Re: error analysis (was: middle school science...)

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 13:08 3/8/01 -0500, John Denker wrote:
/snip/
> Proper error analysis will tell us *bounds* on the errors of the predictions.
>
> Is this an example of "if it doesn't work, it's physics"?  No!  An inexact
> prediction is often tremendously valuable.  An approximate prediction is a
> lot better than no prediction.
>
> I mention this because far too many intro-level science books seem to
> describe a fairy-tale axiomatic world ....

An interesting example came to mind:
 several list contributors recently offered a frank guess at the
value of capacitance for a thin round disk, cf a sphere.
 John Denker offered bounds on his estimate which were huge.

I was suitably impressed. Another worthy contributor offered several
guesses in turn, each with error bounds which excluded his previous
offerings.
John Denker's bounds put him in the position of agreeing in retrospect
with David Bowman's wonderful analysis. The other worthy finished much
closer to the 'best' value - but with bounds that undermined the
estimate's credibility.
So in this informal milieu I take my lessons where I find them....

brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>  Altus OK
                Eureka!