit libcllus cxiguua eat, ubi aeatimatione ilia nota
utitur a poasibilitate casuum acqualium aequali et hine oatendit re-
ditua ad vitam sufficientea pro sorte a Batavia aolvi. Ideo Belgice
acripserat, ut uequitas in vulgua apparcret.

In his next letter, page 89, James Bernoulli says that Do

Witt’s book will be useful to him; and as he had in vain tried
to obtain it from Amsterdam he asks for the loan of the copy
which Leibnitz possessed. Leibnitz replies, page 93,
Fenaionarii Wittii disaertatio, vel potius Scheda impressa
de ro-
ditibus ad vitam, sane quidem inter chartaa meas, aed cum
brevis, extat
ad Te mittere vellem, reperire nondum potui. Dabo tamen operam ut
nanciscare, ubi primum domi cruere licebit alicubi latitontcm.

James Bernoulli again a.sked for the book, page 95. Leibnitz
replies, page 99,
Fenaionarii Wittii acriptum nondum satis quaei-ere licuit inter char-

taa; non dubito tamen, quin aim tandem reperturua, ubi vacaverit.
Sed vix aliquid in co novum Tibi occurrot, cum fundamentis iisdem
ubique inaistat, quibus cum alii viri docti jam crant usi, turn Faschalius
in Triaugulo Arithmetico, ct Hugenius in diss. de Alca, nem|)o ut

medium Arithmeticum inter aeque incerta sumatur; quo fundamento

etiam rustici utuntur, cum i>racdiorum pretia acstimant, et rcrum fis-
calium curatores, cum reditus praefecturarum Frincipis medioa consti-
tuunt, quando se oUert conductor.

In the last of his letters to James Bernoulli which is given, Leib-

nitz implies that he has not yet found the book see page 103.;

We find from pages 7C7, 769 of the volume that Leibnitz

attempted to procure a copy of De Witt’s dissertation by the aid
of John Bernoulli, but without success.

These letters were wTitten in the years 1703, 1704, 1705.

Digitized by Google
 HALLEY. 41

60. The fame of John de Witt haa overpowered

political
that which he might have gained from science, and thus his mathe-
matical attainments are rarely noticed. We may therefore add
that he is said to have published a work entitled Elementa linea-
rum curvarum, Leyden 1650, which is commended by Condorcet;
see Condorcet’s Es8a{.,.d^A7ialyse... p&gc CLXXXiv.

61. We have now to notice a memoir by Halley, entitled An

estimate of the Degrees of the Moiiality of Mankind, draxvn from
curious Tables of the BiHhs and Funerals at the City of Breslaw;
with an Attempt to ascertain the Price of Annuities upon Lives.

This memoir is published in Vol. xvii. of the Philosophical

Transactions, 1693; it occupies pages 596 — 610.

This memoir is justly celebrated as having laid the foundations

of a correct theory of the value of life annuities.

62. Halley refers to the bills of mortality which had been

published for London and Dublin ;
but these bills were not suit-
able for drawing accurate deductions.

First,In that the Number of the People was wanting. Secondly,

That the Ages of the People dying was not to be had. And Lastly,
That both London and Dublin by reason of the great and casual
Accession of Strangers who die therein, (as appeared in both, by the
great Excess of the Funerals above the Birlld) rendered them incapable
of being Standards for this purpose; which requires, if it were possible,
that the People we treat of should not at all be changed, but die where
they were bom, without any Adventitious Increase from Abroad, or
Decay by Migration elsewhere.

63. Halley then intimates that he had found satisfactory data

in the Bills of Mortality for the city of Breslau for the years
1687, 88, 89, 90, 91 ;
which “had then been recently communi-
cated by Neumann (probably at Halley’s request) through Justell,
to the Royal Society, in whose archives it is supposed that copies
of the original registers are still preserved.” Lubbock and Drink-
water, page 45.

64. The Breslau registers do not appear to have been pub-

lished themselves, and Halley gives only a very brief introduction

Digitized by Google
42 HALLEY.

to the table which he deduced from them, Halley’s table is in the

following form:
1 1000
I

The number indle<ates ages and the right-hand num-

left-hand
ber the corresponding number of persons alive. We do not feel
confident of the meaning of the table. Montucla, page 408, under-
stood that out of 1000 persons born, 855 attain to the age of one
year, then 798 out of these attain to the age of two years, and
so on.
Daniel Bcnioulli understood that the number of infants bom
is not named, but that 1000 are su[>posed to reacli one year, then
855 out of these reach two years, and so on. Hist, de I’ Acad . ...

Haris, 1760.

05. Halley proceeds to shew the use of his table in the calcu-
To find the value of an annuity on the life of
lation of aunuitie.s.
a given person we must take from the table the chance that he
will be .alive after the lapse of n years, and multiply this cli.ance

by the present value of the .annual p.ayment due at the end of

91 years wo must then sum the results thus obt.ained for all values
;

of 91 from 1 to the extreme possible age for the life of the given
person. Halley says that “This will without doubt appear to
be a most laborious Calculation.” He gives a table of the value
of an annuity for every fifth year of age up to the seventieth.

66. He considers also the case of annuities on joint lives, or

on one of two or more lives. Suppo.se that we have two persons,
an elder and a younger, and we wish to know the probability
of one or both being ahve at the end of a given number of years.
Let N be the number in the table opposite to the present age of
the younger person, and R the number opjxisite to that age in-
creased by the given number of years and let
;
N= Ra 1”, so that
Y represents the number who have died out of X in the given
number of years. Let 9i, r, y denote similar quantities for the
elder age. Then the chance that both will be dead at the end

Digitized by Google
 H.VLLEY. 43

• * V
of the given number of years is --
;
the chance that the younger
y
It
will be alive and the elder dead is -r:- ; and so on.

Halley gives according to the fashion of the time a geometri-

cal illustration.

n 1 2

I
1

K
V

n A

Let AB QT CD represent N, and DE or BH represent R,

so that EC or HA represents Y. Similarly AC, AF, CF may
represent ii, r, y. Then of course the rectangle ECFG represents
Yy, and so on.
In like manner, Halley first gives the proposition relating to
three lives in an algebraical form, and then a geometrical illus-
tration by means of a parallelepiped. We find it difficult in
the present day to understand how such simple algebraical pro-
positions could be rendered more intelligible by the aid of areas
and solids.

67. On pages Col — C-56 of the same volume of the Philoso-

phical Transactions we have Some further Considerations on the
Breslaiv Bills of Mortality. By the same Hand, Ac.

68. De Moivre refers to Halley’s memoir, and republishes

the table; see De Moivre’s Doctrine of Chances, pages 261, 31-5.

Digitized by Coogle
 CHAPTER VI.

MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Between the years 1670 and 1700.

69. The present chapter will contain notices of various con-

made between the publi-
tributions to our subject, which were
by Huygens and of the more elaborate
cation of the treati.sc
works by James Bernoulli, Montmort, and De Moivre.

70. A Jesuit named John Caramuel published in 1670, under

the title of Maihesis Biceps, two folio volumes of a course of
Mathematics ;
it appears from the li.st of the author’s works at the
beginning of the first volume that the entire course was to have
comprised four volumes.
There isa section called Conibinatoria which occupies pages
921 — 1036, and p»art of this is dev'oted to our subject.
Caramuel gives first an account of combinations in the modem
sense of the word ;
there is nothing requiring special attention
here : the work contains the ordinary results, not proved by general
symbols but exliibited by means of examples. Caramuel refers
often to Clavius and Izquierdus as his guide.s.

After this account of combinations in the modem sense Cara-

muel proceeds to explain the Ars Lnlliana, that is the method of
affording assistance in reasoning, or rather in disputation, proposed
by Raymond LuUy.

71. Afterwards we have a treatise on chances under the title

of Kybeia, quee Combinatorice genus est, de Aka, et Ludis Fortunce

Digitized by Google
 CARAMUEL. 4.')

serio disputana. This treatise includes a reprint of the treatise of

Huygens, which however is attributed to another person. Cara-
muel says, page 984,

Dum hoc Syntagma Perillustri Domino N. Viro eruditissimo com-

municarem, ostendit etiam mihi ingeniosam quamdam de eodem argu-
mento Diatribam, quam h Christiano Severino Longomontano fuisae
scriptam putabat, et, quia est curiosa, et brevis, debuit huic Qusestioni
Bubjungi...

In the table of contents to his work, page XXVIII, Caramuel

speaks of the tract of Huygens as
Diatribe ingeniose k Longomontano, ut pntatur, de hoc eodem argn-
mento scripta : nescio an evulgata.

Longomontanus was a Danish astronomer who lived from 1562

to 1647.

72. Nicolas Bernoulli speaks very severely of Caramuel. He

says Un Jesuite nommd Caramuel, que j’ai citd dans ma These...
mais comme tout ce qu’il donne n’est qu’un amas de paralogismcs,
je ne le compte pour rien. Montmort, p. 387.
By his These Nicolas Bernoulli probably means his Specimina
Artis conjectandi..., which will be noticed in a subsequent Chapter,
but Caramuel’s name is not mentioned in that essay as reprinted
in the Acta Emd.,..Suppl.

John Bernoulli in a letter to Leibnitz speaks more favourably

of Caramuel ;
see page 715 of the volume cited in Art. 59.

73. Nicolas Bernoulli has exaggerated the Jesuit’s blunders.

Caramuel touches on the following points, and correctly: the
chances of the throws with two dice simple cases of the Problem
;

of Points for two players the chance of throwing an ace once at

;

least in two throws, or in three throws ;

the game of Passe-dix.
He goes wrong in trying the Problem of Points for three
players,which he does for two simple cases and also in two other ;

problems, one of which is the fourteenth of Huygens’s treatise, and

the other is of exactly the same kind.
Caramuel’s method with the fourteenth problem of Huygens’s
treatise is as follows. Suppose the stake to be 36 ;
then A's chance

Digitized by Google
46 SArVEVR.

5 o
at his first throw is ,
and - x 36 =5 ;
thus taking 5 from 36 wc
i>0 ou
may consider 31 as left for B. Now B's chance of success in a single

throw is — ;
thus
^ ^ 31, that is
5J, may be considered the value

of his first throw.

Thus Cararauel assigns 5 to A and to B, ,as the value of

their first throws respectively ;
then the remaining 2.5| he proposes

to divide equally between A and B. This is wrong: he ought to

have continued his process, and have assigned to A for his second
5 . 6
throw
oO
of the 2.15, and then to B for his second throw st; of the
30
remainder and so on. Thus ho would have had for the shares of
;

each player an infinite geometrical progre.ssion, and the result

would have been correct.
It is strange that Caramuel wont wrong when he had the
treatise of Huygens to guide him ;
it seems clear that he followed
this guidance in the discussion of the Problem of Points for ttvo

players, and then deserted it.

74. In the Journal des S(;avans for Feb. 1679, Sauveur gave
some formula^ without demonstration rebating to the advantage of
the Banker at the game of Bassdte. Demonstrations of the for-
mulae will be found in X\\o Ars Conjectmuli of James Bernoulli,
pages 191 199. —
I have examined Sauveur’s formula; as given

in the Amsterdam edition of the Journal. There arc six scries

of formula; in the first five, which alone involve any difficulty,
;

Sauveur and Bernoulli agree the last series is obtained by simply

;

subtracting the second from the fifth, and in this case by mistake
or misprint Sauveur is wrong. Bernoulli seems to exaggerate the
discrepancy when he says, Qubd si quis D.ni S.alvatoris Tabellas
cum hbsce nostris contulerit, deprehendet ilbas in quibusdam loci.s,

pnesertim ultimis, nonnihil einendationis indigere. Montucla,

page 390, and Gouraud, page 17, seem also to think Sauveur more
inaccurate than he really is.

An iloge of Sauveur by Fontenelle is given in the volume

for 1716 of the Hist, de TAcad.... Paris. Fontenelle says that
Bassette was more beneficial to Sauveur than to most of those who

Digitized by Google
 :

LEIBXITZ. 47

played at it with so much furj' ;

it was at the request of the Marquis
of Dangeau that Sauveur undertook the investigation of the
chances of the game. Sauveur was in consequence introduced at
court,and had the honour of explaining his calculations to the
King and Queen. See also Montmort, page xxxix.

75. James Bernoulli proposed for solution two problems in

chances in the Journal dea Sgavans for 1G85. They are as
follows

1. A and B play with a die, on condition that he who first

throws an ace wins. First A throws once, then B throws once,

then A throws twice, then B throws twice, then A throws three
times, then B throws throe times, and so on until ace is thrown.

2. Or first A throws once, then B twice, then A three times,

then B four times, and so on.

The problems remained unsolved until James Bernoulli himself

gave the results in the Acta Eruditorum for 1G90. Afterwards in
the same volume Leibnitz gave the results. The chances involve
infinite series which are not summed.
James Bernoulli’s solutions are reprinted in the collected
edition of his works, Geneva, 1744 ;
see pages 207 and 430. The
problems are also solved in the Ars Conjectandi, pages 52 5G. —
7G. Leibnitz took grc.at interest in the Tlieory of Probability
and shewed that he was fully alive to its importance, although ho
cannot be said himself to have contributed to its advance. There
was one subject which especially attracted his attention, namely
that of games of all kinds he himself here found an exercise for
;

his inventive powers. He believed that men had nowhere shewn

more ingenuity than in their amusement-s, and that even those of
children might usefully engage the attention of the greatest mathe-
maticians. He wished to have a systematic treatise on games,
comprising first those which depended on numbers alone, secondly
those which depended on position, like chess, and lastly those
which depended on motion, like billiards. This he considered
would be useful in bringing to perfection the art of invention, or

Digitized by Google
4S ARBUTHXOT.

as he expresses it in anotlier place, in bringing to perfection the

art of arts, which is the art of thinking.
See Leibnitii Opera Omnia, ed. Dutens, Vol. v. pages 17, 22, 28,
29, 203, 206. Vol. VI. part 1, 271, 304. Erdmann, page 175.

See Opera Omnia, ed. Dutens, Vol. VI. part 1, page 36,
also
for the design which Leibnitz entertained of writing a work on
estimating the probability of conclusions obtained by arguments.

77. Leibnitz however furnishes an example of the liability to

error which seems peculiarly characteristic of our subject. He
says. Opera Omnia, ed. Dutens, VoL Vi. part 1, page 217,
...par excmple, avec deux dcs, il est au.ssi faisable de jetter douze
points, qiie d’en jetter onze ;
car I’un et I’autre ne se peut fairo que
d’une seule m&mire; mais il est trois fois plus faisable d’eu jetter
sept; car cela se peut faire en jettant six et un, cinq et deux, quatre
et trois; et une combinaison ici est aussi faisable que I’autre.

It is true that eleven can only be made up of six and five ;

but
the six may be on either of the dice and the five on the other, so
that the chance of throwing eleven with two dice is twice as great
as the chance of throwing twelve : and similarly the chance of
throwing seven is six times as great as the chance of throwing
twelve.

78.A work entitled 0/ the Laws of Chance is said by Montu-

cla to have appeared at Isjndon in 1692; he adds mais n’ayant
jamais rencontrd ce livre, je ne puis en dire davantage. Je le
soupeonne n^anmoins de Benjamin Motte, depuis secrdtaire de
la soci^td royale. Montucla, page 391.

Lubbock and Drinkwater say respecting it, page 43,

This essay, which was edited, and is generally supposed to have
been written by Motte, the secretary of the Royal Society, contains
a translation of Huyghens’s treatise, and an application of his princi-
ples to the determination of the advantage of the banker at pharaon,
hazard, and other games, and to some questions relating to lotteries.

A similar statement is made by Galloway in his Treatise on

Probability, page 5.

79. It does not appear however that there was any fellow
of the Royal Society named Motte; for the name does not occur

Digitized by Googli
 ARBUTHNOT. 49

in the list of fellows given in Thomson’s History of the Royal

Society.
I have no doubt that the work is due to Arbuthnot. For
there is an English translation of Huygens’s treatise by W.
Browne, published in 1714 in his Advertisement to the Reader
;

Browne says, speaking of Huygens’s treatise.

Besides the Latin Editions it has pass’d thro’, the learned Dr
Arbuthnott publish’d an English one, together with an Application
of the General Doctrine to some particular Games then most in use;
which is so intirely dispers’d Abroad, that on Account of it is all we
can now meet with.

This seems to imply that there had been no other transla-

tion except Arbuthnot’s; and the words “an Application of the
General Doctrine to some particular Games then most in use”
agree very well with some which occur in the work itself: "It
is easy to apply this method to the Games that are in use amongst
us.” See page 28 of the fourth edition.
Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica, under the head Arbuthnot, places
the work with the date 1G92.

80. I have seen only one copy of this book, which was lent
to me by Professor De Morgan. The title page is as follows:
Of the laws of chance, or, a method of calculation of the hazards
of game, plainly demonstrated, and applied to games at present most
in use; which may be easily extended to the most intricate cases of
chance imaginable. The fourth edition, revis’d by John Ham. By
whom is added, a demonstration of the gain of the banker in any
circumstance of the game call’d Pharaon and how to deteimine the
;

odds at the Ace of Hearts or Fair Chance; with the arithmetical

solution of some questions relating to lotteries; and a few remarks
upon Hazard and Backgammon. London. Printed for B. Motto and
C. Bathurst, at the Middle-Temple Gate in Fleet-street, k.dcc.xxxviii.

81. I proceed to describe the work as it appears in the

fourth edition.
The book is of small octavo size ; it may be said to consist of
two parts. The first part extends to page 49 ; it contains a trans-

lation of Huygens’s treatise with some additional matter. Page 50

is blank ;
page 51 is in fact a title page containing a reprint
4

Digitized by Google
50 ARBUTHNOT.

of part of the title we have already given, namely from “a de-

monstration” down to “Raokgammon.”
The words which have been quoted from Lubbock and Drink-
water in Art. 78, seem not to distinguish between these two
parts. There is nothing about the “ advantage of the banker
at Pharaon” in the part
fii-st and the inve.stigations which are
;

given in the second part could not, I lx;lieve, have appeared so

early as 1092; they seem evidently taken from De Moivre. De

Moivre .says in the second paragraph of his preface,
I had not at that time read anytliing concerning this Subject, hut
Mr. Huygens’s Book, de Eatiociniia in Ludo Alere, and a little Eng-
lish Piece (wliich was properly a Translation of it) done by a very in-

genious Gentleman, who, tho’ capable of carrying the matter a great

was contented to follow his Original; adding only to it
deal farther,
the computation of the Advantage of the Setter in the Play called
Hazard, and some few things ruore.

82. The work is preceded by a Preface written with vigour

but not free from coarsene.ss. We will give some extracts, which
show that the writer was sound in his views and sagacious in
his expectations.

It is thought ns necessary to write a Preface Ixjfore a Book, as

it Ls judg’d civil, when you invite him
a Friend to Dinner to proffer
a Glass of Hock beforehand for a Whet:maim’d And this being
enough for want of a Dedication, I am resolv’d it shall not want an
Epistle to the Header too. I shall not take upon me to determine,
whether it is lawful to play at Dice or not, leaving that to be disputed
betwixt the Fanatick Parsons and the Sharpers; I am sure it is lawful
to deal with Dice as with other Epidemic DisteuqwrH;
A great part of this Di.scourse is a Translation from Mens. Huy-
gens’s Treatise, De who in his Improve-
ratiociniis in ludo Alese; one,
ments of Philosophy, has but one Superior, and I think few or no
equals. The whole I undertook for my own Divertiscmenl, next to
the Sati.sfaction of some Friends, who would now and then be wran-
gling about the Proportions of Haau’ds in some Cas(is that are here
decided. All it requir’d wivs a few spare Honrs, and but little Work
for the Biain; my Design in publishing it, was to make it of more
general Use, and perhaps persuade a law Scpiire, by it, to keep his
Money in his Pocket; and if, upon this account, I should incur the

Digitized by Google
 AUBUrnNOT. 51

Clamonrs of the Sharpers, I do not much regard it, since they are

a sort of People the World is not bound to provide for

...It is impossible for a Die, with such determin’d force and di-
rection, not to fall on such a determin’d side, and therefore I call that
Chance which is nothing but want of Art;
The Reader may here observe the Force of Numbers, which can
be successfully applied, even to those things, which one would imagine
are subject to no Rules. There are very few things which wo know,
which are not capable of being reduc’d to a Mathematical Reasoning;
and when they cannot, it’s a sign our Knowledge of them is very small
and confus’d ; and where a mathematical reasoning can be had, it’s os
great folly to make use of any other, as to grope for a tlung in the
dark, when you have a Caudle standing by you. I believe the Cal-
culation of the Quantity of Probability might be improved to a very
useful and pleasant Speculation, and applied to a great many Events
which arc accidental, besides those of Games ;
...There is likewise a Calculation of the Quantity of Probability
founded on Experience, to bo made use of in Wagers about any thing;
it is odds, if a Woman
with Child, but it shall bo a Boy; and if
is

you would know the just odds, you must consider the Proportion in
the Bills that the Males bear to the Females: The Yearly Bills of
Mortality are observ’d to bear such Projwrtion to the Live People as
1 to 30, or 2C; therefore it is an even Wager, that one out of thir-

teen dies within a Year (which may be a good reason, tho’ not the
true, of that foolish piece of Superstition), because, at this rate, if 1
out of 20 dies, you are no loser. It is but 1 to 18 if you meet a
Parson in the Street, that he proves to be a Non- Juror, because there
is but 1 of 30 that are such.

83. Pages I to 2.5 contain a translation of Huygens’s treatise

including the five problems which he left unsolved. Respecting
these our author says
The Calculus of the preceding Problems is left out by Mons. Huy-
gens, on purpose that the ingenious Reader may have the satisfaction of
applying the former method himself; it is in most of them more labo-

i-ious than diflScult : for Example, I have pitch’d upon the second and
third, because the rest can be solv’d after the same Method.

Our author solves the second problem in the first of the

three senses which it may bear according to tlic Ars Conjecktndi,
4—2

Digitized by Google
52 ARBUTIINOT.

ami he arrives at the same result as James Bernoulli on page 58

of the Ars Conjectandi. Our author adds,

I have suppos’d here the Sense of theProblem to be, that when any
one chus'd a Counter, he did not diminish their number; but if he
miss’d of a white one, put it in again, and left an equal hazard to him
who had the following choice; for if it be otherwise suppos’d, A’b share
55 9
will be which is less than _
l23’ 19

This
84. result however is wrong in either of the other two

senses which James Bernoulli ascribes to the problem, for which he

XOT
obtains ^ ; and , respectively
^ as the results; see Art. 35.
l(jo 12o

Then follow some other calculations about games. We

have some remarks about the Royal-Oak Lottery which are analo-
gous to those made on the Play of the Royal Oak by De Moivre
in the Preface to his Doctrine of Chances.
A table is given of the number of various throw's which can be
made with three dice. Pages 34 — 39 are taken from Pascal ;
they
seem introduced abruptly, and they give very little that had not
already occurred in the translation of Iluygens’s treatise.

85. Our author touches on Whist and he solves two problems

;

about the situation of honours. These solutions are only approxi-

mate, as he does not distinguish between the dealers and their
adversaries. And he also solves the problem of comparing the
chances of two sides, one of w'hich is at eight and the other at
nine; the same remark applies to this solution. He makes the
chances as 9 to 7 De Moivre by a stricter investigation makes
;

them nearly as 25 to 18. Sec Doctrine of Chances, page 17G.

86. Our author says on page 43,

All the former Cases can be calculated by the Theorems laid down
by Monsieur Huygens; but Cases more eompos’d require other Prin-
ciples; for the easy and ready Computation of which, I shall add one
Theorem more, demonstrated after Monsieur Huygens’s method.

The theorem “
is : if I have p Chances for a, q Oiances for h.

Digitized by Coogle
 ^

ROBERTS. 53

and r Chances for c, then my hazard is worth — >>

q^.
+q+r
2>
author demonstrates this, and intimates that it may be extended
to the case when there are also s Chances for rf, &c.
Our author then considers the game of Hazard. He gives an
investigation .similar to that in De MoivTC, and leading to the
same results; see Doctrine of Chances, page ICO.

87. The first part of the liook concludes thus :

All tliose Problems suppose Chances, which are in an equal proba-

bility to happen; if it should be suppos’d otherwise, there will arise
variety of Cases of a quite different nature, which, perhaps, 'twere not
unpleasant to consider ; I shall add one Problem of that kind, leaving
the Solution to those who think it merits their pains.
In Parallelipipedo cujus latera sunt ad invicem in ratione o, 6, c:
Invcniie quota vice quivis suscipere potest, ut datum quodvis planum,
v.g. nijaciat.

The problem was afterwards discussed by Thomas Simpson ;

it

is Problem xxvii. of his Nature and Laws of Chance.

88. be convenient to postpone an account of the second

It will
part of the book until after we have examined the works of De
Moivre.

89. We next notice An Arithmetical Paradox, concerning the

Chances of Lotteries, by the Honourable Francis Roberts, Esq.;
Fellow of the R. S.

This is published in Vol. xvir. of the Philosophical Trans-

actions, 1693 ;
it occupies pages 677 — 681.
Suppose in one lottery that there are three blanks, and three
prizes each of 16 pence ;
suppose in another lottery that there are
four blanks, and two prizes each of 2 shillings. Now for one
drawing, in the first lottery the expectation is | of 16 pence, and in
the second it is J of 2 shillings ;
so that 8 pence in each case.
it is

The paradox which Roberts finds is this ;

suppose that a gamester
pays a shilling for the chance in one of these lotteries ;
then
although, aswe have ju.st seen, the expectations are equal, yet the
odds against him are 3 to 1 in the first lottery, and only 2 to 1 in
the second.

Digitized by Google
 ;

5i CRAIG.

The paradox is made by Roberts Idmself, by his own arbitrary

definition of odds.
Supposing a lottery has a blanks and b prizes, and let each
prize be r shillings and suppose a gamester gives a shilling for
;

one drawing in the lottery ;

then Roberts says the odds against

him are formed by the product of and >

that is, the odds
^ j
are as a to b (r — 1). This is entirely arbitrary.
The mere algebra of the paper is (juite correct, and is a curious
specimen of the mode of work of the day.
Tlio author is doubtless the same whose name is spelt Robartes
in De Moivre’s Preface.

90. I borrow from Lubbock and Drinkwater an accoimt of a

work which I have not seen ;
it is given on their page 45.

It is not neces-sary to do more than mention an essay, by Craig, on

the probability of testimony, which appeared in 1699, under the title

of “Theologiro Christiaiue Principia Matliematica.” This attempt to

intro<luco mathematical language and reasoning into moral subjects can
scarcely be read with seriousness ;
it has the appearance of an insane
parody of Newton’s Principia, which then engrossed the attention of the
mathematical world. The author begins by stating that he considers
the mind as a movable, and arguments as so many moving forces, by
which a certain velocity of suspicion is produced, ikc. He proves
gravely, that suspicions of any liistory, tran-smitted through the given
time (cceteris jmtibus), vary in the duplicate ratio of the times taken
from the beginning of the history, with much more of the same kind
with resjject to the estimation of equable pleasure, xmiformly accele-
rated pleasui-e, pleasure varying as any power of the time, dec. <fcc.

It i.s stated in biographical dictionaries that Craig’s work wa.s

reprinted at Leijisic in 1755, with a refutation by J. Daniel Titius
and that .some Aninuidversiones on it were publi.shed by Peterson
in 1701.
Provost and Lhuilier notice Craig’s work in a memoir published
in the Mfmmres de V Acad.. ..Berlin, 1797. It seems that Craig con-
cluded that faith in the Gospel .so depended on oral tra-
far as it
dition expired about the year 800, and that so far as it depended
on written tradition it would expire in the year 3150. Peterson

Digilized by Googh
 CRAIG. 5r,

by adopting a different law of diminution concluded that faith

would expire in 1789.
See Montmort, page xxxviii. also the Athena'um for Nov. 7th, ;

1863, page 611.

91. A
Calculation of the Credibility of Human Testimony is
contained in Vol. XXI. of the Philosophical Transactions; it is the
volume for 1699 the essay occupies pages 359 365. The essay
: —
is anonymous Lubbock and Driukwater suggest that it may be
;

by Craig.
The views do not agree with those now received.
First suppose we have successive witue.sses. Let a report be
transmitted through a series of n witnesse.s, whose credibilities are

Pi> Pv"Pn‘ essay takes the product as representing

the resulting probability.
Next, suppose we have concurrent witnesses. Let there be two
witnesses ;
the first witness is supposed to leave an amount of un-
certainty represented by 1 —p^, of this the second witness removes
the fraction |),, and therefore leaves the fraction (1 —p^ (1 ~ pj :

thus the resulting probability is 1 — (1 —pi) (1 ~p^- Similarly

if there arc three concurrent testimonies the resulting probability
is 1 — (1 — j)j) (1 —p^ (1 —p^ ;
iiial so on for a greater number.
The theory of this e.ssay is adopted in the article ProhabiliU
of the original French Encyclojn'die, which is reproduced in the
Encyclopddte Mvthodique: the article is unsigned, so that we must
apparently ascribe it to Diderot. The same theory is adopted by
Bicquilley in his work Du Calcul des Probabilitds.

Digitized by Google
 CHAPTER VII.

JAMES BERNOULLI.

92. We now Ara Conjee-

propose to give an account of the
tandi of James Bernoulli.
James Bernoulli is the first member of the celebrated family
of this name who is a.ssociated with the history of Mathematics.
He was born 27th December, 1G5I, and died IGth August, 1705.
For a most interesting and valuable account of the whole family
we may refer to the essay entitled Die Mathematiker Bernoulli...
von Prof. Dr. Peter Merian, Basel, 18G0.

93. Leibnitz states that at his request James Bernoulli studied

the subject. Feu Mr. Bernoulli a mes
cultiv^ cette matifere sur
e.xhortations ; Leibnitii Opera Omnia, ed. Duteiis, Vol. vi. part 1,

page 217. But this statement is not confirmed by the correspond-

ence between Leibnitz and James Bernoulli, to which we have
It appears from this correspondence
already referred in Art. 59.
that James Bernoulli had nearly completed his work before he
was aware that Leibnitz had heard any thing about it. Leibnitz
says, page 71,

Audio a Te doctrinam de aestimandis probabilitatibus (quam ego

magni facio) non parum esse eicultam. Vellem aliquis varia ludendi
genera (in quibus pulclira hujus doctrinae specimina) mathematice trac-
taret. Id simul amoenum et utile foret nec Te aut quocunque gra-
vissimo Mathematico indignum.

James Bernoulli in reply says, page 77,

Scire libenter velim, Amplissime Vir, a quo habeas, quod Doctrina

de probabilitatibus aestimandis a me excolatur. Verum est me a plu-

Digitizod by Google
 :

JAMES BERNOULLI. 57

ribas retro annis hajaamodi speculationibos magnopere delectari, at rix

putem, qaemqaam plura super his meditatum esse. Animus etiam
erat, Tractatum quendam conscribendi de hac materia; sed saepe per
integros annos seposui, qnia naturalis meus torpor, quern accessoria vaJe-
tudinis meae infirmitas immane quantum auxit, facit ut aegerrime ad
Bcribendum accedam ;
et saepe mihi optarem amonuensem, qui cogitata
mea leviter sibi indicate plene divinare, scriptisque consignare posset.
Absolvi tamen jam maximam Libri partem, sed deest adhuc praecipua,
qua artis conjectandi principia etiam ad civUia, moralia et oeconomia
applicare doceo...

James Bernoulli then proceeds to speak of the celebrated

theorem which is now called by his name.

Leibnitz in his next letter brings some objections against the

theorem; see page 83; and Bernoulli replies; see page 87. Leib-
nitz returns to the subject; see page 9-1: and Bernoulli briefly
replies, page 97,
' Quod Verisimilitudines spectat, et eamm augmentum pro aucto scU.
observationum numero, res omnino se habet ut scripsi, et certus sum
Tibi placituram demonstrationem, cum publicavero.

9-t. The from James Bernoulli to Leibnitz is dated

last letter

3rd June, 1705. most painful manner. We here see

It closes in a
him, who was perhaps the most famous of all who have borne
his famous name, sufiering under the combined sorrow arising from
illness, from the ingratitude of his brother John who had been

his pupil, and from the unjust suspicions of Leibnitz who may
be considered to have been his master
Si rumor vere narrat, redibit certe frater mens Basileam, non tamen
Graecam (cum ipse sit droX^o^i/rof) sed meam potius stationem (quam
lirevi cum vita me derelicturum, forte non vane, existimat) occupatunis.

De iniquis suspicionibus, quibus me immerentem onerasti in Tuis pe-

nultimis, alias, ubi plus otii nactus fiiero. Nunc vale et fave etc.

95. The Ars Conjectandi was not published until eight years
after the death of its author. The volume of the Hist, de
V Acad.... Paris for 1705, published in 1706, contains Fontenelle’s
Eloge of James BemoullL Fontenelle here gave a brief notice,
derived from Hermann, of the contents of the Ars Conjectandi
then unpublished. A brief notice is also give in another Eloge of

Digitized by Google
58 J.VMKS BEUNOULLI.

James Bernoulli which appeared in the Journal des Sgavans

for1706: this notice is attributed to Saurin by Montmort; see his
page rv.
References to the work of James Bernoulli frequently occur in
the correspondence between Leibnitz and John Bernoulli ;
see the
work cited in Ait. 50, pages 367, 377, 836, 815, 817, 922, 923,
925, 931.

96. Tlie Ars Conjectandi was published in 1713. A preface

of two pages was supplied by Nicolas Bernoulli, the sou of a
brother of James and John. It appears from the preface that
the fourth part of the work was left unfinished by its author; the
publishers had desired that the work should be finished by John
Bernoulli, but the numerous engagements of this mathematician
had been an obstacle. It was then proposed to devolve the task
on Nicolas Bernoulli, who had already turned his attention to
the Theory of Probability. But Nicolas Bernoulli did not con-
sider himself adequate to the task; and by his advice the work
was finally published in the state in which its author had left it;
the words of Nicolas Bernoulli are, Suasor itaque fui, ut Tractates
iste qui maxima ex parte jam impressus erat, in eodem quo eum

Auctor reliquit statu cum publico communicarctur.

The Conjectandi is not contained in the collected edition
of James Bernoulli’s works.

97. The Ars Conjectandi, including a treatise on infinite series,

consists of 306 small quarto pages besides the title leaf and the
preface. At the end there is a dissertation in French, entitled
Lettre d, un Amy, sur les Parties du Jeu de Paume which occu-

pies 35 additional pages. Montucla speaks of this letter as the

work of an anonymous author; see his page 391: but there can
be no doubt that it is due to James Bernoulli, for to him Nicolas
Bernoulli assigns it in the preface to the Ara Conjectandi, and
in his correspondence with Montmort. See Montmort, page 333:

98. The Ars Conjectandi

is divided into four parts. The
first Huygens De Rct-
part consists of a reprint of the treatise of
Ludo Alece, accompanied ufith a commentary by James
tiociniis in
Bernoulli. The second part is devoted to the theory of permu-
tations and combinations. The third part consists of tho solution

Digitized by Google
 JAMES BEKIfOlLU. 59

of various problems relating to games of chance. The fourth part

proposed to apply the Theory of Probability to questions of interest
in morals and economical science.
We may observe that instead of the ordinary symbol of
equality, =, James Bernoulli uses x, which Wallis ascribes to Des
Cartes; see Wallis’s .4 Z^ehm, 1693, page 138.

99. A French translation of the first part of the Ars Con-

jectandi was published in 1801, under the title of L'Art de
Conjecturer, Traduit du Latin de Jacques Bernoulli; Avec des
Observations, Eclaircissemens et Additions. Far L. G. F. Vastel,...
Caen. 1801.
The second part of the Ars Conjectandi is included in the
volume of reprints which we have cited in Art. -t7; Maseres in
the same volume gave an English translation of this part.

100. The first Ars Conjectandi occupies pages

part of the
1— 71 with respect to this part we may oljserve that the com-
;

mentary by James Bernoulli is of more value than the original

treatise by Huygens. The commentary supplies other proofs of
the fundamental propositions and other investigations of the pro-
blems; also in some cases it extends them. We will notice the
most important additions made by James BemoullL

101. In the Problem of Points with two players, James

Bernoulli gives a table which furnishes the chances of the two
players when one of them wants any number of points not
exceeding nine, and the other wants any number of points not
exceeding seven ;
and, as he remarks, this table may be prolonged
to any extent; see his page 16.

102. James Bernoulli gives a long note on the subject of

the various throws which can be made with two or more dice,
and the number of cases favourable to each throw. And we may
especially remark that he constructs a large table which is equi-
valent to the theorem we now express thus the number of ways :

in which tn can be obtained by throwing n dice is equal to the

co-eflBcient of aZ" in the development of (x + iF + iF+x* + iJ + aJ)’
in a series of powers of x. See his page 2k.

Digitized by Google
CO JAMKS BEKNOUIXI.

103. Tlie tenth problem is to find in how many trials one

may undertake to throw a si.x with a common die. James Bernoulli

gives a note in reply to an objection which he sugge.sts might

be urged against the result; the reply is perhaps only intended
as a popular illustration : it ha.s been criticized by Prevost in the
Nouveaux Memoires de VAcad.. ..Berlin for 1781.

104. James Bernoulli gives the general expression for the

chance of succeeding m times at least in n trials, when the chance
of success in a single trial is known. Let the chances of success
b c
and failure in a single trial be and - respectively: then the
® a a ^

required chance consists of the terms of the expansion of

^
" . . /6\"* /c
105.
© to the term which involves

This formula involves a solution of the Problem of Points for

j
, both inclusive.

two players of unequal skill; but James Bernoulli does not ex

Illicitly
106.
make the application.

James Bernoulli solves four of the five problems which

Huygens had placed at the end of his treatise ;
the solution of the
fourth problem he postpones to the third part of his book as it

depends on combinations.

Perhaps however the most valuable contribution to the

subject which this part of the work contains is a method of solving
problems in chances which James Bernoulli speaks of as his own,
and which he frequently uses. We will give his solution of the
problem which forms the fourteenth proposition of the treatise
of Huygens: we have already given the solution of Huygens him-
self; see Art. 34.
Instead of two players conceive an infinite number of players
each of whom is to have one throw in turn. The game is to
end as soon as a player whose turn is denoted by an odd number
throws a six, or a player whose turn is denoted by an even number
throws a seven, and such player is to receive the whole sum at
stake. Let b denote the number of ways in which six can be
thrown, c the number of ways in which six can fail; so that 6 = 5,

Digitized by Google
 JAMES BERNOULLI. fil

and c = 31 ;
let c denote the number of ways in which seven can
be thrown, and f the number of ways in which seven can fail, so
that e = 6, and /= 30 ;
and \^i a = h + c = e + f.
Now consider the expectations of the different players ;
they
are as follows:

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

6 ce bef e'ef d'er bc^f e'ef
* ' ’ ’
a’ a a* a“ a“ a'
’
a”

For it is obvious that - expresses the expectation of the first

player. In order that the second player may win, the first throw
must fail and the second throw must succeed; that is there are ce

favourable cases out of a’ cases, so the expectation is In

^ •

order that the third player may win, the first throw mu.st fait,
the second throw must fail, and the third throw must succeed;
that is there are cfb favourable cases out of a’ cases, so the ex-
hef
pectation is . And so on for the other players. Now let a

single player. A, be substituted in our mind in the place of the

first, third, fifth,...; and a single player, B, in the place of the

second, fourth, sixth.... We thus arrive at the problem proposed

by Huygens, and the expectations of A and B are given by two
infinite geometrical progressions. By summing these progressions

we find that A's expectation is S’s expectation is

ce
the proportion is that of 30 to 31, which agrees with
a*— cf ;

the result in Art. 3-i.

107. The last of the five problems which Huygens left to be

solved is the most retiiarkable of all; see Art. 35. It is the first

example on the Duration of Play, a subject which afterwards

exercised the highest powers of De Moi\To, Lagrange, and Laplace.
James Bernoulli solved the problem, and added, without a demon-
stration, the result for a more general problem of which that of
Huygens was a pailicular case; see Are Conjectandi page 71.

Digitized by Google
C2 JAMES BERXOrr.I.I.

Suppose A to have m counters, and B to have n counters ;

let their

chances of winning in a single game be as a to 6 ; the loser in each

game is to give a counter to his adversary: required the chance of
each player for winning all the counters of his adversary. In the
ca.se taken by Huygens m and n were equal.
It will be convenient to giv^e the modem form of solution of
the problem.
Let denote J.’s chance of winning all his adversary’s count-
ers when he has himself x counters. In the next game A must
either win or lose a counter; his chances for these two contin-

gencies are respectively: and then his chances

of winning all his adversary’s counters are and respectively.

Hence
a b
* *-*
a-f-6

Tliis equation is thus obtained in the manner exemplified by

Huygens in his fourteenth proposition; see Art. 34.
The equation in Finite Differences may be solved in the or-
dinary way; thus we shall obtain

where G^ and C, are arbitrary constants. To determine these

constants we observe that .4’s chance is zero when he has no
counters, and that it is unity when he has all the counters. Thus
u, is equal to 0 when x is 0, and is equal to 1 when x is m -t- n.

Hence we have

0 = C, -I- C,, i = a,+ (7.

therefore c,= . ff _

_ a’"'""'* 6*
Hence Wx = — _ jTShT-
•

To determine A’s chance at the beginning of the game we

must put X = m; thus we obtain

_ g” (g" - 6")

Digitized by Google
 JAMES BERNOriJJ. 63

In precisely the same manner we may find ^’s chance at any

stage of the game; and his chance at the beginning of the game
will be
b” {o'- h")
oT*' - b”*'
It will be observed that the sum of the chances of A and B at
the beginning of the game is unity. The interpretation of this
result is must eventually win
that one or other of the players
all the counters; that is, the play must tenninate. This might
have been expected, but was not assumed in the investigation.
Tlie formula which James Bernoulli here gives will next come
before us in the correspondence between Nicolas Bernoulli and
Montmort; it was however first publi.shed by De Moivre in his
De Mensura Soiiis, Problem ix., where it is also demonstrated.

108. We may obser\'e that Bernoulli seems to have found,

ns most who have studied the subject of chances have also found,
that it was extremely easy to fall into mistakes, e.specially by

attempting to reason without strict calculation. Thus, on his

page 15, he points out a mistake into which it would have been
easy to fall, nisi nos calculus aliud docuisset. He adds,

Quo ijwo monemur, ut canti simus in jndicando, nec ratio-

proin
cinia nostra superquacunque statim analogia in rebus deprehensa fun-
dare suescamus; quod ipsum tnmen etiam ab iis, qni vel maxinid sapere
videntur, nimis frequenter fieri solet.

Again, on his page 27,

Quee quidem eum in fiiiem hie adduce, ut palim fiat, qukm parilm
fidendum sit ejusmodi ratiociuiia, qnse corticem tantfrm attingunt, neo
in ipsam rei naturam altiils penetrant; tametsi in toto vita) usu etiam
apud sapientissimos quosque nihil sit frequentius.

Again, on his page 29, he refers to the difficulty which Pascal

says had been felt by M. de * * * *, whom James Bernoulli calls
Anonymus quidam CKterk subacti judicii Vir, sed Geometrise
expers. James Bernoulli adds,
Hac cnim qui imbuti sunt, ejusmodi fraeTio^rcuu minimi moran-
tur, probd conscii dari innumera, qnse admoto calculo aliter se habere
comperiuntur, qukm initio apparebant; ideoqne sodulb cavent, juxtk id
quod semel iterumqne monui, ne quioquam analogiis temerd tribuant.

Digitized by Google
 ; ;;

C4 JAMES BERXOUU.I.

109. Tlie second part of the jirs Conjectandi occupies pages

72 — 137: it contains the doctrine of Permutations and Combina-
tions. James Bernoulli says that others have treated this subject
before him, and especially Schooten, Leibnitz, Wallis and Prestet
and he intimates that
so his matter is not entirely new. He con-
tinues thus, page 73,
qusedam non contenmenda de nostro adjecimus, inprimis
...tametsi
demonstrationem generalem et iacilem proprietatis numerorum figura-
torum, cni csetera pleraqne innituntur, et quam nemo quod sciam ante
nos dedit eruitve.

110. James Bernoulli begins by treating on pennutatiops

he proves the ordinaiy rule for finding the number of permuta-
tions of a set of things taken aU together, when there are no
repetitions among the set of things and also when there are. He
gives a full analysis of the number of arrangements of the verse
Tot tibi sunt dotes, Virgo, quot sidera coeli ;
see Art. 40. He then
considers combinations ; and first he finds the total number of ways
in which a set of things can be taken, by taking them one at a
time, two at a time, three at a time,... He then proeeeds to find
what we should call the number of combinations of n things taken
r at a time and here is the part of the subject in which he
;

added most to the results obtained by his predecessors. He

gives a figure which is substantially the same as Pascal’s Arith-
metical Triangle; and he arrives at two results, one of which
is the w'ell-known form for the nth term of the rth order of

figurate numbers, and the other is the formula for the sum of
a given number of terms of the series of figurate numbers of a
given order ;
these results are expressed definitely in the modem
notation as we now have them
in works on Algebra. The mode of
proof is more might be expected. Pascal as we have
laborious, as
seen in Arts. 22 and 41, employed without any scruple, and indeed
rather with approbation, the method of induction James Bernoulli :

however says, page 95,... modus demonstrandi per inductionem

pariim scientificus est.

James Bernoulli names his predecessors in investigations on

figurate numbers in the following terms on his page 95
Multi, ut hoc in transita notemus, numerorum figuratorum contem-

Digiiized by Google
 5

JAMES BERNOULLI. 6 .>

plationibua Tac&rant (quos inter Faulhaberua et Remmelini UlmenEes,

111. Mercator in Logarithmotechni^ Prestetus, aliique)...
Wallisina,

We may notice that James Bernoulli gives incidentally

on his page 89 a demonstration of the Binomial Theorem for the
case of a positive integral exponent. Maseres considers this to
112. first demonstration that appeared
be the ;
see page 233 of the
work cited in Art. 47.

From the summation of a scries of figurate numbers

James Bernoulli proceeds to derive the summation of the powers
of the natural numbers. He exhibits definitely 2n, Sn’, 2«*,...
up to2n“ ; he uses the symbol / where we in modem books use 2.
He then extends his results by induction without demonstration,
and introduces for the first time into Analysis the coefficients since
so famous as the numbers of Bernoulli. His general formula is that

^ c+1^2^2^ + 2.3.4
c(c-l ) (c-2)(c-3)(c-4)
f7«-*
2 . 3 . 4 , . 6

c(c-l)(c- 2) (c-3) (c -_1) (c-5)(c-6)

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.'8

where ^"6* 7j_ p L 7) — L ‘

30’ 42’ 30’

He gives the numerical value of the sum of the tenth powers

of the first thousand natural numbers; the result is a number
with113.
thirty-two figures. He adds, on his page 98,
E qnibus apparet, quim inutilis censenda sit opera TsmaeUs Bul-
lialdi, quam conscribendo tam spisso volumini Arithmeticie suse Infini-
torum impend! t, ubi nihil prmstitit aliud, qukm ut primarum tan turn
sex potestatum siunmas (partem eju.s quod unic4 nos consecuti sumus
I>agina) immeuso labore demonstrates exhiberet.

For some account of Bulliald’s spissum volumen, see Wallis’s

Algebra, Chap. LXXX.

James Bernoulli gives in his fourth Chapter the rule

now well known for the number of the combinations of n things
6

Digitized by Google
 ;

GG JAMES BERNOULLI.

taken c at a time. He
also draws various simple inferences from

the rule. He digresses from the subject of this part of his book to
resume the discussion of the Problem of Points see his page 107. ;

He gives two methods of treating the problem by the aid of

the theory of combinations. The first method shews how the
table which he had exliibited in the first part of the Ars Con-
jectandi might be continued and the law of its terms expressed;
the table is a statement of the chances of A and 7i for winning
the game when each of them wants an assigned number of points.
Pascal had himself given such a table for a game of six points
an extension of the table is given on jjage IG of the Ars Con-
jectandi,and now James Bernoulli investigates general expressions
for the component numbers of the table. From his investigation
he derives the result which Pascal gave for the case in which one
player wants one point more than the other player. James Ber-
noulli concludes this investigation thus ;
Ipsa solutio Pascaliana,
quse Auctori suo tantopere arrisit.

James Bernoulli’s other solution of the Problem of Points is

much more simple and direct, for here he does make the application
to which we alluded in Art. lOi. Suppose that A wants m points
and B wants n points then the game will certainly be decided in
;

*n -b n — 1 trials. As in each trial A and B have equal chances

of success the whole number of possible cases is 2"^"'. And
A wins the game if B gains no point, or if B gains just one point,
or just two points,... or any number up to n — 1 inclusive. Thus
the number of cases favourable to A is

i + ^„ I
(>-2) +
^
2 [3 |i.-l
where /a = m4 n-1.
Pascal had in effect advanced as far as this ;
see Art. 23 : but
the formula is more convenient than the Arithmetical Triangle.

IIA Chapter James Bernoulli considers another

In his fifth

question of combinations, namely that which in modern treatises is

enunciated thus : to find the number of homogeneous products of
ther*** degp-ee which can be formed of n symbols. In his sixth
Chapter he continues this subject, and makes a slight reference to

Digitized by Google
 ’

JAUES BSBNOULLI. 67

the doctrine of the number of number; for

divisors of a given
more information he refers to the works of Schooten and Wallis,
which we have already examined see Arts. 42, 47. ;

115, In his seventh Chapter James Bernoulli gives the for-

mula for what we now call the number of permutations of n things
taken c at a time. In the remainder of this part of his book he
discusses some other questions relating to permutations and com-
binations, and illustrates his theory by examples.

116. The third part of the Ars Conjectandi occupies pages

138 — 209; it consists of twenty-four problems which are to illus-

trate the theory that has gone before in the book. James Ber-
noulli gives only a few lines of introduction, and then proceeds to
the 117.
problems, which he says,
...nullo fere habito selectu, prout in aJversariis reperi, proponam, prsB-

missis etiam vel interspersis nonnullia facilioribus, et in quibus nullos

combinationum nans ap|>aret.

The fourteenth problem deserves some notice. There

are two cases in it, but it will be sufficient to consider one of

them. throw a die, and then to repeat his throw as many

.4 is to

times as the number thrown the first time. A is to have the

whole stake if the sum of the numbers given by the latter set of
throws exceeds 12; he is to have half the stake if the sum is
equal to 12; and ho is to have nothing if the sum is less than
12. Required the value of his expectation. It is found to be
1.5295
which is rather less than g- After giving the correct
31104
solution James Bernoulli gives another which is plausible but

false, in order, as he says, to impress on his readers the necessity

of caution in these discussions. The following is the false solution.

A has a chance equal to

^
of throwing an ace at his first trial;

in this case ho has only one throw for the stake, and that throw
may give him with equal probability any number between 1 and 6

inclusive, so that we may take (l-b2-t-3-t-4-b5+6), that is

^
3^, for his mean throw. We may observe that 3i is the Arith-
5—2

Digitized by Google
68 JAMES BERNOULLI.

1
metical mean between 1 and 6. Again A has a chance equal to
6
of throwing a two at his he has two throws
first trial ;
in this case
for the stake, and these two throws may give him any number
between 2 and 12 inclusive; and the probability of the number
2 is the same as that of 12, the probability of 3 is the same as

that of 11, and so on; hence as before we may take ^ (2 + 12),

that is 7, for his mean throw. In a similar way if three, four,
five, or six be thrown at the first trial, the corresponding means
of the numbers in the throws for the stake will be respectively
lOi, 14, 17i, and 21. Hence the mean of all the numbers is

+ 7 + lOJ + 14 + 17J + 21}, that is 12^;

g

and as this number is greater than 12 it might appear that the

odds are in favour of A.
A false solution of a problem will generally appear more plau-
sible toa person who has originally been deceived by it than to
another person who has not seen it until after he has studied the
accurate solution. To some persons James Bernoulli’s false solu-
tion w'ould appear simply false and not plausible; it leaves the
problem proposed and substitutes another which is entirely differ-
ent. This may be easily seen by taking a simple example.
Suppose that A instead of an equal chance for any number of
throws between one and six inclusive, is restricted to one or six
throws, and that each of these two cases is equally likely. Then,

we may take i +
as before, {3J 21j, that is 12J as the moan
throw. Butobvious that the odds are against him; for if
it is

ho has only one throw he cannot obtain 12, and if he has six
throws he wull not necessarily obtain 12. The question is not
what is the mean number he will obtain, but how manij throws
wUl give him 12 or more, and how many will give him less than 12.
James Bernoulli seems not to have been able to make out
more than that the second solution must be false because the first
is unassailable; for after saying that from the second solution we
might suppose the odds to be in favour of A, he adds, Hujus

Digitized by Google
 JAMES BERNOULLI. 69

autem contrarium ex priore solutione, quse sua luce radiat, ap-

paret; ...

The problem has been since considered by Mallet and by Fuss,

who agree with James Bernoulli in admitting the plausibility of
the false solution.

118. James Bernoulli examines in detail some of the games of

chance which were popular in his day. Tlius on pages 167 and 168
he takes the game called Cinq et neuf He takes on pages 169 17 t —
a game which had been brought to his notice by a stroller at
fairs. According to James Bernoulli the chances were against the
stroller, and so as he says, istumque proin hoc aleas genere, ni

pnemia minuat, non multum lucrari posse. We might desire to

know more of the stroller who thus supplied the occasion of an
elaborate discu.ssion to James Bernoulli, and who offered to the
public the amusement of gambling on terms unfavourable to
himself.

James Bernoulli then proceeds to a game called Trijaquea.

He considers that, it is of great importance for a plaj’er to main-
tain a serene composure even if the cards are unfavourable, and
that a previous calculation of the chances of the game will assist

in securing the requisite command of countenance and temper.

As James Bernoulli speaks immediately afterwards of what he
had himself formerly often observed in the game, we may perhaps
infer that Trijaqu4Shad once been a favourite amusement with
him.

119. The nineteenth problem is thus enunciated.

In quolibet Alete genere, si ludi Oeconomns seu Dispensator (l«
Banquier du Jeu) nonnihil hsbeat prserogativse in eo consistentis, ut paulo
major sit casuum numems quibus vincit quAm quibus perdit; et major
simul casuum numerus, quibus in officio Oeconomi pro ludo sequenti
confirmatur, quAm quibus eeconomia in collusorem transfertur. Quwritur,
quanti privilegium hoc Oeconomi sit tcstimandum ?

The problem is chiefly remarkable from the fact that James

Bernoulli candidly records two false solutions which occurred to
him before he obtained the true solution.

120. The twenty-first problem relates to the game of Basaette;

Digitized by Google
 :

70 JAUES BERNOULLI.

James Bernoulli devotes eight pages to it, his object being to

estimate the advantage of the banker at the game. See Art. 74.

The last three which James Bernoulli discusses

problems
arose from his observing that a certain stroller, in order to entice
persons to play with him, offered them among the conditions of
the game one which was apparently to their advantage, but
which on investigation was shewn to be really pernicious see his ;

pages 208, 209.

121. The fourth part of the Ars Conjectandi occupies pages

210 —239 ;
it is entitled Pars Quarta-, tradens usum et applicatio-

nem prcecedentis Doctrirm in GivUibus, Moralihus et Oeconomicis. It

was unfortunately left incomplete by the authgr; but nevertheless
it may be considered the most important part of the whole work.
It is divided into five Chapters, of which we will give the titles.

I. Prceliminaria quaidam de Certitudine, Probabilitate, Neces-

sitate, et Contingentia Rerum.

II. De Scienlia et Conjectura. De Arte Conjectandi. De

Argumerdis Conjecturamm. Axiomata queedam generalia hue
pertinentia.

III. De variis argumentorum generibus, et quomodo eorum

pondera cestimmtur ad supputandas rerum probabilitates.

IV. De duplici Modo investigandi numeros casuum. Quid

sentiendum de illo, qui instituitur per expetnmenta. Problema
singulars earn in rem propositum, &c.

V. SoluHo Problematis prcecedentis.

122. We will briefly notice the results of James Bernoulli

as to the probability of argument.s. Ho distinguishes arguments
into two kinds, pure and mixed. He says, Pura voco, quae in qui-
busdam casibus ita rem probant, ut in aliis nihil positivi^ probent
Mixta, quae ita rem probant in casibus nonnulbs, ut in caeteris
probent contrarium rei.

Suppose now we have three arguments of the pure kind lead-

ing to the same conclusion; let their respective probabilities be

Digitized by Googl
 — . :

JAMES BEBKOULLI. 71

c
1 — - ,
f
1 — X
• Then the resulting probability of the oon-

cfi . . .

elusion is 1 -r- This is obvious from the consideration that

culg
any one of the arguments would establish the conclusion, so that
the conclusion fails only when all the arguments fail.

Suppose now that wo have in addition two arguments of the

q t
mixed kind; let their respective probabilities be
q+r’ t + u"
Then James Bernoulli gives for the resulting probability

efiru
1 -
adg (nt + gt)

But this formula is inaccurate. For the supposition g = 0 amounts

to having one ai^iment absolutely decisive against the conclusion,
while yet the formula leaves still a certain probability for the

conclusion. The error was pointed out by Lambert; see Prevost

and Lhuilier, MSmoires de tAcad....Berlinior

123.The most remarkable subject contained in the fourth

part of the Ars Conjectandi is the enunciation and investigation
of what we now call Bernoulli’s Theorem. It is introduced in
terms which shew a high opinion of its importance
Hoc igitur est illud Problcma, quod evulgandum hoc loco proposui,
postquam jam per vicennium pressi, et cujus turn novilas, turn summa
utilitas cum pari conjuncta difficultate omnibus reliquis hujus doc-
triniB capitibus pondus et pretium superaddere potest. Ars Conjectandi,
page 227. See also De Moivre’s Doelrine of Chances, page 254.

We will now state the purely algebraical part of the theorem.

Suppose that (r + «)"* is expanded by the Binomial Theorem, the
letters all denoting integral numbers and t being equal to r + «.
Let M denote the sum of the greatest term and the n preceding
terms and the n following terms. Then by taking n large enough
the ratio of u to the sum of all the remaining terms of the expan-
sion may be made as great as we please.
If we wish that this ratio should not bo less than c it will be
sufiScient to take n equal to the greater of the two following ex-
pressions.

Digitized by Google
72 JAMES BEBNOULLI.

loge + log(«-l ) /, • \ *_
log(r + l)-logr \ ’’’r + l/ r + 1'
lo ge + log(r-l) r
and /j _
log (*+ 1) — logs \ "’"s + 1/ s+l‘
James Bernoulli’s demonstration of this result is long but
perfectly satisfactory ;
it rests mainly on the fact that the terms
in the Binomial series increase continuously up to the greatest
term, and then decrease continuously. We shall see as we proceed
with the history of our subject that James Bernoulli’s demonstra-
tion is now superseded by the use of Stirling’s Theorem.

124. Let us now take the application of the algebraical result

to the Tlieory of Probability. The greatest term of (r + s)"*, where
t=r+s is the term involving Let r and s be proportional to
the probability of the happening and failing of an event in a single
trial. Then the sum of the 2/i + 1 terms of (r + s)*' which have th^
greatest term for their middle term corresponds to the probability
that in nt trials thenumber of times the event happens will lie
between n(r— 1) and n(r+l), both inclusive; so that the ratio
of the number of times the event happens to the whole number of
^ ^ ^
trials lies between and Then, by taking for n the
t t

greater of the two expressions in the preceding article, we have

the odds of c to 1, that the ratio of the number of times the event
r-l-1
happens to the whole number of trials lies between and
r-1
t

As an example James Bernoulli takes

r = 30, s=20, <=50.
He finds for the odds to be 1000 to 1 that the ratio of the
number of times the event happens to the whole number of trials

shall lie between —

31
50
and
29
50
.

it will
.

be sufficient to make 25550

trials ;
for the odds to be 10000 to 1, it will be sufficient to make
31258 trials ;
for the odds to be 100000 to 1, it will be sufficient
to make 36966 trials ;
and so on.

Digitized by Google
 . :

JAMES BEBNOULU. 73
125.

Suppose then that we have an urn containing white balls

and black balls, and that the ratio of the number of the former
to the latter is known to be that of 3 to 2. We learn from the
preceding result that if we make 25550 drawings of a single ball,
replacing each ball after it is drawn, the odds are 1000 to 1 that

the white balls drawn lie between

31
50
and
29
oO
— —
of the whole num-

her drawn. This is the direct use of James Bernoulli’s theorem.

But he himself proposed to employ it inversely in a far more
important way. Suppose that in the preceding illustration we
do not know anything beforehand of the ratio of the white balls
to the black but that we have made a large number of drawings,
;

and have obtained a white ball R times, and a black ball S times
then according to James Bernoulli we are to infer that the
ratio of the white balls to the black balls in the um is approxi-

mately ^
a
To determine the precise numerical estimate of the

probability of this inference requires further investigation : we

shall find as we proceed that this has been done in two ways,
by an inversion of James Bernoulli’s theorem, or by the aid of
another theorem called Bayes’s theorem the results approximately
;

agree. See Laplace, Th6orie..,de8 Prob.... pages 282 and 366.

126. We have spoken of the inverse use of James Bernoulli’s

theorem as the most important; and it is clear that he himself
was fully aware of this. This use of the theorem was that which
Leibnitz found it difficult to admit, and which James Bernoulli
maintained against him see the correspondence quoted in Art. 59,
;

pages 77, 83, 87, 97.

127. A memoir on infinite series follows the Ars Conjectandi,

and occupies pages 24>1 —306 of the volume ;
this is contained in
the collected edition of James Bernoulli’s works, Geneva,
1744 it :

isthere broken up into parts and distributed through the two

volumes of which the edition consists.
'This memoir is unconnected with our subject, and we will
therefore only briefly notice some points of interest which it
presents.

Digitized by Google
 ;

74 JAUES BKBKOUIXI.
128.

James Bernoulli enforces the importance of the subject

in the following terms, page 243,
Csetcrum quantn sit necessitatis pariter et utilitatis hseo serienim
contcmplatio, ei sane ignotum esse non poterit, qui perspectum habuerit,
ejusmodi series sacram quasi esse anchoram, ad quam in maxime arduis
129.
ct dusperatiB solutionis Problematibus, ubi omnes alias humani ingenii
vires naufragium passse, velut ultimi remcdii loco confugiendum est.

The principal artifice employed by James Bernoulli in

this memoir is that of subtracting one series from another, thus
obtaining a third series. For example,

let ^=l + |+^+-+^>

then S= 1 + 1+1 + ...+ ! + ^;

therefore 0 =-1+ "^ + ... +
+
111
’
1 . 2 2 . 3 3 . 4 n (n 1) n+ 1

130. 1
therefore 2"'' 3'''3. =1- ‘
1 . 2 . i"*" n(7i+ 1) n+ 1
Thus the sum of n terms of the series, of which the r*’’ term is

1 n.

131.
r(r + l) ’
n+1
James Bernoulli says that his brother first observed

that the sum of the infinite series infinite

and he gives his brother's demonstration and his own ;

see his
page 250.
James Bernoulli shews that the sum of the infinite series

1
1
+ ^ t>
+ 4^ + . . . is finite, but confesses himself unable to give

the sum. He says, page 254, Si quis inveniat nobisque commu-

nicet, quod industriam nostram elusit hactenus, magnas de nobis

gratias feret. The sum is now known to be — ;

this result is due

to Euler: it is given in his Introductio in Analysin Infinitorum,

1748, Vol. I. page 130.

Digitized by Google
 JAMES BEBNOTXU. 73

132. James Bernoulli seems to be on more familiar terms

with infinity than mathematicians of the present day. On his
page 262 wc find him stating, correctly, that the sum of the infinite

series
yl
+ ij L nji
+
y-*
+ - is infinite, for the series is greater

than T + HA +^+7 +••• He adds that the sum of all the odd
1 O 4
terms of the first series is to the sum of all the even terms as
V2 — 1 is to 1 ;
so that the sum of the odd terms would appear to
bo leas than the sum of the even terms, which is impossible. But
the paradox does not disturb James Bernoulli, for he adds,
...cujns ivavTunfnytlai rationcm, etsi ex infiniti nature finite intel-

lectui comprehendi non posse videatnr, nos tamen satis perspectsm

habemns.

133. At the end of the volume containing the Ars Conjectandi

we have the Lettre d tm Amy, sur lea Parties da Jeu de Paume,
towhich we have alluded in Art. 97.
The nature of the problem discussed may be thus stated.
Suppose A and B two players ; let them play a set of games, say
five, that is to say, the player gains the set who first wins five

games. Then a certain number of sets, say four, make a match.

It is required to estimate the chances of A and B in various states
of the contest. Suppose for example that A has won two sets,
and B has won one set and that in the set now current A has
;

won two games and B has won one game. The problem is thus
somewhat Problem of Points, but more
similar in character to the
complicated. discusses it very fully, and presents
James Bernoulli
his result in theform of tables. He considers the case in which the
players are of unequal skill and he solves various problems arising
;

from particular circumstances connected with the game of tennis

to which the letter is specially devoted.

On the second page of the letter is a very distinct statement

of the use of the celebrated theorem known by the name of Ber-
noulli ;
see Ait. 123.

134. One problem occurs in ihvs Lettre d un Amy... which

it may be interesting to notice.
Suppose that A and B engage in play, and that each in turn

Digitized by Google
 ;

7G JAMES BERNOULLI.

by the laws of the game has an advantage over his antagonist Thus
suppose that A’s chance of winning in the 1st, 3rd, 5th... games is
always p, and his chance of losing y; and in the 2nd, tth, 6th...
games suppose that .d’s chance of winning is q and his chance of
losing p. The chance of B is found by taking that of A from
unity ;
so that Bs chance \s p or q according as .d’s is
y or p.
Now let A B
and suppose that the stake is to bo
and play,
assigned to the player who first wins n games. There is however to
be this peculiarity in their contest If eacli of them obtains n — 1 :

games it will be necessary for one of them to win two games in

succession to decide the contest in his favour; if each of them
wins one of the next two games, so that each has scored n games,
the same law is to hold, namely, that one must win two games in

succe.ssion to decide the contest in his favour and so on. ;

Let us now suppose that n = 2, and estimate the advantage of

A. Let X denote this advantage, S the
whole sum to be gained.
Now A may win the first and second games liLs chance for ;

this \s pq, and then he receives S. He may win the first game,
and lose the second ;
his chance for this is p'. He may lose the

first game and win the second ;

his chance for this is j*. In the
lasttwo cases his position is neither better nor worse than at first
that is he may be said to receive x.

Thus X=pqS-\-{p'+q^X\

therefore
_ PI ^ ^
* —p^ — q* 2
'

1 2pq
g
Hence of course B's advantage is also • Thus the players
^
are on an equal footing.

James Bernoulli in his way obtains this refrult. He says that

whatever may be the value of n, the players are on an equal foot-
ing ;
he verifies the statement by calculating numerically the
chances for n = 2, 3, 4 or 5, taking y> = 2y. See his pages 18, 19.

Perhaps the follownng remarks may be sufiBcient to shew that

whatever may be, the players must be on an equal footing. By
the peculiar law of the game which we have explained, it follows
that the contest is not decided until one player has gained at least
n games, and is at least two games in advance of his adversary.

Digitized by Google
 :

JAMES BERNOULLI. 77

Thus the contest is an even number of games,

either decided in
or else in an odd number of games in which the victor is at least
three games in advance of his adversary: in the last case no ad-
vantage or disadvantage will accrue to either player if they play
one more game and count it in. Thus the contest may be con-
ducted without any change of probabilities under the following
laws: the number of games shall be even, and the victor gain not
less than n and be at least two in advance of his adversary. But
since the number of games is to be even we see that the two
players are on an equal footing.

135. Gouraud has given the following summary of the merits

of the Are Conjectandi; see his page 28
Tel est oe livre de I’dr* conjectandi, livre qui, si Ton considdre le
temps oil il fut compost, I'origiualitS, I'^tendue et la p6n6tration
d’esprit qu’y montra sou auteur, la f4condit€ ^tonnante de la constitution
Ecientifique qu’il donna au Calcul des probabilit€s, I’influence enfin qu’il
devait exercer sur deux siScles d'analyse, pourra sans exagdration €tre
regard^ comme un des monuments les plus imjKirtants de I’histoire des
mathL'inatiquea 11 a plac6 A jamais le nom de Jacques Bernoulli parmi
les noms de ces inveuteurs, A qui la post€rit€ reconnaissante reporte tou-
jours et A bon droit, le plus pur mdrite des d6couvertes, que sans leur
premier effort, eUe n’aurait jamais su faire.

This panegyric, however, seems to neglect the simple fact of

the date of publication of the Are Conjectandi, which was really
subsequent to the first appearance of Montmort and De Moivre in
this field of mathematical investigation. The researches of James
Bernoulli were doubtless the earlier in existence, but they were
the later in appearance before the world ;
and thus the influence
which they might have exercised had been already produced. The
problems in the first three parts of the Are Conjectandi cannot be
considered equal in importance or difficulty to those which we
find investigatedby Montmort and De Moivre but the memorable ;

theorem in the fourth part, which justly bears its author’s name,
will ensure him a permanent place in the history of the Theory of
Probability.

Digitized by Google
 CHAPTER VIII.

MONTMORT.

136. The work which next claims attention is that of Mont-

mort; it is entitled Essai d Analyte sur let Jeux de Hazards.
Fontenelle’s Eloge de M. de Montmort is contained in the
volume for 1719 of the Hist, de tAcad... Paris, which was pub-
lished in 1721 ;
from this we take a few particulars.
Pierre Remond de Montmort was horn in 1678. Under the
influence of his guide, master, and friend, Malebranche, he devoted
himself to religion, philosophy, and mathematics. He accepted
with reluctance a canonry of N6tre-Dame at Paris, which he re-
linquished in order to marry. He continued his simple and
retired life,and we are told that, par un batiheur assez singidier
le manage lui rendit sa maison plus agrSable. In 1708 he pub-
lished his work on Chances, where with the courage of Columbus
he revealed a new world to mathematicians.
After Montmort’s work appeared De Moivre published his essay
De Mensura Sortls. Fontenelle says,

Je ne dissimulerai point qui M. do Montmort fut vivement piqu£

de cet ouvrage, qui lui parut avoir 6t6 enti€rement fait sur le sien, et

d'apriSs le sien. II est vrai, qu’il y 6toit lou6, et n’6toitK3e pas assez,

dirart-on 1 mais un Seigneur do fief n’en quittera pas pour des louanges
celui qu’il prdtend lui devoir foi et hommage des terres qu’il tient de
luL Je parle selon sa pr£tention, et ne decide nullement s’il £toit en
effet le Seigneur.

Montmort died of small pox at Paris in 1719. He had been

engaged on a work entitled Histoire de la Giomitrie, but had not

Digiti/^ed by Google
 ;

MONTMORT. 79

proceeded far with it; on this subject Fontenelle has some inter-
esting remarks. See also Montucla’s Histoire des Maihematitpies,
first edition, Preface, page vii.

137. There are two editions of Montmort’s work; the first

appeared in 1708 ; the second is sometimes said to have appeared
in 1713, but the date 1714 is on the title page of my copy, which
apjiears to have been a present to ’sGravesande from the autlior.
Both editions are in quarto; the first contains 189 pages with
a preface of xxrv pages, and the second contains 414 pages with
a preface and advertisement of XLII pages. The increased bulk
of the second edition arises, partly from the introduction of a
treatise on combinations which occupies pages 1 72, and partly —
from the addition of a series of letters which passed between
Montmort and Nicholas Bernoulli with one letter from John
Bernoulli. The name of Montmort does not appear on the title
page or in the work, except once on page 338, where it is used
with respect to a place.
Any reference which we make to Montmort’s work must be
taken to apply to the second edition unless the contrary is stated.

Montucla says, page 394, speaking of the second edition of

Montmort’s work, Cette Edition, inddpendamment de ses aug-
mentations et corrections faites k la premibro, est remarquable par
de belles gravures k la tCte de chaque partie. These engravings
are four in number, and they occur also in the first edition, and of
course the impressions will naturally be finer in the earlier edition.
It is desirable to correct the error implied in Montucla’s state-
ment, because the work is scarce, and thus those who merely wish
for the engravings may direct their attention to the first edition,
leaving the second for mathematicians.

138. Leibnitz corresponded with Montmort and his brother;

and he records a very favourable opinion of the work we are now
about to examine. He says, however, J’aurois souhaitd les loix
des Jeux un peu mieux decrites, et les termes expliqubs en faveur
des Strangers et de la postbritd Leibnitii Opera Omnia, ed.
Dutens, Vol. v. pages 17 and 28.
Reference is also made
Montmort and his book in the cor-
to
respondence between Leibnitz and John and Nicholas Bernoulli

Digitized by Google
 80 MONTMORT.

see the work cited in Art. 59, pages 827, 836, 837, 842, 846, 903,
985, 987, 989.

139. We will now give a detailed account of Montmort’s

work ;
we will take the second edition as our standard, and point
out as occasion may require when our remarks do not apply to
the first edition also.

140.The preface occupies xxrv pages. Montmort refers to

the fact that James Bernoulli had been engaged on a work entitled
De arte conjectandi, which his premature death had prevented him
from completing. Montmort’s introduction to these studies had
ari.sen from the request of some friends that he would determine
the advantage of the banker at the game of Pharaon ;
and he had
been led on to compose a work which might compensate for the
loss of Bernoulli’s.
Montmort makes some judicious observations on the foolish
and superstitious notions which were prevalent among persons
devoted to games of chance, and proposes to check these by shew-
ing, not only to such persons but to men in general, that there
are rules in chance, and that for want of knowing these ndes
mistakes are made which and these results
entail adverse results;
men impute to destiny instead of to their own ignorance. Per-
haps however he speaks rather as a philosopher than as a gambler
when he says positively on his page VIII,

On joueroit sans doute avec plus d’agr€ment si Ton pouvoit s<^voir

it chaque coup resjierance qu’on a de gagner, ou le risque que Ton court
de perdre. On seroit plus tranquile sur les fivenemens du jeu, et on
sentiroit mieux le ridicule de ces plaintes continuelles ausquclles se
laifisent alter la pldpart des Joueurs dans les rencontres les plus com-
munes, lorsqu’elles leur sent contraires.

141. Montmort divides his work into four parts. The first
part contains the theory of combinations; the second part discusses
certain games of chance dejrending on cards; the third part dis-
cusses certain games of chance depending on dice; the fourth
part contains the solution of various problems in chances, including
the five problems proposed by Huygens. To these four parts
must be added the letters to which we have alluded in Art. 137.

Digitized by Google i
 ;;

MONTOORT. 81

Montmort gives his reasons for not devoting a part to the appli-
cation of his subject to political, economical, and moral questions,
in conformity with the known design of James Bernoulli; see his
pages XIII —XX. His reasons contain a good appreciation of the
diflSculty that must attend all such applications, and he thus states
the conditions under which we may attempt them with advantage;
1”. homer la question que Ton se propose k un petit nombre de

suppositions, ^tablies sur des faits certains ;

2”. faire abstraction do
toutes lea ' ausquelles la liberty de Thomme, cet
circon-stances
^eueil perpetuelde nos connoissances, pourroit avoir quelque part.
Montmort prai.ses highly the memoir by Halley, which we have
already noticed; and also commends Petty’s Political Arithvietic
see Arts. 57, 61.
Montmort refers briefly to his predecessors, Huygens, Pascal,
and Fermat. He says that his work is intended principally for
mathematicians, and that he has fully explained the various games
which he discusses because, pour I’ordinaire les S 9 avans ne sont
pas Joueurs; see his page xxiiL

142. After the preface follows an Avertissement which was not

in the first edition.Montmort says that two small treatises on
the subject had appeared since his first edition; namely a thesis

by Nicolas Bernoulli De arte conjectandi in Jure, and a memoir

by De Moivre, De mensura sortie.
Montmort seems to have been much displeased with the terms
in which reference was made to him by De Moivre. De Moivre
had said,
IIugeniuB, primus quod sciam regulas tradidit ad istius generis Fro-
blematum Solutionem, quas miperrimus autor Gallus variis exeiuplis
pulchre illustravit ; sed non videntur viri clariasimi ea simplicitate ac
generalitate nsi fiiisse qnam natura rei postulabat : etenim dnm plnres
quantitates incognitas usurpant, ut varias Collusoriim conditiones re-
praesentent, calculum suum nimis perplexum reddunt ; dumque Collu-
eorum dexteritatem semper aequalem pouunt, doctrinam hanc ludorum
intra limites nimis arctos continent.

Montmort seems to have taken needless oSence at these words

he thought his own performances were undervalued, and accord-
ingly he defends his own claims: this leads him to give a sketch

Digitized by Google
 ; ;
.

82 MONTMORT.

of the history of the Theory of Probability from its origin. He

attributes to himself the merit of having explored a subject which
had been only slightly noticed and then entirely forgotten for
sixty years; see his page XXX.

143. The first part of Montmort’s W'ork is entitled Traits des

Covibinaisons it occupies pages 1 72. —
Montmort says, on his
page XXV, that he has here collected the theorems on Combina-
tions which were scattered over the work in the first edition, and
that he has added some theorems.
Montmort begins by explaining the properties of Pascal’s Arith-
metical Triangle. He gives the general expression for the term
which occupies an assigned place in the Arithmetical Triangle. He
shews how to find the sum of the squares, cubes, fourth powers, . .

of the first n natural numbers. He refers, on his page 20, to a

book called the Neiu introduction to the Mathematics written by
M. Johnes, s(javant Geometre Anglois. The author here meant is
one who is usually described as the father of Sir William Jones.
Montmort then investigates the number of permutations of an
assigned set of things taken in an assigned number together.

144. Much of this part of Montmort’s work would however

be now considered to belong rather to the chapter on Chances
than to the chapter on Combinivtlons in a treatise on Algebra.
We have in fact numerous examples about drawing cards and
throwing dice.

We will notice some of the more interesting points in this

part. We may remark that in order to denote the n\imber of
combinations of n things taken r at a time, Montmort uses the
symbol of a small rectangle with n above it and r below it.

145. Montmort proposes to establish the Binomial Theorem

see his page 32. He
says that this theorem may be demonstrated
in various whys. His own method will be seen from an example.
Suppose we require (a 6)*. Conceive that we have four counters
each having two faces, one black and one wdiite. Then Montmort
has already shewn by the aid of the Arithmetical Triangle that
if the four counters are thrown promiscuously there is one way
ia which all the faces presented will be black, four ways in which

Digitized by Google
 MONTMORT. 83

three faces will be black and one white, six ways in which two
faces will bo black and two white; and so on. Then he reasons
thus; we know by the rules for multiplication that in order to
raise a + 6 to the fourth power (1) we must take the fourth power
of a and the fourth power of b, which is the same thing as taking
the four black faces and the four white faces, (2) we must bike
the cube of a with 6, and the cube of b with a in as many ways as
possible, which is the same thing as taking the three black faces
with one white face, and the three white faces with one black
face, (3) we must take the square of a with the square of b in

as many ways as possible, which is the same thing as taking the

two black faces with the two white faces. Hence the coeflBcients
in the Binomial Theorem must be the numbers 1, 4, 6, which we
have already obtained in considering the cases which can arise
with the four counters.

140. Thus in fact Montmort argues d priori that the coeffi-

cients in the expansion of (a + 6)* must be equal to the numbers of
cases correspon<ling to the different ways in which the white and
black faces may ap|>ear if n counters are thrown promiscuously,
each counter having one black face and one white face.

Montmort gives on his page 34 a similar interpretation to

the coefficients of the multinomial theorem. Hence w’o see that

he in some cases passed from theorems in Chances to theorems in

pure Algebra, while wo now pass more readily from theorems in

pure Algebra to their application to the doctrine of Chances.

147. On his page 42 Montmort has the following problem:

There arep dice each having the same number of faces; find the
number of ways in which when they are thrown at random we can
have a aces, b twos, c threes, ...

The result will be in modem notation

\P
\a\b[p...

He then proceeds to a case a little more complex, namely

where we are to have a of one sort of faces, b of another sort, c
of a third sort, and so on, without specifying whether the a faces
6—2

Digitized by Google
84 MONTUORT.

are to be aces, or twos, or threes, and similarly without specify-

ing for the b faces, or the c faces, ...

He
had g^ven the result for this problem in his first edition,
page 137, where the factors B, C, D, E, F,.,. must however be
omitted from his denominator he suppressed the demonstration
;

in his first edition because he said it would be long and abstruse,

and only intelligible to such persons as were capable of discovering
it for themselves.

On his page 46 Montmort gives the following problem,

148.
which new in the second edition There are n dice each having
is :

marked with the numbers from 1 to

f faces, they are thrown at
random: determine the number of ways in which the sum of the
numbers exhibited by the dice will be equal to a given number p.
We should now solve the problem by finding the coeflScient
of of in the expansion of

(a: + !c’ + a:’+

that is the coefficient of in the expansion of

— a:)""
^ , that is

in the expansion of (1 (1 — a/)“. Let — ti = « ;

then the
required number is

n (n+ 1) ... (n + s — 1) n (n+ 1) ... ( n+a—f— 1)

”
[El
n (n-1) n(n + l) ... (a + s -2/- 1)
1.2 \a-2f
The series is to be continued so long as all the factors which
occur are positive. Montmort demonstrates the formula, but in a
much more laborious way than the above.

149. The preceding formula is one of the standard results of

the subject, and we must now trace its history. The formula was
first published by De Moivre without demonstration in the De
Menaura Sortia. Montmort says, on his page 364, that it was derived
from page 141 of his first edition ; but this assertion
is quite un-

founded, for all that we have in Montmort’s first edition, at the

place cited, is a table of the various throws which can be made
with any number of dice up to nine in number. Montmort how-

Digitized by Googl
 :

MOXTMOET. 85

ever shews by the evidence of a letter addressed to John Bernoulli,

dated 15th November, 1710, that he was himself acquainted with
the formula before it was published by De Moivre; see Montmori,
page 307. De Moivre first published his demonstration in his
Miscellanea Anaiytica, 1730, where he ably replied to the asser-
had been derived from the first edition of
tion that the formula
Montmort’s work; see Miscellanea Anaiytica, pages 191 197. —
De Moivre’s demonstration is the same as that which we have
given.

150. Montmort then proceeds to a more difficult question.

Suppose we have three sets of cards, each set containing ten cards
marked with the numbers 1, 2,... 10. If three cards are taken
out of the thirty, it is required to find in how many ways the
sum of the numbers on the cards will amount to an assigned
number.
In this problem the assigned number may arise (1) from three
cards no two of which are of the same set, (2) from three cards
two of which are of one set and the third of another set, (3) from
three cards all of the same set. The first case is treated in the
problem. Article 148 the other two cases are new.
;

Montmort here gives no general solution; he only shews how a

table may be made registering all the required results.
He sums up thus, page 62 : Cette methods est un peu longue,
mais j’ai de la peine k croire qu’on pulsse en trouver une plus
courts.
The problem discussed here by Montmort may bo stated thus
We require the number of solutions of the equation m + y-\-z=p,
under the restriction that x, y, z shall be positive integers lying
between 1 and 10 inclusive, and p a positive integer which has an
assigned value lying between 3 and 30 inclusiva

151. In his pages 63 —72 Montmort discusses a problem in

the summation of series. We should now enunciate it as a general
question of Finite Differences: to find the sum of any assigned
number of terms of a series in which the Finite Differences of a
certain order are zero.
In modem notation, let u. denote the n*** term and suppose
that the (wi + 1)"* Finite Difference is zero.

Digitized by Google
 , ;

8C MONTJIORT.

Then it is shewn iu works on Finite Dififerenccs, that

. 71 (n — 1) .
7(. = + 7iAw„ H “2 ‘ ^
j

71 (n — 1) . . . — 771 + 1)i . _
+ ^ A"h, .

l»i

This formula Montmort gives, using A, B, C,... for Ai(„, A'u^

By the aid of this formula the summation of an assigned

number of terms of the proposed series is reduced to depend on the
.. , . f 1 • 1 n— (n— 1) ... (n — T'^- 1)
summation of series ot which may be ,

[r
taken as the type of the general term and such summations have ;

been already etfected by means of the Arithmetical Tnamjle and

its properties.

152. ilontmort naturally attaches great importance to this

general investigation, which is new in the second edition. He
says, page 65,

Ce Problfimo a, comme Ton voit, tonte l’6tcndue et toute I’lmiversa-

liW j)Ossible, et .semble ne rien laisser 4 d&irer eur cette mntiere, qui u’a
encore C‘t6 traitdc par pei'sonne, que je s^che :
j'en nvois obmis la de-

monstration dans le Journal dcs Si^^vans du mois de Mars 1711.

De Moivre in his Doctrine of Chances uses the rule which

Montmort here demonstrates. In the first edition of the Doctrine

of Chances, page 29, we are told that the “ Demonstration may

be had from the Methodus Dijferentialis of Sir Isaac Keiuton,
printed in his Analysis.” In tlie second edition of the Doctrine
of Chances, page 52, and in the tliird edition, page 59, the origin
of the rule is carried further back, namely, to the fifth Lemma of
the Principia, Book III. See .also Miscellanea Analytica, p.age 152.
Do Moivre seems here hardly to do full justice to Montmort
for the latter is fairly entitled to the credit of the first explicit
enunciation of the lailo, even though it may be implicitly contained

in Newton’s Prineijna and Methodus Differentialis.

153. Montmort’s second part occupies pages 73 — 172 ;

it re-

Digitizefi by Google
 MONTMORT. 87

lates to games of chance involving cards. The first game is that

called Pharaon.
This game is described by De Aloivre, and some investigations
given by him relating to it. Do Moivre restricts himself to the
case of a common pack of cards with four suits Montmort sup-
;

poses the number of suits to be any number whatever. On the

other hand De Moivre calculates the percentage of gain of the
banker, which he justly considers the most important and difficult
part of the problem ;
see Doctnne of Chances, pages ix, 77, 105.

Montmort’s second edition gives the general results more

compactly than the first.

154. We shall make some remarks in connection with Mont-

mort’s investigations on Pharaon, for the sake of the summation of
certain series which present themselves.

155. Suppose that there are p cards in the pack, which the
Banker has, and that his adversary’s card occurs j time.s in the
pack. Let m, denote the Banker’s advantage, A the sum of money
which his adversary stakes. Montmort shews that

g (? - 1) 1 (p-g) (p- g-1)

^ .

^
’ p{p-l)

supposing that p — 2 is greater than q. That is Montmort should

3
have this; but he puts {pq — q*) 2A+ (q* — q)
2
on page 89,

by mistake for q{q — Vj \ A\ he

A
gets right on his page 90. Mont-

inort is not quite full enough in the details of the treatment of

this equation. The following results will however be found on
examination.
If q even we can by succes.sive use of the formula make »/,
is

depend on and then it follows from the laws of the game that
;

M, is equal to M if j is equal to 2, and to

^
.4 if g" is greater

than 2. 'Tlius we shall have, if q is an even number greater

than 2,

Digitized by Google
 . :

8S MOXTMOUT.

ip-2){p-S)
(p-q) (p-g-l) (p-q- 2) ip- g-3)
(i>-2)(iJ-3)(p-4)(i,-5)
, ,
(p- g)(p-g-l)...l 1
_

^ ip -2) (i>-3)...(g-l) J

If q =2 the last term within the brackets should be doubled.

Again if q is odd we can by succes-sive use of the fundamental
formula make u, depend on u,^,, and if
j isgreater than unity it

can be shewn that ^ ^ ^ Thus we shall have, if q is an

’
* 2+12 .

odd number greater than unity,

^ g(g-
1) 1
J i 1 + (/>-g)(p- g-l_)
2^1^+ (p-2)ip-S)

I
(p-g) (y-g-'t) (p-g-2) (p-g-^)
(i>-2)(i»-3)(p-4)(p-5)
(p-g)(p-g-l)...2 l

+ (p-2)(»-3) gj-

If 2 = 1 we have by a special investigation m, =—

we suppose q even and p — q not less than g — 1, or g odd
If
and p—q not less than g, some of the terms within the brackets
may be simplified. Montmort makes these suppositions, and con-
sequently he finds that the series within the brackets may be
expressed as a fraction, of which the common denominator is

ip-2) ip-S) ...ip-q + l)\

the numerator consists of a series, the first term of which is the

same as the denominator, and the last term is

(g-2)(g-3)...2.1, or (g-l)(g-2)...3.2.
according as g is even or odd.

The matter contained in the present article was not given

by Montmort in his first edition ;
it is due to John Bernoulli
see Montmort’s, page 287.

Digitized by Googlc
 1 . ;

MONTMOKT. 89

156. We are thus naturally led to consider the summation of

certain series.

SO that if> (n, r) is the n“ number of the (r + 1)**" order of figurate

numbers.
Let S^(n, r) stand for <f>(n, r) + <f>
{n — 2, r) +<^(n — 4,r) + ...,

so that &j> (n, r) is the sum of the alternate terms of the series of
figurate numbers of the (r + 1)“* order, beginning with the n“’ and
going backwards. It is required to find an expression for S<f> (n, r).

It is known that

^ (t?, r) +^ (n — 1, r) + ^ (n — 2, r) + ^ (n — 3, r) + ... = ^ {n, r + 1)

and by taking the terms in pairs it is easy to see that

(j>{n, r)—<j>{n — l,r) + ^(n — 2, r) -f{n — 3, r) + ... = 8<f> {n,r — 1)

therefore, by addition,

S<l> (n,r) = ^<f>{n,r+l) + ^8<f> (n, r- 1).

Hence, continuing the process, we shall have

(n, r) = I ^ (n, r + 1) + (n, r)

+ I ^ (n, r - 1) + . .

... + l0(«,2)+i^(a,O);

and we must consider S<f> (n, 0) = «, if n be even, and = i (n+1),

^
if n be odd.
We may also obtain another expression for S<f> (n, r). For
change n into n + 1 in the two fundamental relations, and subtract,
instead of adding as before thus ;

(«. ») <^ (» + 1. »•+ 1) -1 (« + i> » - !)•

Hence, continuing the process, we shall have

(n, r) =i (n + 1, r + 1) - ^ ^ (n + 2, r) + 1 ^ (n + 3, r - 1)

- - ^ (n + r, 2) + 8<])(n + r, 0).

Digitized by Googlc
 ;

90 MONTMORT.

157. Montmort’s own

solution of the problem respecting
Pharaon depends on the first mode of summation explained in Art.
15C, which coincides wdth Montmort’s owm process. The fact that
in Montmort’s result when q is otld, q — \ terms are to be taken,
and when q is even,
q terms are to be taken and the last doubled,
depends on the different values we have to ascribe to S<^ (n, 0) ac-
cording as n is even or odd ;
see Montmort’s page 98.
Montmort gives another form to his re.sult on his page 99
this he obtained, after the publication of his first edition, from
Kicolas Bernoulli. It appears however that a wrong date is here
assigned to the communication of Kicolas Bernoulli Mont- ;
see
mort’s page 299. This form depends on the second mode of sum-
mation explained in Art. 156. It happens that in applying this

second mode of summation to the problem of Pharaon n -f r is

always odd so tliat in Nicolas Bernoulli’s form for tlie result
;

we have only one case, and not two cases according as q is even
or odd.
There is a memoir by Euler on the game of Pharaon in the
Hist, de V Acad. ...Berlin for 1764, in which he e-xpresses the ad-
vantage of the Banker in the same manner as Nicolas Bernoulli.
158. Montmort gives tw'o tables of numerical results respect-
ing pharaon. One of these tables purports to be an exact exhibi-
tion of the Banker’s advantage at any stage of the game, supposing
it played with an ordinary pack of 52 cardsthe other table is an ;

approximate exhibition of the Banker’s advantage. A remark may

be made with respect to the former table. The table consists of
four columns ;
the first and third are correct. The second column
should be calculated from the formula ,
by putting for n
^

in succession 50, 48, 46, ... 4. But

two copies of the second
in the
edition of Montmort’s book which I have seen the column is given
.SI 17 26
incorrectly it begins with
;
instead of 5-^1^ and of the re- >

maining entries some are correct, but not in their simplest forms,
and others are incorrect. The fourth column should be calculated
2n-5
from the formula by putting for n in succession
2(n-lK7j-3)
50, 48, 46 ... 4 ;
but there are errors and unreduced results in it

Digitized by Google
 2 ;

MONTMORT. 91

it begins 'W’ith a fraction having twelve figures in its denominator,

which in its simplest form would only have four figures.
In the only copy of the first edition which I have seen these
columns are given correctly in both editions the description given
;

in the text corresponds not to the incorrect forms but to the cor-
rect forms.

159. Montmort next discusses the game’ of Lansquenet; this

discu-ssion occupies pages 105 — 129. _It does not appear to present
any point of interest, and it would be useless labour to verify the
complex arithmetical calculations which it involves. A few lines
which occurred on pages 40 and 41 of Montmort’s first edition are
omitted in the second while the Articles 84 and 95 of the second
;

edition are new. Article 84 seems to have been suggested to

Montmort by J ohn Bernoulli see Montmort’s page 288 it relates
;
:

to a point which James Bernoulli had found difficult, as we have

already stated in Art. 119.

160. Montmort next discusses the game of Treize; this dis-

cussion occupies pages 130 — 143. The problem involved is one of
considerable interest, which has maintained a 2)ermanent place in
works on the Theory of Probability.
The following is the problem considered by Montmort.
Suppose that we have thirteen cards numbered 1, 2, 3 ... up to
13; and that these cards are thrown promiscuously into a bag.
The cards are then drawn out singly required the chance that, ;

once at least, the number on a card .shall coincide with the number
expressing the order in which it is drawn.

IGl. In his first edition Montmort did not give any demon-
strations of his results ;
but in his second edition ho gives two
demonstrations which he had received from Nicolas Bernoulli
see his pages 301, 302. We will take the first of these demon-
strations.
Let a, b, c, d, e, ... denote the cards, n in number. Tlion the num-
ber of possible cases is [n. The number of cases in which a is first

is [n — 1. The number of cases in which b is second, but a not first,

is
I
n — 1 — w — 2. The number of cases in which c is third, but a
I

not first nor b second, is n — 1 — |w — 2 — |n — — n — 3

[
|

|,
|

Digitized by Google
92 MONTMORT.

that is |n-l - 2 |n-2 + n-3. |

The number of cases in

which d is fourth, but neither a, b, nor c in its proper place is

ln-l -2 ;n-2 + ln-3 -| n-2 -2 |n^3 + |n-4 |,

that is

[
n — 1 — 3 w— 2 + 3 n — 3 — n — 4
I
And generally the
I |
. number
of cases in which the card is in its proper place, while none
of its predecessors is in its proper place, is

|n-l -(w-l) |n-2 + ^ i |n-3

(m — 1) (m — 2) (m — 3)
I
n-4 + + (- 1)-*-* |n-wt.
L5

We may supply a step here in the process of Nicolas Bernoulli,

by shewing the truth of this result by induction. Let (m, w)
denote the number of cases in which the »»“ card is the first that
occurs in its right place we have to trace the connexion between
;

(m, n) and (n» + 1, n). The number of cases in which the

(n» + 1)“* card is in its right place while none of the cards between

b and the card, both inclusive, is in its right place, is y/r (m, n).
From this number we must reject all those cases in which a is in its
right place, and thus we shall obtain (m + 1, n). The cases to
be rejected are in number (m, n — 1). Thus
(w + 1, n) =y/r (m, — n — 1).
Hence we can shew that the form assigned by Nicolas Bernoulli
to (m, n) is universally true.

Thus if a person undertakes that the «»“* card shall be the first

that is in its right place, the number of cases favourable to him is

dr (m, n), and therefore his chance is .

l_n

If he undertakes that at least one card shall be in its right

place, we obtain the number of favourable cases by summing
(m, n) for all values of m from 1 to n both inclusive the chance :

is found by dividing this sum by [n.

Hence we shall obtain for the chance that at least one card is

in its right place,

.. 1,11 (- 1 )-‘

Digitized by Google
 ;

MOIITMORT. 93

We may observe that if ve subtract the last expression from

unity we obtain the chance that no card is in its right place. Hence
if <f>
(n) denote the number of cases in which no card is in its right
place, we obtain

162. The game which Montmort calls Treize has sometimes

been called Rencontre. The problem which is here introduced for
the first time has been generalised and discussed by the following
writers: De Moivre, 2)octnn« Chances, pages 109 117. Euler, —
Hist, de t Acad.... Berlin, for 1751. Lambert, Nouveaux Mimoirea
de VAcad. ... Berlin, for 1771. Laplace, Thforie ...des Prob.
pages 217 — 225. Michaelis, MSmoire sur la probabilitd du jeu de
rencontre, Berlin, 1846.

163. Pages 148 — 156 of Montmort relate to the game of Bas-

setts. This is one of the most celebrated of the old games; it
bears a great resemblance to Pharaon.
As we have already stated, this game was dismissed by James
Bernoulli, who summed up his results in the form of six tables
see Art 119. The most important of these tables is in the fourth,
which is in effect also reproduced in De Moivre’s investigations.
The reader who wishes to obtain a notion of the game may con-
sult De Moivre’s Doctrine of Chances, pages 69 —77.
164. James Bernoulli and De Moivre confine themselves to
the case of a common pack of cards, so that a particular card, an
ace for example, cannot occur more than four times. Montmort
however, considers the subject more generally, and gives formulm
fur a pack of cards consisting of any number of suits. Montmort
gives a general formula on his page 153 which is new in his second
edition. The quantity which De Moivre denotes by y and puts
equal to J is taken to be | by Montmort
Montmort gives a numerical table of the advantage of the
Banker at Bassette. In the second edition some fractions are
left unreduced which were reduced to their lowest terms in the
first edition, the object of the change being probably to allow

Digitized by Google
94 MONTMORT.

the law of formation to be more readily perceived. The last

fraction, given in the table was wrong in the first edition ;

see
Montmort’s page 303. It would be advisable to multiply both
numerator and denominator of this fraction by 12 to maintain
uniformity in the table.

10-5. Montmort devotes his pages 157 172 to some pro- —

blems respecting games which are not entirely games of chance.
He gives some preliminary remarks to shew that the complete
discussion of such games is too laborious and complex for our
powers of analysis ;
he therefore restricts himself to some special
problems relating to the games.
The games are not described, so that it would be difificult to
undertake an examination of Montmort’s investigations. Two of
the problems, namely, those relating to the game of Piquet, are
given by De Moivre with more detail than by Montmort ;
see
Doctrine of Chances, page 179. These problems are simple exer-
cises in combinations and it would appear that all Montmort’s
;

other problems in this part of his book are of a similar kind, pre-
senting no difficulty except that arising from a want of familiarity
with the uudescribed games to which they belong.

106. Montmort’s third part occupies pages 173 — 215; it

relates to games of chance involving dice. This part is almost

identically repeated from the first edition.
The first game is calleil Quinquenove; it is described, and a
calculation given of the disadvantage of a player. The second
game is called Hazard; this is also described, and a calculation
given of the disadvantage of the player who holds the dice. This
game is discussed by Dc Moivre ;
see his pages 160 — 166. The
third game is called .Esperance; it is described and a particular
case of it with three players is calculated. The calculation is

extremely laborious, and the chances of the three players are

represented by three fractions, the common denominator being a
number of twenty figures. ’Then follow games called Trois Dez,
Passe-dix, Rafle; these are described somewhat obscurely, and
problems respecting them are solved ; Raffling is discussed by Dc
—
Moivre see pages 166 172 of the Doctrine of Chances.
;

Digitized by Google
 MONTMOKT. 95

1G7. The last game

Le Jeu dea Noyaux, which
is called
^lontmort says the Baron de la Hontau had found to be in use
among tho savages of Canada see Montmort’s pages xii and 213.;

The game is thus described,

On y joue avec huit noyaux noirs d’un c6t6 et blancs de I’autre : on

jetto lea noyaux en I’air : alors si les noire se trouvent impairs, celui qui
a jett6 les noyaux gagne ce que I’autro Joueur a mis au jeu : S'ils se

trouvent ou tous noire ou tous blancs, il en gagne le double j

et hors de
ces deux cas il perd sa mise.

Suppose eight dice each having only two faces, one face black
and one white let them be thrown up at random. There are
;

then 2', that is 256, equally pos.sible cases. It will be found that
there are 8 cases for one black and seven white, 56 cases for three
black and five white, 28 cases for two black and six white, and
70 cases for four black and four white ;
and there is only one case
for all black. Thus if the whole stake be denoted by A, the chance
of the player who throws the dice is

^ |(8 + 8 + 56 + 56) ^ + 2 {A-^\a)

}
,

and the chance of the other player is

+ 28 + 70)^+2(0-l.l)|.
23yJ(28
131 125
The former is equal to A, and the latter to A.

Montmort says that the problem was proposed to him by a

lady who gave him almost instantly a correct solution of it but ;

he proceeds very rudely to depreciate the lady’s solution by in-

sinuating that it was only correct by accident, for her method was
restricted to the case in which there were only two faces on each
of the dice : Montmort then proposes a similar problem in which
each of the dice has Jour faces.

Montmort should have recorded the name of the only lady who
has contributed to the Theory of Probability.

Digitized by Google
96 HOMTUOBT.

168. The fourth part of Montmort’s book occupies pages

216 —282 ;
it contains the solution of various problems respecting
chances, and in particular of the five proposed by Huygens in
1657 ;
see Art. 35. This part of the work extends to about double
the length of the corresponding part in the first edition.

169. Montmort’s solution of Huygens’s first problem is similar

to that given by James BemoullL The first few lines of Mont-
mort’s Remarque on his page 217 are not in his first edition they ;

strongly resemble some lines in the Are Conjectandi, page 51.

But Montmort does not refer to the latter work, either in his
preface or elsewhere, although it appeared before his own second
edition; the interval however between the two publications may
have been very small, and so perhaps Montmort had not seen the
Are Conjectandi until after his own work had been completely
printed.
The solution of Huygens’s fifth problem isvery laborious, and
inferior to that given by James Bernoulli ;
and Montmort him-
self admits that he had not adopted the best method ;
see his
page 223.
The solutions of Huygens’s problems which Montmort gave
in his first edition received the benefit of some observations by
John Bernoulli ;
these are printed in Montmort’s fifth part,
pages 292 — by the aid of them the solutions in the second
294, and
edition were improved but Montmort’s discussions of the pro-
:

blems remain stiU far less elaborate than those of James Bernoulli.

170. Montmort next takes two problems which amount to

finding the value of an annuity, allowing compound interest.
Then he proceeds to the problem of which a particular example
is to find in how many throws with a single die it will be an

even chance to throw a six.

171. Montmort now devotes his pages 232 — 2-18 to the Pro-
blem of Points. He reprints Pascal’s letter of August 14th, 1654,
to which we have alluded in Art 16, and then he adds, page 241,

Le respect que nous avons pour la reputation ot pour la memoire do

M. Pascal, ne nous permet pas de faire remarquer ici en detail toutes

Digitized by Googl(
 2 .

MO^”^MORT. 97

les faut«8 de raisonnement qui sont dans cette Lettre ;

il noua suffiia
d'avertir que la cause de son erreur est de n'avoir point d’^gard aux
divers arrangemens dee lettres.

Montmort’s words seem to imply that Pascal's letter contains

a large amount of error; we' have, however, only the single fun-
damental inaccuracy which Fermat corrected, as we have shewn in
Art. 19, and the inference that it was not allowable to suppose
that a certain number of trials will necessarily be made; see Art. 18.

172. Montmort gives for the first time two formulae either of
which is a complete solution of the Problem of Points when there
are two players, taking into account difference of skill. We will
exhibit these formulae in modem notation. Suppose that A wants
VI points and B wants n points ;
so that the game will be neces-
sarily decided in m -I- n— 1 trials ;
let m+ »— 1 = r. Let p denote
A ’s skill, that is his chance of winning in a single trial, and let

q denote Ba skill ;
so that p -f g = 1.
Then A ’s chance of winning the game is

r (r — 1)
p' + rp'~'q + + + —1p ? :
1 . [m |n

and Bs chance of winning the game is

«r+ + Hm~i
n — Iot 1

This is the first formula. According to the second formula A's

chance of winning the game is

, 11 , («i -f- l£ ^ _.-i t

l+7ng+-\--2-V+
. . .

+|«_1|»-1®
and Bs chance of winning the game is

n ^
Cn + 11
**
. f, . 1 I
lTy' P+
.

« j

Montmort demonstrates the truth of these formulse, but we

need not give the demonstrations here as they will be found in
elementary works; see Algd>ra, Chapter LIII.

173. In Montmort’s first edition he had confined himself

to the case of equal skill and had given only the /irst formula.

Digitized by Google
 ; +

98 MONTMORT.

80 that hehad not really advanced beyond Pascal, although the

formula would be more convenient than the use of the Arith-
vietical Triangle see Art. 23. The first formula for the case
of unequal skill was communicated to Montmort by John Ber-
noulli in a letter dated March 17th, 1710; see Montmort’s page 295.
As we have already stated the formula was known to James
Bernoulli; see Art. 113. Tlie second formula for the Problem of
Points must be assigned to Montmort himself, for it now appears
before us for the first time.

174. It will be interesting to make some comparison between

the two formulae given in Art. 172.
It may be shewn that we have identically

-p"j(p+?)~+"tp+ ‘ir~'a + (p

|r-l 1

This may be shewn by picking out the coefficients of the

various powers of q in the expression on the right-hand side,
making use of the relations presented by the identity

(i-5r-'(i-j)-”= (i-j)-<.

Thus we see that \i p + q be equal to unity the two expres-

sions given in Art. 172 for A’s chance are numerically eqiial.

173. however ^-|-g be not equal to unity the two expres-

If
sions given in Art. 172 for A’s chance are not numerically equal.
If we suppose p + q less than unity, we can give the following in-
terpretation to the formulae. Suppose that A ’s chance of winning
in a single trial p, and B's chance is q,
is and that there is the
chance 1 —p — q that it is a drawn contest.
Then the formula

i+mq + m 1)
q'+...+.
lr-1
1.2

Digitized by Google
 ;

MOXTMORT. 9!)

expresses the chance that A shall wn m points before either a

single drawn contest occurs, or B wins n points.
This is easily seen by examining the reasoning by which the
formula is established in the case when p-\- qia equal to unity.
But the formula
r (r — 1)
f + rp’~'q + 1.2
p^q^ + ...+ \Z
«-l p q
ll'l

expresses the chance that win m points out of r, on the

A shall
condition that r trials are to be made, and that A is not to be con-
sidered to have won if a drawn contest should occur even after he
has won his m points.
This follows from the fact that if we expand (p + J + 1 —p — f)'

in powers of y>, q, \—p — q,& term such as Cjffif — p — ?)’ ex-

presses the chance that A wins p points, B wins a points, and t
contests are drawn.
Or we may treat this second case by using the transformation
in Art. 17-t. Tlien we see that {p j)™ expreases the chance
m points which A is
that there shall be no drawn contest after the
supposed to have won (p + q)"^' expresses the chance that there
;

shall be no drawn contest after the m points which A is supposed

to have won, and the single point which B is supposed to have
won ; and so on.

176. Montmort thinks it might be easily imagined that the

chances of A and B, if they respectively want hn and kn points,
would be the same as if they respectively wanted m and n points
but this he says is not the case see his page 247. He seems to
;

assert that as k increases the chance of the player of greater skill

necessarily increases with it. He does not however demonstrate this.
We know by Bernoulli’s theorem that if the number of trials
be made large enough, there is a very high probability that the
number of points won by each player respectively will be nearly in
the ratio of his skill ;
so that if the ratio of m to a he less than that
of the skill of A to the skill of B, we can, by increasing k, obtain as
great a probability as we please that A will win km points before
B wins kn points.
Montmort probably impbes, though he does not state, the con-
dition whichwe have put in Italics.
7—2

Digitized by Google
 ; ;

100 MOXTMORT.

177. Montmort devotes his pages 248 — 257 to the discussion

of a game of Bowls, which leads to a problem resembling the Pro-

blem of Points. The problem was started by De Moivre in his
De Meimira tfortis see Montmort, page 3GG, and the Doctrine of
Chances, page 121. De Moivre had supjxj.sed the players to be of
equal skill, and each to have the same number of balls Montmort ;

generalised the problem by supposing i)layers of unequal skill and

having unequal numbers of balls. Thus the problem was not in
Montmort’s fiist edition.

Montmort gives on his page 256 a simple example of a solution

of a problem which appears very plausible, but which is incorrect
Suppose A plays with one bowl and B with two bowls ;
required
their respective chances in one trial, a.ssuming equal skill.

Considering that any one of the three bowls is as likely as the

2 1
others to be first, the chance of .B is and that of J is But by .

^ ^
the incorrect solution Montmort arrives at a difl’ereut result For
suppose A to have delivered his Ik)w1. Tlien B has the chance

^ with his first bowl of beating A and the chance ^ x ^ of failing

with his first bowl and being succe.s.sful with his second. Thus i?’s

3
chance appears to be - . Montmort considers the error of this so-

lution to lie in the assumption that when B has failed to beat A

with his first bowl it is still an even chance that he will beat A with
his second bowl : for the fact that B failed with his first bowl
suggests that A 's bowl has a position better than the average, so
that B's chance of success with his second bowl becomes less than
an even chance.

178. Montmort then takes four problems in succession of

trifling importance. The first relates to a lottery which was started
in Paris in 1710, in which the projector had ofiered to the public
terms which were very disadvantageous to himself The second is
an ea-sy exercise in combinations. The third relates to a game
called Le Jen des 0ublieu.t. The fourth is an extension of
Huygens’s eleventh problem, and is also given in the Ars Conjec-
tandi, page 31. Tliese four problems are new in the second edition.

Digitized by Google
 :

MOSTMORT. 101

179. Montmort now passes more important

to a problem of a
character which occupies his pages 268 277, and which is also —
new in the second edition; it relates to the Duration oj Play;
see Art. 107.
Suppose A to have m counters and B to have n counters ;
let
their chances of winning a single game be as a to J the loser in ;

each game is to give a counter to his adversary required the chance :

that A will have won all B’s counters on or before the a:*** game.
This is the most difficult problem which had as yet been solved
in the subject. Montmort’s formula is.given on his pages 268, 269.

180. The history of this problem up to the current date will

be found by comparing the following pages of Montmort’s book,
275, 309, 315, 324., 344, 368, 375, 380.
It appears that Montmort worked at the problem and also
asked Nicolas Bernoulli to try it. Nicolas Bernoulli sent a
solution to Montmort, which Montmort said he admired but
could not understand, and he thought his own method of investi-
gation and that of Nicolas Bernoulli must l)e very different: but
after e.xplanations received from Nicolas Bernoulli, Montmort
came methods were the same. Before
to the conclusion that the
however the publication of Montmort’s second edition, De Moivre
had solved the problem in a different manner in the De Mensura
Sortie.

181. The general problem of the Duration of Play was studied

by De Moivre with great acuteness and success indeed his inves- ;

tigation forms one of his chief contributions to the subject.

He refers in the following words to Nicolas Bernoulli and
Montmort
Monsieur de Jfonmorl, in the Second Edition of his Book of Chances,
having given a very handsom Solution of the Problem relating to the
duration of Play, (which Solution is coincident with that of Mon.sieur
Nicolas BemouUy, to be seen in that Book) and the demonstration of it

being very naturally deduced from our first Solution of the foregoing
Problem, I thought the Reader would be well pleased to see it trans-
ferred to this place.

Doctrine of Chances; first edition, page 122.

Digitized by Google
 102 MONTMORT.

. . . the Solution of Mr much crouded

Nicolas BerHovdli being very
with Symbols, and the verbal Explication of them too scanty, I own
I did not understand it thoroughly, which obliged me to consider Mr.

de Monnwrt's Solution with very great attention I found indeed that ;

he was very plain, but to ray great surpriz; I found him veiy erroneous;
still in my Doctrine of Chances I printed that Solution, but rectided

and ascril>ed it to Mr. de Monmort, without the least intimation of any

alterations made by me but as I had no thanks for so doing, I resume
;

my right, and now print it as my own

Doctrine of Chances; second edition page 181, third edition, page 211.

The language of De Moivre in his second and third editions

would seem to imply that the solutions of Nicolas Bernoulli and
Montmort are different; but they are really coincident, as De
Moivre had himself stated in his first edition. The statement that
Montmort’s solution is very erroneous, is unjustly severe Mont- ;

mort has given his fonnula without proper precaution, but his
example which immediately follows shews that he was right him-
self and would serve to guide his readere. The second edition of
the Doctrine of Chances appeared nearly twenty years after the
death of Montmort; and the change in De Moivre’s language
respecting him seems therefore e.specially ungenerous.

182. We shall not here give

Montmort’s general solution of
the Problem of the Duration of Play; w-e shall have a better
opportunity of noticing it in connexion with De Moivre’s investiga-
tions. We will make three remarks which may be of service to
any student who examines Montmort’s own work.
Montmort’s general statement on his pages 268, 269, might
easily mislead the example at the end of page 269 is a safer
;

guide. If the statement were literally followed, the second line

in
the example would consist of as many terms as the first line, the
fourth of as many terms as the third, and the sixth of as many
terms as the fifth ;
but this would be wTong, shewing that the
general statement is not literally accurate.
Montmort’s explanation at the end of his page 270, and
the be-
ginning of his page 271, is not satisfactory. It is not true
as he
intimates, that the four letters a and the eleven letters
b must be

Digitized by Google
 ;

MONTMOHT. 103

80 arranged that only a single J is to come among the four letters

a : we might have such an arrangement as aaahhbbbhhbbhha. We
shall return to this point in our account of De Moivre’s in-
vestigations.

On his page 272 Montmort gives a rule deduced from his

formula ;
he ought to state that the rule assumes that the players
are of ecjual skill : his rule also assumes that p —m is an even
number.

183. On his pages 275, 276 Montmort gives without demon-

stration results for two special cases.

(1) Suppose that there are two players of equal skill, and that

each starts with two counters ;

then 1 —^
A
is the chance that the

match will be ended in 2a; games at most. The result may be de-
duced from Montmort’s general expression. A property of the
Binomial Coefficients is involved which we may briefly indicate.
Let M,, M,, denote the successive tenns in the expansion
of (1 -H 1)“*. Let S denote the sum of the following series

M, + 2u,.,+ M^,+ 0 + M^+ 2«^+ M^+ 0 + M^+ ...

Then shall 5'= 2‘^‘-2*-‘.

For let V, denote the r“’ term in the expansion of (1 -f 1)**’*, and
It), the tei-m in the expansion of (1 + 1)“^. Then
M, = t), -1- t),_„

«r_, = I’r-i + IV-, = W’r-t +

Employ the former transformation in the odd terms of our pro-
posed and the latter in the even terms
series, ;
thus we find that

the proposed series becomes

-f 2 2w,., + w^+ 0 + w,_,-l-...}.

(1 +
1)** *
The first is equal to
of these two series 5
^
second a series of the same kind as that which we wish to sum
is

with X changed into a; — 1. Thus we can finish the demonstration

by induction for obviously

2 - 2*^ + 2”** = 2 - 2*''.

Digitized by Google
 ;.

10 i MONTMORT.

Next suppose that each player starts with three counters

(2)

then 1 —^ is the chance that the match will be ended in 2x + 1

games This result had in fact been given by Montmort in

at most.
his first edition, page 184. It may be deduced from Montmort’s

general expression, and involves a property of the Binomial Coeffi-

cients which we will briefly indicate.

Let M,, « denote the successive term^ in the expansion

of (1 + 1)“*'. Let S denote the sum of the following series

u,+ 2 u^, + 2m,^,+ «^ + 0 + 0 + u,^-(-2u,.,+ 2«,.,+«^+0-|-0+...

Then shaU <S= 2“- 3*.

If denote the r**" term in the expansion of (1 + I)***' we can

shew that
+ 2ii,_j+2m^+u..,
«,
= w, + U}^^ + tc^ + -t-

+3 + 2w^ + 2w^, +
By performing a similar transformation on every successive
four significant terms of the original series we transform it into
i (1 + 1)*^ + 32, where 2 is a series like S with * changed into

X— 1. Tims
5= 2"-*+ 32.
Hence by induction we find that S' = 2“ — 3*.

184. Suppose the players of equal skill, and that each starts

with the same odd number of counters, say m ;

let f= —
TO
^
+1

Then Montmort on his page 276, that we may wager with

says,
advantage that the match will be concluded in 3/’— trials. ^+1
Montmort does not shew how he arrived at this approximation.
3 1
The expression may be put in the form Moivre
^ j
spoke favourably of this approximation on page 148 of his first edi-
tion; he say.s, “Now Mr do Montmort having with great Sagacity
discovered that Analogy, in the case of an equal and Odd number
of Stakes, on supposition of an equaUty of Skill between the

Digitized by Google
 MONTMOBT. 105

Gamesters..." In his second and third editions De Moivre with-

drew this commendation, and says respecting the rule “ Which tho’
near the Truth in small numbers, yet is very defective in large
ones, for it may be proved that the number of Games found by his
Expression, far from being above what is requisite is really below
it.’’ Doctrine of Chances, third edition, page 218.
m
De Moivre takes for an example = 45 ; and calculates by his
own mode of approximation that about 1531 games are requisite
in order that it may be an even chance that the match will be
concluded ;
Montmort’s rule would assign 1519 games. We should
differ here with De Moivre, and consider that the results are
rather remarkable for their near agreement than for their dis-
crepancy.
The problem of the Duration of Play is fully discussed by
Laplace, Theorie...des Prob. pages 225 —238.
185. Montmort gives some numerical results for a simple
problem on his page 277. Suppose in the problem of Art. 107 that
the two players are of equal skill, each having originally n counters.
Proceeding as in that Article, we have
n, — 2
(*^*+i*b

Hence we find = Cx+ C^, where C and O', are arbitrary con-
stants. To determine them we have
«. = o. «» = i;
3D
hence finally,
^ ’

Montmort’s example n = 6 he gave it in his first edition,

is for ;

page 178. He did not however appear to have observed the gene-
ral law, at which John Bernoulli expressed his surprise see Mont- ;

mort’s page 295.

186. Montmort now proposes on pages 278 —282 four pro-

blems for solution ;
they were originally given at the end of the
first edition.

’The first problem is sur le Jeu da Treize. It is not obvious

why this problem is repeated, for Montmort stated the results on
his pages —
130 143, and demonstrations by Nicolas Bernoulli are
given on pages 301, 302.

Digitized by Google
lOG MOXTMORT.

The second problem is sur le Jeu appelU le Her; a discussion

respecting this problem runs through the correspondence between
Moutmort and Nicolas Bernoulli. See Montinort’s pages 321, 334,
338, 3-18, 361, 376, 400, 402, 403, 409, 413. We will return to

this problem in Art. 187.

The third problem is sur le Jeu de la Ferme; it is not referred

to again in the book.
The fourth Problem is sur le Jeu des Tas. We will return to
this problem in Art. 191.
Montmort’s language in his Avertissement, page xxv, leads to the
expectation that solutions of all the four problems will be found
in the book, whereas only the first is solved, and indeed Montmort
himself seems not to have solved the others see his page 321.
;

187. It may be advisable to give some account of the discus-

sion respecting the game called IIei\ The game is described by
Montmort as played by several persons ;
but the discussion was
confined to the case of two players, and we will adopt this
limitation.
Peter holds a common pack of cards ;
he gives a card at random
to Paul and takes one himself ;
the main object is for each to
obtain a higher card than his adversary. The order of value is

ace, two, three, ... ten. Knave, Queen, King.

Now if Paul is not content with his card he may compel Peter
to change with him ;
but if Peter has a King he is allowed to
retain it. If Peter is not content with the card which he at first

obtained, or which he has been compelled to receive from Paul, he

is allowed to change it for another taken out of the pack at
random ;
but if the card he then draws is a King he is not allowed
to have it, but must retain the card with which he was di.ssatisfied.

If Paul and Peter finally have cards of the same value Paul is

considered to lose.

188. The problem involved amounts to a determination of the

relative chances of Peter and Paul ;
and this depends on their
using or declining their rights of changing their cards. Montmort
communicated the problem two of his friends, namely Walde-
to
grave, of whom we hear again, and a person who is called some-

Digitized by Google
 ;

MONTMORT. 107

times M. l’Abb4 de Monsoury and sometimes M. I’Abb^ d’Orbais.

These two persons differed with Nicolas Bernoulli respecting a
point in the problem ; Nicolas Bernoulli asserted that in a certain
contingency of the game each player ought to take a certain course
out of two which were open to him the other two persons con-
;

tended that it was not certain that one of the courses ought to be
preferred to the other.
Montmort himself scarcely interfered until the end of the cor-
respondence, when he intimated that his opinion was contrary to
that of Nicolas Bernoulli; it would seem that the latter intended

to produce a fuller explanation of his views, but the correspondence

closes without it.

189. We will give some details in order to shew the nature of

the dispute.
It will naturally occur to the reader that one general principle
must hold, namely, that if a player has obtained a high card it will
be prudent for him to rest content with it and not to run the
risk involved in changing that card for another. For example, it
appears to be tacitly allowed by the disputants that if Paul has
obtained an eight, or a higher card, he will remain content with it,
and not compel Peter to change with him and, on the other ;

hand, if Paul has obtained a six, or a lower card, he will compel

Peter to changa The dispute turns on what Paul .should do if
he has obtained a seven. The numerical data for discussing this
case will be found on Montmort’s page 339 we will reproduce ;

them with some explanation of the process by which they are

obtained.

I. Paul has a seven required his chance if he compels Peter

to change.
Supposing Paul to change, Peter will know what Paul has and
will know that he himself now has a seven ; so he remains content
if Paul has a seven, or a lower card, and takes another card
if Paul

has an ei^ht or a higher card. Thus Paul’s chance arises from the
hypotheses that Peter originally had Queen, Knave, ten, nine, or
eight. Take one of these cases, for example, that of the ten. The

chance that Peter had a fen is —4

51
;
then Paul takes it, and Peter

Digitized by Google
lOS MONTMOBT.

gets the seven. There are 50 cards left and Peter takes one of
these instead of his seven 39 cards out of the 50 are favour-
;

able to Paul, namely 3 sevens, 4 Kings, 4 nuus, 4i eights, 4 sixes,

... 4 aces.
Proceeding in this way we find for Paul’s chance

4 47 + 43 -1- .39 + 35 + 31 78 (^
that
51' 50 51.50’

In this case Paul’s chance can be estimated without speculating

upon the conduct of Peter, because there can be no doubt as to
what that conduct will be.

II. Paul has a seven; required his chance if he retains the

seven.
The chance in this case depends upon the conduct of Peter.
Now it appears to be tacitly allowed by the disputants that if
Peter has a itine or a higher card he will retain it, and if he has a

seven or a lower card ho will take another instead. The dispute

turns on what he will do if he has an eight.

(1) Suppose that Peter’s rule is to retain an eight.

Paul’s chance arises from the hypotheses that Peter has a seven,
six, five, four, tiiree, two, or ace, for which he proceeds to take

another card.
We shall find now, by the same method as before, that Paul’s
chance is

51 '50 51 60 51 50 51 50 51 50 51 •
50 51 50’’

that is

Suppose that Peter’s nile is to change an eight.

(2)
^4
We to add
have then
4
51 50
—
to the preceding result
.
;
and thus

816
we obtain for Paul’s chance 51.50’

Thus we find that in Case I. Paul’s chance is ——

-780
51 . oO
,
and that

in Case II. it is either or . If it be an even chance

51.50 51.50

Digitized by Google
 . . ;

MONTMOET. 100

I / 720 810 N
which rule Peter adopts we should take
^
K j
— ^^
,
that

768
is, as Paul’s chance in Case II. Thus in Case IL Paul’s
50
51 .

chance is less than in Case I. and therefore he should adopt the

;

rule of changing when he has a seven. This is one of the argu-

ments on which Nicolas Bernoulli relies.
On the other hand his opponents, in effect, deny the correctness
of estimating it as an even chance that Peter will adopt either
of the two rules which have been stated.

We have now to estimate the following chance. Peter has an

eight and Paul has not compelled him to change ;
what is Peter’s
chance ? Peter must argue thus :

I. Suppose Paul’s rule is to change a seven; then he now

has an eight or a higher card. That is, he must have one out of a
certain 23 cards.

(1) If I retain my eight my chance of beating him arises only

from the hypothesis that his card is one of the 3 eights; that is, my
chance is
^
(2) If I change my eight my chance arises from the five hypo-
theses that Paul has Queen, Knave, ten, nine, or eight so that my
chance is

23 50 23 50 23 50 23 50 23 50’
210
that is
23.50’

IL Suppose Paul’s rule is to retain a seven. Then, as before,

(1) If I retain my eight my chance is =7

(2) If I change my eight my chance is

26
’
27 50 27 50 27 50 27 50 27 50 27 50
314 .

that is
27.50’

Digitized by Google
 ;

110 MONTMORT.

190.These numerical results were accepted by the disputants.

We may sum them up thus. The question is whether Paul should
retain a certain card, and whether Peter should retain a certain
card. If Paul knows his adversary’s rule, he should adopt the con-
trary, namely retaining when his adversaiy changes, and changing
when his adversary rctain.s. If Peter knows his adversary’s rule he
should adopt the same, namely, retaining when his adversary re-
tains and changing when his adversary changes.
Now Nicolas Bernoulli asserted that Paul should change, and
therefore of course that Peter should. The objection to this is

briefly put thus by Montmort, page 405,

En un mot, Monsieur, si je s(^i que vous 6tes le conseil de Pierre,
il est 6vident quo je dois moi Paul me tenir au sept ; et de mtme
si je suis Pierre, et qui je s^acbe que vous 6tes le conseil de Paul,
je dois changer au huit, auquel cas vous aur& donn€ un mauvais con-
seil k Paul.
The reader will be reminded of the old puzzle respecting the
veracity of the Cretans, since Epiraenides the Cretan said they
were liars.

The opponents of Nicolas Bernoulli at first contended that it

was indifferent for Paul to retain a seven or to change it, and also
for Peter to retain an eight or to change it ;
and in this Montmort
considered they were wrong. But in conversation they explained
themselves to assert that no absolute rule could be laid down for
the players, and in this Montmort considered that they were right
see his page 403.
The problem is considered by Trembley in the Mitnoires de
T Acad.... Berlin, for 1802.

191. The fourth problem which Montmort proposed for solu*

tion is sur le Jeu des Tas. The game is thus described, page 281,
Pour comprendre de quoi il s’agit, il faut s^voir qu’aprfts lea reprises
d’hombre un des Joueurs a’amuse sou vent k partager le jeu en dix tas
composes chacun de quatre cartes couvertes, et qu’enauite retournaiit la

premiere de chaque tas, il ute et met k part deux k deux toutes celles
qui se trouvent semblables, par exemple, deux Hois, deux valets, deux
six, <fec. alors il retoume les cartes qui suivent imm^diatement celles
qui viennent de lui donner des doublets, et il continue d’oter et de
mettre k part celles qui viennent par doublet ju.squ’k ce qu’il on soit

Digitized by Google
 MONTMORT. Ill

venu ^ la derniere de chaque taa, apres les avoir enlev6 toutca deux k
deux, auquel cas geulement il a gagn&

The game is not entirely a game of pure chance, because the

player may often have a choice of various methods of pairing and
removing cards. In the description of the game forty cards are
supposed to be used, but Montmort proposes the problem for solu-
tion generally without limiting the cards to forty. He requires
the chance the player has of winning and also the most ad-
vantageous method of proceeding. He says the game was rarely
played for money, but intimates that it was in use among ladies.

192. On his page 321 Montmort gives, without demonstration,

the result in a particular case of this problem, namely when the
cards consist of n pains, the two cards in each pair being numbered
alike ;
the cards are supposed placed at random in n lots, each of
two cards. He says that the chance the player has of winning is

w — X
j . On page 334 Nicolas Bernoulli says that this formula is

correct, but he wishes to know how it was found, because he him-

self can only find it by induction, by putting for n in succession
2, 3, 4, 3, ...We may suppose this means that Nicolas Bernoulli veri-
fied by trial that the formula was correct in certain cases, but could
not give a genenal demonstration. Montmort seems to have
overlooked Nicolas Bernoulli’s inquiry, for the problem is never
mentioned again in the course of the correspondence. As the result
is remarkable for its simplicity, and as Nicolas Bernoulli found the

problem difficidt, it may be interesting to give a solution. It will

lie observed that in this case the game is one of pure chance, as the
player never has any choice of courses open to him.

193. The solution of the problem depends on our observing

the state of the cards at the epoch at which the player lose.s, that
is which he can make no more pairs among the
at the epoch at
cards exposed to view the player may be thus iirrested at the
;

very beginning of the game, or after he has already taken some

steps at this epoch the player is left with some mimber of lots,
:

which are all unbroken, and the cards exposed to view present no
pairs. This will be obvious on reflection.

Digitized by Google
 112 MOSTMORT.

We must now determine (1) the whole number of possible

cases, and (2) the whole number of cases in which the player is
arrested at the very beginning.

(1) We may snppose that 2re cards are to be put in 2n

places, and thus 2u |
will be the whole number of possible cases.

(2) Here we may find the number of cases by supposing that

the n upper places are first filled and then the n lower places.

We may put in the first place any card out of the 2a, then in the
second place any card of the 2n — 2 which remain by rejecting the
companion card to that we put in the first place, then in the third
place any card of the 2« — 4 which remain by rejecting the two
companion cards, and so on. Thus the n upper places can be
filled in 2*[n ways. Tlien the n lower places can be filled in [n
ways. Hence we get 2* [n [n cases in which the player is arrested
at the very beginning.
We may divide each of these expressions by [n if we please
to disregard the different order in which the n lots may be sup-
2n I

posed to be arranged. Thus the results become and 2" [n

respectively ; we shall use these forms.
Let «, denote the whole number of unfavourable cases, and let

^ denote the whole number of favourable cases when the cards

consist of r pairs. Then
«, = 2"[n -I- 2 ^

irln
—
— r-'f^ln I
—r 2"^,

the summation extending from r =2 to r = n — 1, both inclusive.

For, as we have by being left with some

stated, the player loses

number of lots, unbroken, in which the exposed cards contain

all

no pairs. Suppose ho is left with n — r lots, so that he has got rid

of r lots of the original n lots. The factor — ” ~^ gives the num-

Ll I

her of ways in which r pairs can be selected from n pairs ; the

factor gives the numlier of ways in which these pairs can be so
arranged as to enable the plaj’cr to get rid of them ;
the factor
— r 2'~' gives the number of ways in which the remaining n —r
pairs can be distributed into n —r lots without a single pair occur-
ring among the exposed cards.

Digitized by Google
 2

MONTMORT. 113

It 18 to be observed that the case in which r = l does

not
occur, from the nature of the game for the player, if not arrested
;

at the very beginning, will certainly be able

to remove Uvo pairs.
We may however if we please consider the summation to extend
from r=l tor = n— 1, since^^ = 0 when r = 1.
We have then

«. = 2"[n 1 + S -=^l

The summation for extends to one term less thus we

;
shall find that

«» = 2nu..,+ 2«X-,-

^ 12 /1-2
But

2/ 1 12/1 — 2
therefore
1/1 — 1

. 1 n 212/1 — 2 '‘in
n —1
Hence ^ ^ — n I

[n 2n^‘
This is Montmort’s result.

19-4, We now arrive at what Montmort calls the fifth part

of his work, which occupies pages 283 414. It consists of the —
correspondence between Montmort and Nicolas Bernoulli, together
with one letter fi-om John Bernoulli to Montmort and a reply
from Montmort. The whole of this part is new in the second
edition.
John Bernoulli, the friend of Leibnitz and the master of Euler,
was the third brother in the family of brothers of whom J ames
Bernoulli was the eldest. John was bom in 16G7, and died in
1748. The second brother of the family was named Nicolas his ;

son of the same name, the friend and correspondent of Montmort,

was bom in 1687, and died in 1759.

195. Some of the letters relate to Montmort’s first edition,

and it is necessary -to have access to this edition to study the

letters with advantage ;

because although Montmort gives re-
ferences to the corresponding passages in the second edition, yet
8

Digitized by Google
 :

114 MONTMOKT.

as these passages have been modified or corrected in accordance

with the criticisms contained in the letters, it is not always ob-
vious what the original reading was.

196. The first letter is from John Bernoulli ;

it occupies
pages 283 — 298 ;
the letter is also reprinted in the collected
edition of John Bernoulli’s works, in four volumes, Lausanne and
Geneva, 1742; see VoL I. page 453.
John Bernoulli gives a series of remarks on Montmort’s first
some errors and suggesting some improvements.
edition, correcting
He shews that Montmort did not present his discussion relating
to Pharaon in the simplest form Montmort however did not ;

modify this part of his work. John Bernoulli gave a general '

formula for the advantage of the Banker, and this Montmort did
adopt, as wo have seen in Art. 155.

197. John Bernoulli points out a curious mistake made

by Montmort twice in his first edition; see his pages 288, 296.
Montmort had considered it practically impossible to find the
numerical value of a certain number of terms of a geometrical
progression would seem that he had forgotten or never known
;
it

the common formula which gives the sum.

Algebraical The
passfiges cited by John Bernoulli are from pages 35' and 181 of
the first edition but in the only copy which I have seen of the
;

first edition the text does not correspond wfith John Bernoulli’s
quotations : it appears however that in each place the original page
has been cancelled and replaced by another in order to correct
the mistake.
After noticing the mistake, John Bernoulli proceeds thus in
his letter
...mais pour le restc, vous faites bien d’employer les logarithmos,
je m’en suis servi utilement dans uno pareille occa.sion il
y a bien
douze ans, oi il s’agissoit do determiner combien il restoit do vin et
d’eau m616 ensemble dans un tonneau, lefiuel Ctant au commencement
tout plein de vin, on en tireroit tons les jours pendant une ann(-e
une certaine mesure, en le remplis.sant incontinent apr6s chaquo ex-
traction avec de I’eau pure. Vous trouverCs la solution de cetto ques-
tion qui est ass6s curieuso dans ma dissertation lie NiUritiane, que Mr
Varignon vous pouira communiquer. Je fis cetto question pom- fairo

Digitized by Google
 ;

MONTMOBT. 115

oomprendre comment on pent determiner la quantit6 de vieille nut-

ticre qui resto dans nos corps mei4e avec do la nouvelle qui nous
vient tons les jours par la nourriture, pour r6parer la perte que nos
corps font insensiblemont par la transpiration continuelle.

The dissertation De Nutritione will be found in the collected

edition of John Bernoulli’s works ;
see VoL I. page 275.

198. John Bernoulli passes on to aremark on Montmort’s

discussion of the game of Treizo. The remark enunciates the
following theorem. .

and let

then shall ^(„) = l +^+ + ... +i .

We may prove this by induction. For wo may write yfr (n) in

the following form.

1
1 1 1 11
M
~2{^'^l'''[2‘''[3'^ jT^ l
+ +T+ +

Hence we can shew that

i/r(»+l) = -f (n)+

John Bernoulli next adverts to the solutions which

199.
Montmort had given of the five problems proposed by Huygens
see Art. 35.
According to John Bernoulli’s opinion, Montmort had not
understood the second and third problems in the sense which
Huygens had intended ;
in the fifth problem Montmort had
8—2

Digitized by Google
 ;

116 MOJTTMORT.

changed the enunciation into another quite different, and yet had
really solved the problem according to Huygens’s enunciation. By
the corrections which he made in his second edition, Montmort
shewed th.at he admitted the justice of the objections urged against
his solutions of the second and fifth problem-s; in the case of
the third problem he retained his original opinion; see his
pages 292, 305.
John Bernoulli next notices the solution of the Problem of
Points, and gives <a general formula, to which we have referred in
Art. 173. Then he atlverts to a problem which Montmort had
not fully considered; see Art. 185.

200. John Bernoulli gives high praise to Montmort’s work,

but urges him to extend and enrich it He refers to the four
problems which Montmort had proposed for inve-stigation the ;

firet he considers too long to be finished in human life, and the

fijurth ho cannot understand the other two

: he thinks might be
solved by great labour. This opinion seems singularly incorrect.
The first problem is the easiest of all, and has been solved without
difficulty; see Article 161 perhaps however
: John Bernoulli took
it some more general sense; see Montmort’s page 308. The
in
fourth problem is quite intelligible, and a particiilar case of it is
simple; see jVrt. 193. The third and fourth problems seem to be
far more intractable.

201. A letter to Montmort from Nicolas Bernoulli occupies

pages 299 —303. This letter contiiins corrections of two mistakes
which occurred in Montmort’s first edition. It gives without de-
monstration a formula for the advantage of the Banker at Pharaon,
and also a formula for the advantage of the Banker at Bassette
Montmort quoted the former in the text of his second edition ;

see Art. 157. Nicolas Bernoulli gives a good investigation of the

formula! which occur in analysing the game of Treize ;
see Art. 161.
He also discusses briefly a game of chance which we will now
explain.

202. Suppose that a set of players J, B, C, T),... undertake

to play a set of I games with cards. A is at first the dealer, there
are m chances out of m-\- n that he retains the deal at the next
game, and n chances out of m+n that he loses it ;
if he loses the

Digitized by Google
 ;

MONTMOKT. 117

deal the player on his right and so on in order. hand takes it;
is on the left of C is on the left of B, and so on. Let the
advantages of the players when A deals be a, h, c, d, ... resjiec-
tively ;
these advantages are supposed to depend entirely on
the situation of the plaj'ers, the game being a game of pure
chance.
Let the chances of A, B, C, P, ... be denoted by z, y, a-, u, ...
and let s = vi + n.
Then Nicolas Bcraoulli gives the following values :

* =„+ ___
via+nh m'd+hnnh +7i\
+ TnV+Sm’nJ+.Smn’c+nV/

y=
,
6 +
mh-^nc
^—+ ,
ni*& + 2ainc+n’J ni’ft+3;n’nc + 3;HuW+n*e 4.
_

_ + mc + nd m'c+2mnd+n'e m'c + 3;n’wfZ+ 3»in*e + w’/

X ~c _
1 j 1 5 + ..
« « . 8

_ md + ne •ni*d+2nine+n*f vi*d+fim*ne+3nm*f+n*ff
u-a+ ^
T
+ -j =
+
and so on.

Each of these series is to continue for I terms. If there are

not so many as I players, the letters in the set a, h, c, d, e,
f, y, ...

will recur. For e.xample, if there are only four players, then
e = a, f=b, g = c
It is easy to see the meaning of the separate terms. Take, for
example, the value of z. A deals ;
the advantage directly arising
from this is a. Tlien there are m chances out of s that A will havo
the second deal, and n chances out of s that the deal will pass on
to the next player, and thus put A in the position originally held

by B. Hence we have the term —^ . Again, for the third

deal ;
there are (m + n)‘, that is, s* possible cases ;
out of these
there are m’ A have the third deal, 2;/in cases
cases in which will
in which the player on the right of A will have it, and n’ cases in
which the player next on the right will have it. Hence we
, ... ra*« + 2w»iZi + w*c , ,
nave the term . And so on.

Digitized by Google
 ' ,

118 MONTMORT.

Nicolas Bernoulli then gives another form for these expressions ;

we will exhibit that for z from which the others can be deduced.

Let q
= ~, r=(-)\ t=~. Then
^ n \8/ m
« = aj (1 -r) + J( -|l -r [1 + «Z]| +cg'
2
|l -r j^l +

+ ... ;

this series is to be continued for I terma

The way in which this transformation is effected is the follow-
ing : suppose for example we pick out the coefficient of c in the
value of z, we shall find it to be

j^jl.2 + 3.2- + 4.3-y + 5.4.^ +

...J,
where the series in brackets is to consist of Z — 2 terms.

We have then to shew that this expression is ecpial to

We will take the general theorem of which this is a particular

case. Let

{^4 + i’. 7 + 7 + - to Z- \ terms}

p + \-l
where
Ip-1

Let “-* +
-mm
7+ + .+
7
(P'U
then S=
|_X dm^

*-(t)'
Now u= say;
1 - 1 -n

Digitized by Google
 1 ;

MONTMORT. 119

d*‘u [X 1—fi' X 1

dm^ (1 — (1
—
X(X-1) Z(Z-1)/X'^
1.2 (1 -
X(X-l)(X-2) 1(1-1) (1-2)^'-^
1.2.3 (1-m)^'*

«(Z-1) t‘l(l-l) (1-2)

r 1 + <Z + 1.2
* +
1.2.3
where the series between square brackets is to extend to X+1
tenns.

We may observe that by the nature of the problem wo have

o + J + c + ... = 0, and also » +y + x+ ... = 0.
The problem simplifies very much if we may regard I as infinite
or very great. For then let e denote the advantage of .4 ;
if .4 ob-
tains the next deal we may consider that his advantage is still z if

A loses the next deal his advantage is the same as that of B

originally. Thus
z = a + mz + ny
8

Multiply by s and transpose ;

therefore

z = y+aq.
Similarly we have

y = x + bq, x = u + cq,

Hence we shall obtain

«=j|a(j;-l)-f- 6 (^ — 2) + c(yj — S) + ...j ,

where p denotes the number of players ; and the values of y, x, ...

may be obtained by symmetrical changes in the letters.

We may also express the result thus,

z ——— fit + 2b + 3c 4" . . .

I . I"

Digitized by Coogle
 ;

120 MONTMOBT.

203. The next letter is from Montmort to John Bernoulli ;

it

occupies pages 303 307. —

Montmort makes brief observations on
the points to which John Bemonilli had drawn his attention; he
suggests a problem on the Duration of Play for the consideration
of Nicolas Bernoulli.

204'. The next letter is from Nicolas Bernoulli to Montmort

it occupies pages 308 — 314.
Nicolas Bernoulli first speaks of the game of Treize, and gives
a general formula for it but by accident ho gave the formula
;
in-
correctly, and afterwards corrected it when Montmort drew his
attention to it ;
see Montmort’s pages 315, 323.
We will here investigate the formula after the manner given by
Nicolas BeraouUi for the simple case already considered in Art 161.
Suppose there are n cards divided into p sets. Denote the
cards of a set by a, h, c, ... in order.
The whole number of cases is [«.

The number of ways in which a can stand first is

p |
n —1 .

The number of ways in which b can stand second without a

standing first is
p |
» — 1 —p’ |
w — 2 .

The number of ways in which c can stand third without a

standing first or b second is
p |
n — 1 — 2p’ n
|
— 2 + p’ [
n — 3 .

And so on.

Hence the chance of winning by the first card is the chance

^ ;

of winning by the second card is ;

the chance of win-
^
ning by the third card
®
is ^
7)
^——
(n
2n*
rr H
1)
—
n (n — 1) (n - 2)
7?*
j
and so on. ;

Hence the chance of winning by one or other of the first m

cards is

mp TO («i — 1) p* TO (m — 1) (to — 2) p*
n T72~ n(n-l)'*’ 1.2.3 n(n-l)(n-2)
And the entire chance of winning is found by putting

TO =- ,
so that it is
P

Digitized by Google
 MONTUOBT. 121

1 n—p (n—p){n — 2p)

1
"1 . (n- 1) 1.2.3 (n-1) (n-2)
2
(n-2p) (n-Sp)
_
1.2.3.4(n-l) (n-2) («-3)

205. Nicolas Bernoulli then passes on to another game in

which he objects to Montmort’s conclusion. Montmort had found
a certain advantage for the first player, on the a.ssumption that tho
game was to conclude at a certain stage ;
Nicolas Bernoulli thought
that at this stage the game ought not to terminate, but that the
players should change their positions. He says that the advantage
for the first player should be only half what Montmort stated.
The point is of little interest, as it does not belong to tho theory of
chances but to the conventions of the players ;
Montmort, however,
did not admit the justice of the remarks of Nicolas Bernoulli ;
see
Montmort’s pages 309, 317, 327.

206. Nicolas Bernoulli then considers the problem on tho

Duration of Play which had been suggested for him by Mout-
mort. Nicolas Bernoulli here gives the formulae to which we have
already alluded in Art. 180 ;
but the meaning of the formulae was
very obscure, as Montmort stated in his reply. Nicolas Bernoulli
gives the result which expresses the chances of each player when
the number of gameshe says
is unlimited ;
this may be deduced
from the general formulae, and that ho had also obtained it pre-
viously by another method. See Art. 107.

207. Nicolas Bernoulli then makes some remarks on the

summation of series. He exemplifies the method which is now
common in elementary works on Algebra. Suppose we require
the sum of the squares of the first n triangular numbers, that is, the

sum of n terms of tho series of which the 7^*“ term is

Assume that the sum is equal to

an' + bn* + cn’ + dn* + en +f ;

and then determine a, b, c, d, e,f by changing n into n + 1 in

the assumed identity, subtracting, and equating coefficients. This
method is ascribed by Nicolas Bernoulli to his uncle John.

Digitized by Google
 4 ;;

122 MONTMOHT.

Nicolas Bernoulli also indicates another method; he resolves

r (r + 1) (r + 2) (j* + 3) r (r + 1) (r + 2) r (r + 1)
1.2. 3:1. 1.2..3 1.2 ’

and thus finds that the required sum is

n (« + l) (n+ 2) (n+.3) (n + d) n (n + 1) (n + 2) (n + 3)
1.2. 3. 4..5 1.2. 3.
1) (w + 2)
r.2.3
208. seems probable that a letter from Montmort to
It
Nicolas Bernoulli, which has not been preserved, preceded this
letter from Nicolas Bernoulli. For Nicohvs Bernoulli refers to the
problem about a lottery, as if Montmort had drawn his attention
to it see Art. 180 and he intimates that Montmort had offered
;
:

to undertake the printing of James Bernoulli’s unpublished Ars

Conjectandi. Neither of these points had been mentioned in
Montmort’s preceding letters as we have them in the book.

209. The next letter is fi"om Montmort to Nicolas Bernoulli

it occupies pages 315 —323. The most interesting matter in this
letter is the introduction for the first time of a problem which has
since been much The problem was proposed to Mont-
discussed.
named Waldegravo
mort, and also solved, by an Engli.sh gentleman
see Montmort’s pages 318 and 328. In the problem as originally
proposed only three players are considered, but we will enunciate
it more generally. Suppose there are n -f- 1 players ;
two of them
play a game ;
the loser deposits a shilling, and the winner then
plays with the third player ;
the loser deposits a shilling, and
the winner then plays with the fourth player ;
and so on. The
player who lost the first game does not enter again until after the
(n -4 !)“ player has hatl his turn. The process continues until
one player has beaten in continued succession aU the other players,
and then he receives all the money which has been deposited.
It is required to determine the expectation of each of the players,
and also the chance that the money will be won when, or before,
a certain number of g.ames has been played. The game is sup-

Digilized by Coogk
 MONTMOKT. 123

posed a game of pure chance, or which is the same thing, the

players are all supposed of equal skill
Montmort himself in the case of three players states all the
required results, but does not give demonstrations. In the case
of four players he states the numerical probability that the money
will be won in any assigned number of games between 3 and 13
inclusive, but he says that the law of the numbers which he
assigns is not easy to perceive. He attempted to proceed further
with the problem, and to determine the advantage of each player
when there are four players, and also to determine the pro-
bability of the money being won an assigned number of games
in
when there are five or six players. He says however, page 320,
mais cela m’a paru trop difficile, ou pltltot j’ai manqud de courage,
car je serois sfir d'en venir k bout.

210. There are references to this problem several times in

the correspondence of Montmort and Nicolas Bernoulli; see Mont^
mort’s pages 328, 345, 350, 366, 375, 380, 400. Nicolas Bernoulli
succeeded in solving the problem generally for any number of
players ;
his solution is given in Montmort’s pages 381 —387, and
is perhaps the most striking investigation in the work. The
following remarks may be of service to a student of this solution.

(1) On page 386 Nicolas Bernoulli ought to have stated

how many terms should be taken of the two series which he gives,
namely, a number expressed by the greatest integer contained
" i
in . On page 330 where he does advert to this point

he puts by mistake instead of

” —-•
(2) The expressions given for a, h, c, ... on page 386 are
2
correct, except that given for a ;
the value of a is
^ , and not

as the language of Nicolas Bernoulli seems to imply.

(3) The chief results obtained by Nicolas Bernoulli arc stated

at the top of page 329 ;
these results agree with those afterwards
given by Laplace.

Digitized by Google
 ;

124 MONTMORT.

211. Although the earliest notice of the problem occurs in

the letter of Montmort’a which we are now examining, yet the
earliefit due to De Moivre; it is Problem xv.
publication of it is

of the De Mensura Sortie. We shall however speak of it as

Waldeffraves Problem, from the person whose name we have found
first a.ssociated with it.

The problem is discussed 1^ Laplace, TMorie . . . dee Prob.

page 238, and we shall therefore have to recur to it.

212. Montmort refers on page 320 to a book entitled TraitS

du Jeu, which he says he had lately received from Paris. He says
it is un Livre de morale. He praises the author, but considers
him to be wrong sometimes in his calculation of chances, and
gives an example. Nicolas Bernoulli in reply says that the
author of the book is Mr Barbeyrac. Nicolas Bernoulli agrees
with Montmort in his general opinion respecting the book, but
in theexample in question he thinks Barbeyrac right and Mont-
mort wrong. The difference in result arises from a difference in
the way of understanding the rules of the game. Montmort
briefly replied ;
see pages 332, 346.
Montmort complains of a dearth of mathematical memoirs ;
he
says, page 322,

Je suis 6tonn6 de voir les Joumeaux de Leipsic si d6gamis de

morceaiix de Mathematiques ; ils doivont en portie leur reputation aux
Memoires quo Messieurs vos Onclcs y envoyoient souvent les
excellens :

Geometres n’y trouvent plus depuis cinq ou six ans les mSmes richesses
qu’autrefois, faites-cn des reproches k M. votre Oncle, et peimett6s-moi
de vous en faire aussi, laiceat lux vestra coram Iiominibus.

213. The next letter is from Nicolas Bernoulli to Montmort

it occupies pages 323 — 337. It chiefly relates to matters which
we have already sufficiently noticed, namely, the games of Treize,
Her, and Tas, and Waldegrave’s Problem. Nicolas Bernoulli ad-
verts to the letter hy his uncle James on the game of Tennis,
which was afterwards published at the end of the Are Conjectandi,
and he proposes for solution four of the problems which are con-
sidered in the letter in order to see if Montmort’s results will
agree with those of James Bernoulli.

Digitized by Google
 :. ;

MONTMOKT. 125

Nicolas Bernoulli gives at the end of his letter an example

of summation of series. He proposes to sum p terms of the
series 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, ... He considers the series

1 + 3x+ Cx*+ lOx* + lox* + 21x’ + ...

which ho decomposes into a set of series, thus

1 + + 5x* + ...
2x + 3x’ + 4x“
+ x + 2x* + 3x’ + 4x*+...
+ X* “I" 2x* + 3x^ + . .

+ x’ + 2x* + ...
+ x* + ...
+ ...
The series in each horizontal row is easily summed to p terms

the expression obtainetl takes the form when x = 1, and Nicolas

^
Bernoulli evaluates the indeterminate form, as he says, ...en me
servant de la regie do mon Oncle, quo feu Monsieur le Manpiis
do l’H6pital a insert dans son Analyse des iufiniment petits, ...
The investigation is very inaccurately printed.

214. The next from Montmort to Nicolas Bernoulli

letter is
itoccupies pages 337 347. —
Besides remarks on the game of Her
and on Waldegrave’s Problem, it contains some attempts at the
problems which Nicolas Bernoulli had proposed out of his uncle’s
letter on the game of Tennis. But Montmort found the problems
difficult to understand, and asked several questions as to their
meaning.

215. Montmort gives on his page 342 the following equation

as the result of one of the problems,

4w*-8m*+14;» + 6 = 3"'^‘,

and he says that this is satisfied approximately by m = 5^tj but ;

there is some mistake, for the equation has no root between

5 and 6. The correct equation should apparently be

8w’-12m‘ + 16/» + 6 = 3’"",

which has a root between 5T and 5 2.

Digitized by Google
 .

12G MONTMORT.

216. One of the problems is the following. The skill of A,

that is his chance of success in a single trial, is p, the skill of B
is q. A and B are to play for victory in two games out of three,
each game being for two have
points. In the first game B is to
a point given to him, in the second the players are to be on an
equality, and in the third also B is to have a point given to
him. Required the skill of each player so that on the whole
the chances may be equal. A’s chance of success in the first
game or in the third game is p\ and ffa chance is 2qp.
A’a chance of success in the second game is p’ + Sp^q, and B’s
chance is q’'
+ Sq'p. Hence A’a chance of success in two games
out of throe is

p* (p‘ + 3j/q) +p*i^ + 2qp) (;/ + fip'q) + p' (/ + 3q’p) ;

and this by supposition must equal ^

This agrees with Montmort’s result by putting for P

and —
a +o
for q, allowing for a mistake which was afterwards

corrected ;
see Montmort’s pages S13, 3.50, 352.

217. The letter closes with the following interesting piece of

literary history.

Jc ne S9ai si vous S9av6s qu’on Feimprime la Recherche de la veritd.

Le R. P. Malbranche m’a dit que cet Ouvrage paroitroit au commence-
ment d’AvriL II y aura un grand nombro d’additions sur des sujets
tres importaus. Vous y verrfis entr’autres nouveaut€s une Disserta-
tion sxir la cause do la pesanteur, qui apparemment fixera les doutes
de tant do S<javans hommes qui no s^avent 4 qnoi s’en tenir sur
cette maticro. IIprouvo d’une maniere invincible la necessity de ses
petits tourbillona pour rondre raison de la cause de la pesanteur, de la
duretfi et fluidity des corjis et des princi])aux idienomenes touchant la
lumiero et lea couleurs; sa theorie s’accordo lo mieux du monde avec

Ics belles experiences quo M. Newton a rapports dans son beau Traitd
J)e Nalura Lucis et Colorunu Jo peux me glorifier aupriis du Pub-
lic quo mes j)riere.s ardentes ot rciter6es depuis plusieurs ann6es, out
contribu6 il determiner cet iucompai-ablo Philoscphe 4 Ccrire sur cette

Digitized by Google
 ;

MONTMORT. 127

matiero qui renferme toute la Physique generale. Vous vorrfia avec

admiration que co grand hommo a port6 dans ces matieres obscures
cette ncttet6 d’id6es, cette sublimite de genie et d’invention qui bril-
lent avec tant d’cclat dans ses Trait& de Metaphysique.

Posterity has not adopted the high opinion which Montmort

here expresses respecting the physical speculations of his friend
and master; Malehranche is now remembered and honoured for
his metaphysical works alone, which have gained the following
testimony from one of the greatest critics :

As a thinker, he is p<?rhape the most profound that Franco has

ever produced, and as a writer on philosophical subjects, there is not
another European author who can be placed before him.

Sir William Hamilton’s Lectures on Metaphysics, Vol. l. page 262 ;

SCO also his edition of ReuLs Works, page 266.

218. The next letter is from Montmort to Nicolas Bernoulli

it occupies pages 3o2 —SCO. We may notice that Montmort hero
claims to be the first person who called attention to the theorem
which is now given in elementary treatises on Algebra under the
following enunciation : To find the number of terms in the expan-
sion ofany multinomial, the exponent being a positive integer.
See Montmort’s page 355.

219. Montmort gives in this letter some examples of the recti-

fication of curves ;
see his pages 350, 357, 359, 360. In particular
he notices one which he had himself discussed in the early days
of the Integral Calculus, when, as he says, the subject was well
known only by five or six mathematicians. This example is the
rectification of the curve called after the name of its inventor De
Beaune sec John Bernoulli’s works, Vol. i. pages G2, 63. What
;

Montmort gives in this letter is not intelligible by itself, but it can

be understood by the aid of the originid memoir, which is in the
Journal des Sgarans, Vol. xxxi.
These remarks by Montmort on the rectification of curves are
of no great interest except to a student of the history of the Inte-
gral Calculus, and they are not free from errors or misprints.

Digitized by Google
 ;

128 MONTMORT.

220.Montmort quotes the following sentence from a letter

written by Pascal to Fermat.

Pour vouB parler francliemcnt de la Geometrie, je la trouve le plus

haut exercice de I’esprit; mnis en ni6me temps je la conuois pour si

inutile, fais peu de difference eutre un homme qui n’est que

que je
Geometre et un habile Artisan ; aussi je I'appelle le plus beau metier
da monde; mais enfin cc n’est qu’un m6tier; et j’ai souvent dit qu’ello
est bonne pour faire I’essai, mais non pas I’emploi de notre force.

Montmort naturally objects to this deci.sion as severe and humi-

Uating, and probably not that which Pascal himself would have
pronounced in his earlier days.

221. The next letter is also from Montmort to Nicolas Ber-

noulli ;
it occupies pages 361 —370. Montmort says he has just
received Do Moivre’s book, by wliich ho moans the memoir De
Mensura published by De Moivre in the Philosophical
Soiiis,
Transactions and he proceeds to analyse this memoir. Montmort
certainly docs not do justice to De Moivre. Montmort in fact
considers that the first edition of his own work contained im-
plicitly all that had been given in the De Mensnra Sortis; and ho

seems almosst to fancy that the circumstance that a problem had

been discussed in the correspondence hetw'een himself and the
Bemoullis was sufficient ground to deprive De Moivre of the credit
of originality. The opinion of Nicola.s Bernoulli was far more favour-
able to De Moivre see Montmort’s pages 362, 375, 378, 386.
;

De Moivre in his Miscellanea Analytica replied to Montmort,

as we shall see hereafter.

222. On his page 365 Montmort gives some remarks on the

second of the five problems which Huygens proposed for solution ;

eee Art. 35.

Suppose there are three players ;
let a be the number of
white balls, and b of black balls let ;
c =a -I- 5. The balls are

supposed not to be replaced after being drawn ;

then the chance of
the first player is

a J(J-l)(ft-2)a 5(5-1) ...(5- 5) a

c'^c(c-l)(c-2)(c-3)'^ c(c- 1) ... (c-6)

Digitized by Google
 . 4

MOKTMORT. 12<»

Montmort takes credit to himself for summing this series, so as

to find its value when a and b are large numbers but, without
;

saying so, he assumes that a = 4. Thus the series becomes

iii , ifzil
[c t i± i±z^ JFg
Let ^ J + 8, then c =p + 1 ;
thus the series within brackets
becomes
p(p-l) (p-2) + (p-3) Cp-4’)(p-5)
+ (p -6)(p-7)(p-8) + ...

Suppose we require the sum of n terms of the series. The

r“" term is
(p-3r+3)07-3r+2)(^-3r+l);
assume that it is equal to

- 1) B(r- 1) (r- 2) (r- 3)

^^ ^ ^

where A, B, C, D are to be independent of r.

We shall find that

A=p ip-1) O' - 2),

B = — (9p* — 45jj + 60),
Cr=54p-216,
2>=-162.
Hence the required sum of n terms is

”?(?-!)(?- 2) (V-45, + 60)

^ K-1.2.3(- a
>) _ 2,e) -
1.2. 3.
This residt is suflSciently near Montmort’s to shew that he must
have adopted nearly the same method ;
he has fallen into some
mistake, for he gives a different expression for the terms inde-
pendent oi p.
In the problem on chances to which this is subservient we

should have to put for n the gr eatest integer in ^

O
9

.-Digitized by Googlc
 ;

130 MONTMORT.

Montmort refers on his page 361; to a letter dated June 8"',

1710, which does not appear to have been preserved.

223. The ne.xt letter is from Nicolas Bernoulli to Montmort

it occupies pages 371 —375. Nicolas Bernoulli demonstrates a
property of De Beaune’s curve ;
he a geometrical recti-
also gives

fication of the logarithmic curve ;

but his results are very in-
correct. He
then remarks on a subject which he says had been
brought to his notice in Holland, and on which a memoir had been
in.serted in the Philosophical Transactions. The subject is the
argument for Divine Providence taken from the constant regu-
larity observed in the births of both sexes. The memoir to which
Bernoulli refers is by Dr John Arbuthnot ;
it is in Vol. xxvii. of
the Philosophictd Transactions, and was ])ublished in 1710. Nicolas
Bernoulli had discus-sed the subject in Holland with ’sGravesande.
Nicolas Bernoulli says that he was obliged to refute the argu-
ment. What he supposes to be a refutation amounts to this he ;

examined the registers of births in London for the years from 1G29
to 1710 inclusive; he found that on the average 18 males were
bom for 17 females. The greatest variations from this ratio were
in 1661, when 47-18 males and 4100 females were bom, and in
1703, when 7765 males and 7683 females were bom. He sjiys
then that we may bet 300 to 1 that out of 1 4,000 infants the ratio
of the males to the females will fall within the.se limits we .shall ;

see in Art. 225 the method by which ho obtained this re.«ult.

224. Tire next letter is also from Nicolas Bernoulli to Mont-

mort ;
it occupies pages 375 —387. some remarks on
It contains

the game of Her, and some remarks in reply made by to tho.se

Montmort on De Moivre’s memoir De Men-mra The most Sortis.
important part of the -letter is an elaborate discussion of Walde-
grave’s problem we have already said enough on this problem,
;

and so need only add that Nicolas Bernoulli speaks of this discus-
sion as that which he preferred to every thing else which he had
pro<luced on the subject; see page 381. The approbation which
he thus bestows on his own work seems well deserved.

225. The next letter is also from Nicolas Bernoulli to Mont-

mort ;
it occupies pages 388 — 393. It is entirely occupied with

BigilizeO by- C v ^le

 ;

montmort. 131

the question of the ratio of male infants to female infants. We

liave already stated tliat Nicolas Bernoulli had refused to see any
argument for Divine Providence in the fact of the nearly constant
ratio. He
assumes that the probabiUty of the birth of a male is to
the probability of the birth of a fevude as 18 to 17 he then shews ;

that the chances ai'e 4.3 to 1 tliat out of 1 1, 000 infants the males

will between 70.37 and 7363. His investigation involves a

lie

general domon.stration of the theorem of his uncle James called

Bernoulli’s Theorem. Tlio investigation requires the summation
of terms of a binomial series this is effected approximately by a
;

proce.ss which is commenced in these words : Or comme ces termes

sont furieuseraent grands, il faut un artifice singulier jx)ur trouver
cc rapport : voici comment jc m’y suis pris.
The whole investigation bears some resemblance to that of
James Bernoulli and may have been suggested by it, for Nicolas
Bernoulli .says at the end of it, Je me souviens que feu mon Oncle
a demontr^ une semblable chose dans .son Traits De Arte Con-
jectandi, qui s’imprimo it pr(^sent il Bftle, ...

226. Tlie next letter is from Montraort to Nicolas Bernoulli

it occupies pages 3d~> — tOO. Montmort records the death of the
Puches.se d’Angoul6me, which caused him both grief and trouble ;

he says ho cannot discuss geometrical matters, but will confine

himself to literary intelligence.
Ho mentions a work entitled Prcyiotion Physique, on Action
de l)ieu sur les Creatures dt'montri'e par raisonnement.The
anonymous author pretended to follow the method of mathe-
maticians, and on every page were to lx; found such great words
as Definition, Axiom, Theorem, Demonstration, Corollary, &c.
Montmort asks for the opinion of Nicolas Bernoulli and his
uncle re.specting the famous Commercium Epistolicuin which he
.s.ays M" de la Society Royalc ont fait imprimer pour assurer il

M. Newton la gloiro d’avoir invente le premier et seul les nou-

velles methodes.
Montmort .speaks with approbation of a little treatise which
had just appeared under the title of Mechanique du Feu.
Montmort expresses his strong admiration of two investigations
which he had received from Nicolas Benioulli ;
one of these was
9—2

Digitized by Google
132 MONTMORT.

the solution of Waldegravo’s problem, and the other apparently

the demonstration of James Bernoulli’s theorem ; see Arts. 22-i, 225.
Montmort says, page 400,

Tout cola ^toit en verity bien difficile et d’un grand travail.

Vou3 6tes un terrible homme; je croyois quo pour avoir pris lea de-
vants je no serois pas si-tfit ratrapp^, mais je vois bien que je me suis
tromp4: je suis i present bien derriere vous; et forc£ de mettre toute
mon ambition it vous suivre de loin.

227. lliis letter from Montmort is interesting, as it records

the perplexity in which the writer found himself between the
claims of the rival systems of natural philosophy, the Cartesian
and the Newtonian. He says, page 397,

D£rang6 comme je le suis par I’autoritd de M. Newton, et d’un

si grand nombro do 89avans Geometres Anglois, je serois presque tent6
de renoncer pour jamais & I’fitude de la Physique, et de remettre ^
si^ivoir tout cola dans le Ciel; mais non, l’autorit£ des plus grands
esprits ne doit point none faire de loi dans les choses oil la raison
doit decider.

228. Montmort gives in this letter his views respecting a

History of Mathematics ;
he says, page 399,

II seroit i souhaiter que quelqu’un voulut prendre la peine de

nous ajjprendre comment et en quel ordre les docouvertes en Mathe-
matiquos se sont succed6e.s unes aux autres, et % qui nous en avons
les

I’obligation. On a fait ITlistoii-e de la Peinture, de la Musique, de

la Medecine, <tc. Une bonne Histoiro des Mathematiques, et en par-

ticulier de la Gfeometrie, seroit un Ouvrage beaucoup plus curieux et
plus utile :
Quel plkisir n’auroit-on ]ias de voir la liaison, la connexion
des methodes, I’enchainement des differentes theories, k commencer
depuis les premiers temps jusqu’au nfltre ou cette science se treuve
port£e k un si haut degr£ de perfection. II me semble qu’un tel

Ouvrage bien fait pourroit £tre en quelque sorte regard^ comme I’his-

toire de I’esprit humaiir; puisque e’est dans cette science plus qu’eu
toute autre chose, que I’bomme fait connoitre I’excellence de ce don
d’intelligence que Dieu lui a accords pour l’£lever au dessus de toutes
les autres Creatures.

Digitized by
 ;

MONTMORT. 133

Montmort himself had made some progress in the work which

he here recommends; see Art. 137. It seems however that his
manuscripts were destroyed or totally dispersed ;
see Montucla,
Histoire des Mathematiqiies first edition, preface, page IX.

229. The next from Nicolas Bernoulli to Montmort

letter is
it occupies pages 401, 402. Nicolas Bernoulli announces that the
Ars Conjectandi has just been published, and says, II n’y aura
gueres rien de nouveau pour vous. He proposes five problems to
Montmort in return for those which Montmort had proposed to
him. He says that he had already proposed the first problem in

his last letter ;

but as the problem does not occur before in the
correspondence, a letter must have been suppressed, or a portion
of it omitted.
The third problem is as follows. A and B play with a com-
mon A deposits a crown, and B begins to play if B throws
die, ;

an even number he takes the crown, if he throws an odd number

he deposits a crown. Then A throws, and takes a crown if he
throws an even number, but docs not deposit a crown if he
throws an odd number. Then B throws again, and so on. Thus
each takes a crown if he throws an even number, but B alone
deposits a crown if he throws an odd number. The play is to
continue as long as there is any sum deposited. Determine the
advantage of A or B.
The fourth problem is as follows. A promises to give to B
a crown if B with a common die throws six at the first throw,
two crowns if B throws six at the second throw, three crowns
if B
throws six at the third throw and so on. ;

The fifth problem generalises the fourth, A promises to give

B crowns in the progression 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... or 1, 3, 9, 27, ... or

1, 4, 9, 16, 25, ... or 1, 8, 27, 64, ... instead of in the progression

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, as in the fourth problem.

230. The next letter is the last; it is from Montmort to

Nicolas Bernoulli, and it occupies pages 403 —412. It enters

largely on the game of Her. With respect to the five problems

proposed to him, Montmort says that he has not tried the first

and second, that the fourth and fifth present no difficulty, but
that the third is much more difficult He says that it took him

Digitized by Googlc
13i MONTMORT.

a long time to convince himself that there would be neither

ailvantage nor disadvantage for B, but that he had come to this
conclusion, and so had Waldegrave, who had worked with him
at the problem. Itwould seem however, that this result is
obvious, for B has at every trial an equal chance of winning or
losing a crown.
Montmort proposes on his page 408 a problem to Nicolas
Bernoulli, but the game to which it relates is not described.

231. In the fourth problem given in Art. 22!), the advantage

of B is expressed by the series

1 2 3 4 . . ^

This series may be summed by the ordinary methods.

We a problem of the same kind as the fourth

shall see that
and fifth communicated by Nicolas Biu-noulli to Mont-
of those
mort, was afterwards discussed by Daiiicl Bernoulli and others, and
that it has become famous under the title of the Petersburg
Problem.

232. Montmort’s work on the whole must be considered

highly creditable to his acuteness, ]Xirseverance, and energy. The
courage is to be commended which led him to labour in a field

hitherto so little cultivated, and his example served to stimulate

his more distinguished successor. De Moivre w,as certiiinly far

superior in mathematical power to Montmort, and enjoyed the

great advantage of a long life, extending to more than twice the
duration of that of his predecessor ;
on the other hand, the
fortunate circumstances of Montmort’s position giive him that
abundant leisure, which De Moivre in e.xile and poverty must
have found it impossible to secure.

Digitized by Cooglc
 ;

CHAPTER IX.

DE MOIVRE.

233. Abraham De Moivre was bom at Vitri, in Champagne,

in 1GG7. On account of the revocation of the edict of Nantes,
in 168.3, he took shelter in England, where he sup|xjrted himself
by giving instruction in mathematics and answers to questions
relating to chances and annuities. He died at London in 175L
John Bernoulli speaks thus of De Mobure in a letter to
Leibnitz, dated 26 Apr. 1710; see page 817 of the volume cited
in Art. 59 :

...Dominus Moyvraeus, insignia certe Geometra, qui baud dubie

adhuc hacret Loiidini, luctans, ut audio, cum fame et misciia, quas ut
depellat, victum quotidianum ex informationibus adolescentura ])ctcrc
cogitur. U duram sortem bomiuis! et parum aptam ad excitanda
ingenia nobilia; quia non tandem succumberot sub tarn iniquae fortunae
vcxationibus 1 vel quodnam ingeiiium etiam forridiasimum non algeat
tandem 1 Miror certe Moyvraeum tantis angustiis pressure ea tamcn
adhuc praestarc, quae praestat.

De Moivre was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1697

his portrait, strikingly con.spicuous among those of the great
chiefs of science, may be seen in the collection which adorns the
walls of the apartment used for the meetings of the Society. It

is recorded that Newton himself, in the later years of his life,

used to reply to inquirers re.specting mathematics in these words :

“ Go to Mr De Moivre, he knows these things better than I do."

In the long list of men ennobled by genius, virtue, and mis-

fortune, who have found an a.sylum in England, it would bo

Digitized by Google
 ; ;

136 UE MOIVKE.

difficult name one who has conferred more honour on

to his
adopted country than De Moivre.
• 234. Number 329 of the Philosophical Transactions consists
entirely of a memoir entitled De Mensura Sortis, sett, de Probahili-
tate Eventuum in Ludis a Casu Fortuito Pendentibus. Autore
Abr. De Moivre, R.S.S.
The number is stated to be for the months of January,
February, and March 1711 it occupies pages 213
;
264 of Vo- —
lume XXVII. of the Philosophical Tran.sactions.
The memoir was afterwards expanded by De Moivre into his
work entitled The Doctrine of Chances : or, a Method of Calculating
the Probabilities of Events in Play. The first edition of this work
appeared in 1718 it is in quarto and contains xiv + 175 pages,
;

besides the title-leaf and a dedication. The second edition appeared

in 1738 it is in large quarto, and contains xiv -f 258 pages,
;

besides the title-leaf and a dedication and a page of corrections.

The third edition appeared in 1756, after the author’s death ;
it is

in large quarto, and contains xii -f- 348 pages, besides the title-leaf
and a dedication.
235. I propose to give an account of the memoir De Mensura
Sortis,and of the third edition of the Doctrine of Chances. In my
account of the memoir I shall indicate the corresponding parts of
the Doctrine of Chances and in my account of the Doctrine of
Chances I shall give such remarks as may be suggested by compar-
ing the third edition of the work with those which preceded it

any reference to the Doctrine of Chances must be taken to apply to

the third edition, unless the contrary is stated.

236. It may be observed that the memoir De Mensura Sortis

is not reprinted in the abridgement of the Philosophical Tran.sac-
tions up to the year 1800, which was edited by Hutton, Shaw, and
Pearson.
The memoir is dedicated to Francis Robartes, at whose recom-
mendation it had been drawn up. The only works of any import-
ance at this epoch, which bad appeared on the subject, were the
by Huygens, and the first edition of Montmort’s book.
treatise
De Moivre refers to thase in words which we have already quoted
in Art. 142.

Digitized by Google
 : ;

DE MOIVRE. 137

De Moivre says that Problems 16, 17, 18 in his memoir were

proposed to him by Robartes. In the Preface to the Doctrine of
Chances, which is said to have been written in 1717, the origin of
tlie memoir is explained in the following words
’
Tis now aV)out Seven Yeai-s, since I gave a S[>ecimen in the Philo-
topkical Transactions, of what I now more largely treat of in this Book.
The occasion of my then undertaking this Subject was chiefly owing to
the Desire and Encouragement of the Honourable Francis Robartes Esq.
(now Earl of Radnor); who, upon occasion of a French Tract, called
L' Analyse des Jeux de Hazard, which had lately been published, was
pleased to propose to me some Problems of much greater difiiculty than
any he had found in that Book which having solved to his Satisfaction,
;

be engaged me to methodize those Problems, and to lay down the Rules

which had led me to their Solution. After I had proceeded thus far, it
was enjoined me by the Royal Society, to communicate to them what I
had discovered on this Subject and thereupon it was ordered to bo pub-
:

lished in the Transactions, not so much as a matter relating to Play, but

as containing some general Speculations not unworthy to be cousideied
by the Lovers of Truth.

237. The memoir consists of twenty-six Problems, besides

a few introductory remarks which explain how probability is

measured.

238. The first problem is to find the chance of throwing an

ace twice or oftener in eight throws with a single die ;
see Doctrine
of Chances, page 13.

239. The second problem is a case of the Problem of Points.

A is supposed to want 4 points, and B to want 6 points and A'n ;

chance of winning a single point is to B's as 3 is to 2 ;

see Doctrine
of Chances, page 18. It is to be remembered that up to this date,
in all that had been published on the subject, the chances of the
players for winning a single point had always been assumed equal
see Art. 173.

240. The third problem is to determine the chances of A and B

for winning a single game, supposing that A can give B two gfimes
out of three the fourth problem is of a similar kind, supposing
;

Digitized by Googlc
 :

138 1)K MOIVUE.

that A can give £ one game out of tiiree : see Problems i. and ii.

of the Doctrine of Chances.

211. The fifth problem is to find how many trials must be

made to have an even chance that an event shall happen once at

least. Montmort had already solved the problem ;
.see Art. 170.
De Moivre
adds a useful approximate formula which is now one
of the permanent results in the subject we shall recur to it in ;

noticing Problem ill. of the Doctrine of Chances, where it is repro-

duced.

242. De Moivre then gives a Lemma: To find how many

Chances there are upon any number of Dice, each of them of the
same number of Faces, to throw any given number of points see ;

Doctrine of Chances, page 39. We have already given the history

of this Lemma in Art. 149.

243. The sixth problem is to find how many trials must be

made to have an even chance that an event shall happen tioice at
least. The seventh problem is to find how many trials must be

made to have an even chance that an event