| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
http://www.av8n.com/physics/uncertainty.htm
Again read JD's page:
Measurements and Uncertainties versus Significant Digits or Significant Figures
In particular:
4. If/when you wish to express the uncertainty, express it separately (rather than trying to use one numeral to represent two numbers). For example, an uncertain quantity can be properly expressed 1.234 ± 0.055, in which case we have one numeral (namely 1.234) to represent the nominal value, and a separate numeral (namely 0.055) to represent the absolute uncertainty. If you wish to express the relative uncertainty, as opposed to absolute uncertainty, it can be expressed using percentages, parts per thousand, parts per million, or something like that, e.g. 2900 ± 1.3% or equivalently 2900 ± 13000ppm.
bc wonders if there is a scientific journal that uses the number of figures to indicate error.
p.s. Even the "the Physics Teacher" "shoulds" error limits as a separate number:
-----------------------------------------------------
Units and significant figures
Authors are encouraged to use SI units, but use of SI units is not mandatory in cases where other units are more appropriate. Measured and calculated numerical values should be written with the correct number of significant figures and include error limits.
Information for TPT Authors