4 ms·
That not just imprecise usage of that term; it’s completely incorrect. The correct term would be its exact opposite, “approximately”.
by raldi 1y ago
That not just imprecise usage of that term; it’s completely incorrect. The correct term would be its exact opposite, “approximately”.
- cluckindan 1y agoThe exact opposite would be ”imprecise” or ”inaccurate”
- raldi 1y agoAccuracy and precision are orthogonal concepts. “Approximately 0 light years” is accurate but not precise.
- boothby 1y agoIndiscreet discrete mathematician checking in. If they said "exactly" we'd have a real problem. Instead, "precisely" in this context means "human eye cannot distinguish from exact value at a stone's throw." Yes, physicists and engineers hate me, why do you ask?
- kbelder 1y ago"It's precisely 21 cm." "Is it 21 cm?" "No."
- hexhu 1y agoso the claim is inaccurate by 1mm and missing precision data. I'd call it inaccurate and imprecise XD
- LeifCarrotson 1y agoI expect the non-technical author/editor was playing the telephone game and originally wanted to emphasize that the frequency is always the same value, not that the hydrogen emissions frequency is related by arbitrary factors of 9192631770.000 Hz, 1/299792458.000 seconds, and then exactly 21.000/100.000 to the caesium-133 frequency.