Recent content by RobbieM.

Thanks for the reply briggs. I'm still trying to digest that.

0.471 and 0.474 are not exact. They should be read as accurate to the thousandths place. So, I think you are saying the sig. fig. rules should be applied. In that case, the result given above is given... which I find confusing.

Another example of weird behavior using sig. fig. rules: Converting the length range 0.471-in -- 0.474-in to cm gives the result 1.20 cm -- 1.20 cm. This is because 0.001-in is 0.003 cm, a level of precision truncated away if you use standard rules.

Thanks for the response. Why does precision need to be expressed as a percentage of a measurement? And, if that is the case, shouldn't the larger measurement have a larger absolute uncertainty? That doesn't seem to be consistent with the result above. My question is just about the rules for...

A question posed as an example: converting 1.55 and 0.55 inches to cm. 1.55 * 2.5400000000... = 3.937 which rounds to 3.94 cm per the rules and 0.55 * 2.5400000000... = 1.397 which rounds to 1.4 cm per the rulesIf both inputs are known to the same precision (hundredth of an inch), why are the...

I need some help finding an appropriate statistics model for some experimental data. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. I am trying to compare simulated results from a code that models nuclide concentrations in spent nuclear fuel to experimental data. These concentrations have...

I have two histograms that I would like to compare quantitatively. The values of the first histogram have respective relative errors for each bin. The second histogram has no statistical uncertainty. I could compute probabilities for each bin that the exact values would fall into a given...