Re: Singles to Doubles
- From: "Steve Gerrard" <mynamehere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:14:57 -0700
"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uldbmN%23xHHA.4652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Bob --
Which gives me these results:
0.3026 0.302599996328354 0.3026
True True
0 -3.67164609826887E-09
And, of course, the value I'm after *is* 0.3026 -- not the one that's off
0.00000000367... Seems like some sort of register garbage that I'm picking up
in the conversion?
The one time science/math teacher in me has to beg to differ, on grounds of
significant digits.
If you have some data, such as a measurement, recorded as 0.3026, what you have
(what you know, that is), is really more like 0.30255 < x < 0.30265, recorded
to 4 significant figures. You don't have *exactly* 0.3026 at all.
In fact, .30259999 is just as likely correct as 0.30260000.
The various statements about accuracy, precision, and exactness are really
irrelevant. What is the data about, and how precisely was it measured?
If you are averaging it, or taking other such statistics, the tiny variations
are irrelevant. If you are totalling them, your result contains an error of
..0001 * n anyway, so fussing over micro-decimals won't matter at all.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Singles to Doubles
- From: Karl E. Peterson
- Re: Singles to Doubles
- References:
- Singles to Doubles
- From: Karl E. Peterson
- Re: Singles to Doubles
- From: Bob Butler
- Re: Singles to Doubles
- From: Karl E. Peterson
- Singles to Doubles
- Prev by Date: Re: Singles to Doubles
- Next by Date: Re: Singles to Doubles
- Previous by thread: Re: Singles to Doubles
- Next by thread: Re: Singles to Doubles
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|