5 ms·
The analogy at the end (section IV) made the whole article easier to "get". ...an answer cannot be more precise than its data. Or its question.
by superkarn 16y ago
The analogy at the end (section IV) made the whole article easier to "get".
...an answer cannot be more precise than its data. Or its question.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoExcept the example he gave was also wrong. 3 + 4.2 is 7.2, using exact arithmetic, which should be the default assumption. If you're measuring values under uncertainty, then his explanation makes some sense. But that's a property of measurement and uncertainty, not of numbers or arithmetic.
- djacobs 16y agoHear, hear. A voice of reason. This blog entry is the perfect example of where knowing a little information is dangerous.
- samatman 16y agoDefault assumption for whom? For a scientist, or someone working with real world data, this should never be the default assumption. Besides, in the paragraph with the arithmetic he explicitly talks about significant figures. In context, the answer is unambiguously 7 .
- djacobs 16y agoIt's 7.2. Without context (and he gives none for the expression) everyone (including me as a scientist) must assume abstract numbers. What's more, we know he's not using measurements because there are no units...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]