This starts to elucidate the meaning of the tables on European-Japanese weights and measures attached to Hoashi's book Kyuri-tsu(1836). This tables rely mainly on the Dutch source book Algemeene Aardrijksbeschrijuing (General Geography) written by J. de Gelder in 1803-1808. Comparing Hoashi's tables with the corresponding source tables and checking Hoashi's conversion to Japanese units, where every number was presented with around seven figures, reveals considerable miscopies and miscalculations. Analysis of the numeral errors allows us to speculate how frequently numeral errors occurred in each of the editing processes such as transcribing original arabic figures into Japanese figures, calculating by means of Japanese abacus and making reprints to be handed down.
During the collaboration of Beeckman and Descartes at Breda (1618-1619), they studied problems of mixed mathematics by so-called "physico-mathematica". In this paper I clarify the meaning of "physico-mathematica" for Beeckman especially in his musical theory. Beeckman considered the "physico-mathematica" as a way of giving the corpuscular interpretations both to the examples Descartes submitted to him (such as consonance and resonance) and to the problems of the musical theory (division of octave) which have been already demonstrated in the mathematical form by Descartes. This way of philosophizing depended on Beeckman's corpuscular theory of sound which he thought was a sequence of beats (ictus) of corpuscles of air. In those musical problems Beeckman acted as the "physico-mathematician" and Descartes as a traditional mixed mathematician.
There are two versions of the Japanese text of Einstein's "Kyoto Address." One is the original text by Jun Ishiwara, the physicist-colleague and translator of Einstein's, and the other is its revised version by one of Ishiwara's sons. It is pointed out that the existing English versions of the "Kyoto Address" are made by the translation from the revised version, which is somewhat different from the original. The other point made is related with the argument by Ryoichi Itagaki that the description in Kyoto Address on Einstein's knowledge of Michelson's experiment should be regarded as written in the subjunctive mood and does not correspond to the reality. But, this interpretation is against Ishiwara's own text and also to Einstein's own love letter to Maric in 1899.