8 ms·
Yes, why don't people spend their time doing the extra work to figure out the exact number of meaningful digits in their measurements when the defaults work jus
by jjoonathan 7y ago
Yes, why don't people spend their time doing the extra work to figure out the exact number of meaningful digits in their measurements when the defaults work just fine for their non-scientific, non-metrological purposes?
A mystery for the ages.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y agoI like your argument, but it would be nice to keep things civil.
- pjc50 7y agoThis is the civil version, with mild sarcasm.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ISL 7y agoSignificant-digits seem like schoolroom drudgery until, one day, there is enlightenment.
- Arnt 7y agoThat day may be today, if you enlighten us...
- jjoonathan 7y agoThey're a useful tool, no more, no less. Using a useful tool to do something useless doesn't make the useless thing useful. Sometimes significant digits are too primitive a tool for error communication, and you might have to use the parameters of a normal distribution, some other distribution, or even a histogram. Other times significant digits are too cumbersome because it would take time to discover the precision in a situation where nobody actually cares beyond a crude threshold. This is one of those other times.
- taneq 7y agoMe, I tend to just assume others have had the same talk in year 8 or whatever about accuracy vs. precision.
- falcolas 7y agoBecause the value, as presented, is wrong. "[but it's being used for] non-scientific, non-metrological purposes" which doesn't change that it's the wrong value. Imagine, for a moment, that someone uses these values to put up a fence. Is the fence on their property? Those crap values beyond the actual significant digits of the measurement may tell you that you are, when you're not. That will cost you time and money down the road.
- izacus 7y agoThese values are as right as setting least significant digits to 0 would be. The sensor has limited precision and the other digits might as well be 0 or 584985948 and the value would be no more precise.
- jgtrosh 7y agoI believe you're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
- hamandcheese 7y agoI would never assume the displayed digits are significant in any non-scientific context.
- frenchyatwork 7y agoPeople use significant digits colloquially, though with a lot less rigour. For example, If I say I'm 6 feet tall, people will probably guess that I'm between 5 ft 10 in and 6 ft 2 in. If I say I'm 5 ft 11 in, people will probably guess that I'm between 5 ft 10.5 in and 5 ft 11.5 in.
- seandougall 7y agoYeah, but "-37.80467681 144.9659498" has no meaning colloquially to almost anybody, because normal humans don't think in latitude and longitude in the first place. To me, those are just values to copy and paste into a maps app to see where something is, and if it's pointing to more or less the right location, I'm happy. They're like the physical-world equivalent of a URL; I don't honestly care if there's an unused query string parameter tacked onto the end of it or if it redirects to https or something; all I care about is that the link I clicked on gets me to the correct cat video.