Re: [Phys-l] Significant figures -- again

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 03/12/2012 12:49 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

> 2) He or she is demonstrating his or her numerical ignorance.

I do not think I am numerically ignorant.

>  It's simply a matter of using proper "numerical grammar."  

According to the grammar (i.e. the axioms) of the Hindu-Arabic number
system, the numeral 1.2 means *exactly* the same thing as 1.2000.
Both are rational numbers.  Both are equal to 6/5.

I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of  mathematicians would 
agree with me.

Using one numeral to represent two numbers (e.g. the mean and standard
deviation) is ungrammatical and highly illogical.

If you weigh the arguments impartially, you will find a great deal
more ignorance and illogic on the sig-figs side of the scales than 
on the other side.