[Phys-L] Re: infinite sig. figs.

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

because uncertainty is not the same as insignificance, nor
> vice versa.  This is a big problem.  When I read something, I
> never know whether "significant digits" refers to significance or
> uncertainty ... and the recent posting by Michael E. is a perfect
> example of this.  The first time I read it, I assumed "significant
> digits" referred to uncertainty, but the passage makes much more
> sense if "significant digits" is taken to refer to honest-to-goodness
> significance.

Reminds me that:

some? medical stats texts make a point of distinguishing between stat.
sig. and medical sig.


e.g. Primer of Biostats.  Stanton Glanz (The tobacco guy)


John Denker wrote:
> As noted yesterday, the many people have been taught to report the
> _uncertainty_ of their results using /significant/ digits.  That's
> crazy, because uncertainty is not the same as insignificance, nor
> vice versa.  This is a big problem.  When I read something, I
> never know whether "significant digits" refers to significance or
> uncertainty ... and the recent posting by Michael E. is a perfect
> example of this.  The first time I read it, I assumed "significant
> digits" referred to uncertainty, but the passage makes much more
> sense if "significant digits" is taken to refer to honest-to-goodness
> significance.
>
> Specifically, in the passage quoted below, if M.E. says three digits
> are significant _to him_, who am I to argue?  IMHO he has absolute
> authority to say what is significant _to him_.  The point of the
> passage, as I understand it, is that the digits do *not* encode
> the uncertainty of the measurement.
>
> =======
>
> As a trustworthy rule, in my writing and speaking, whenever I am tempted
> to say "significant digits" I find that the sentence is greatly improved
> by saying something else instead.  The quoted passage is a fine example
> of this.  Please re-read it;  don't you think it would be improved by
> crossing out "three significant digits" and saying instead "three-digit
> representation" or "three digits of resolution" or preferably just "three
> decimal places".
>
>
> Edmiston, Mike wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > all calculations, even those involving "real-world" examples, are to be
> > carried out to three decimal places
> > <snip>
cut
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l