Re: Decimals
- From: "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:17:13 -0400
Evan wrote on Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:27:47 -0700:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:27:07 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Whether I read it as "point six two five" or "five eighths"
would probably depend on what I believed the intent of the
writer to be with respect to the precision. If I just see a
number like .625, I'm more likely to assume that the
tolerance is ±.0626 than that it's ±.0005.
Standard practice is that the tolerance is one unit of the
last place unless otherwise specified, so for .625 it would
be +/- .001, for .62 it would be +/- .01, etc.
Standard it may be, but my experience is that in a lot of
domains that "otherwise specified" is implied from the data or
from experience. And I was a little imprecise with "precision"
and "tolerance". If I measure something as .671, there's no
way I'm going to write it down as .6 or .68. It's .7 or .69.
The precision, I was taught, is half of the smallest unit
unless otherwise specified.
But I think that that's one of the things that makes people
resist using decimals for many things. If I'm building a
bookcase, getting it to the nearest eighth of an inch is
probably fine. But I can't specify the eighths exactly as
decimals without implying that I need it to the nearest
thousandth of an inch.
My normal practice in quoting scientific results was to give the probable error, or sometimes standard deviation, in parentheses. Thus I might quote a result as 1.234(12), indicating that the standard deviation was 0.012. (I did indicate which value I was using since probable error and standard deviation are not the same thing.).
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
.
- References:
- Re: Decimals
- From: James Silverton
- Re: Decimals
- From: Hatunen
- Re: Decimals
- From: Peter Moylan
- Re: Decimals
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Decimals
- From: Robert Bannister
- Re: Decimals
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Decimals
- From: Mike Barnes
- Re: Decimals
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Decimals
- From: Mike Barnes
- Re: Decimals
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Decimals
- From: Mike Barnes
- Re: Decimals
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Decimals
- From: Hatunen
- Re: Decimals
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Decimals
- Prev by Date: Re: Flu
- Next by Date: Re: Please wait
- Previous by thread: Re: Decimals
- Next by thread: Re: Decimals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading