4 ms·

Not according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

foxyv 4y ago
Pretty close. If they added an additional zero to make 1.0000 meters they would be the same number of significant figures technically. But it's all convention. I've been in classes where 1.000 would be 4 significant figures. > 120.0000 consists of six significant figures (1, 2, and the four subsequent zeroes) except for the last zero If the resolution is to 0.001.
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  1.000 has 4 significant figures. Absent other context, 1000 has 1.
  - foxyv 4y ago
    When arguing convention, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.
kennywinker 4y ago
You're right that I'm remembering my sig-fig rules wrong, but you're not entirely right: > Zeros to the right of the last non-zero digit (trailing zeros) in a number with the decimal point are significant if they are within the measurement or reporting resolution. > 1.200 has four significant figures (1, 2, 0, and 0) if they are allowed by the measurement resolution. and > Trailing zeros in an integer may or may not be significant, depending on the measurement or reporting resolution. So my first example "1m and 1000mm" actually might be the same length, depending on if those zeros are significant or not which has not been clearly communicated. My second example "1000mm and 1.000m" is also ambiguous, since 1.000m is clear(ish) about its sig-figs, while 1000mm is not. I suppose I could have written "1000. mm" Best solution imo would probably be: - something that actually specified the error: 1m ± 0.0001m - or using words to indicate what's meant: "exactly 1000mm"
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  The classic solution to this ambiguity is to always use scientific notation. The sig figs in 1.0E3mm, 1E3mm, or 1.000000E3mm are unambiguous.

4 ms·

Not according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

by brokensegue 4y ago

foxyv 4y ago
Pretty close. If they added an additional zero to make 1.0000 meters they would be the same number of significant figures technically. But it's all convention. I've been in classes where 1.000 would be 4 significant figures. > 120.0000 consists of six significant figures (1, 2, and the four subsequent zeroes) except for the last zero If the resolution is to 0.001.
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  1.000 has 4 significant figures. Absent other context, 1000 has 1.
  - foxyv 4y ago
    When arguing convention, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong.
kennywinker 4y ago
You're right that I'm remembering my sig-fig rules wrong, but you're not entirely right: > Zeros to the right of the last non-zero digit (trailing zeros) in a number with the decimal point are significant if they are within the measurement or reporting resolution. > 1.200 has four significant figures (1, 2, 0, and 0) if they are allowed by the measurement resolution. and > Trailing zeros in an integer may or may not be significant, depending on the measurement or reporting resolution. So my first example "1m and 1000mm" actually might be the same length, depending on if those zeros are significant or not which has not been clearly communicated. My second example "1000mm and 1.000m" is also ambiguous, since 1.000m is clear(ish) about its sig-figs, while 1000mm is not. I suppose I could have written "1000. mm" Best solution imo would probably be: - something that actually specified the error: 1m ± 0.0001m - or using words to indicate what's meant: "exactly 1000mm"
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  The classic solution to this ambiguity is to always use scientific notation. The sig figs in 1.0E3mm, 1E3mm, or 1.000000E3mm are unambiguous.