- #1

- 1,331

- 40

I'm talking 6 or 7 places sometimes.

I can't be the only one?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter 1MileCrash
- Start date

- #1

- 1,331

- 40

I'm talking 6 or 7 places sometimes.

I can't be the only one?

- #2

- 461

- 8

Yes, You are some kind of weirdo.:tongue2:

Anything more than two decimals is usually lying.

Anything more than two decimals is usually lying.

- #3

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,382

- 2,888

Concurrence. Weirdo.

- #4

- 1,039

- 2

- #5

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,382

- 2,888

It is merely a quirk, Quark.No idea why I do this.

- #6

arildno

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 9,970

- 134

I always seek the double 3's.

- #7

Maroc

Gold Member

- 55

- 0

Anything more than 2 decimals is a no go in my books :P

- #8

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,997

- 10,831

I take off points for insignificant digits.

- #9

- 768

- 4

Usually I look for a 0, 1, or 9. Those are my happy number rounding places.

- #10

- 67

- 0

As a rule of the thumb, I usually use as many significant digits as the question has.

- #11

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,766

- 4,011

If it's an intermediate answer, it should stay in your calculator (that's what your calculator's memory is for) and not be written down at all, unless your question asks you to show that answer also. In that case you should round off the written version appropriately, but use the unrounded version in the calculator for further calculations.

- #12

Dembadon

Gold Member

- 624

- 89

I round [itex]e[/itex] to 3. Is that bad?

- #13

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,997

- 10,831

Not as bad as rounding it to 4.

- #14

- 1,039

- 2

I round [itex]e[/itex] to 3. Is that bad?

No joke, my physics professor usually uses 10 for g when working examples.

- #15

FlexGunship

Gold Member

- 369

- 8

I round [itex]e[/itex] to 3. Is that bad?

Not as bad as rounding it to 4.

Gentlemen!! We have a winnar!

- #16

russ_watters

Mentor

- 20,584

- 7,252

As an engineer, I have too many assumed values in my calcs for sig figs to matter.I take off points for insignificant digits.

- #17

Pythagorean

Gold Member

- 4,217

- 276

I take off points for insignificant digits.

And this is basically how I stopped the habit in my undergrad

- #18

- 768

- 4

If it's the final answer to a question, it should be rounded to whatever number of sig figs is appropriate for the initial input numbers.

See, my problems are exact. It's not until the final calculation that things get decimal-ized.

- #19

- 1,331

- 40

You will find it surprising how many students at the college level don't know the reasoning behind significant figures and think that more decimal places means a more accurate answer.

1.3 meters is not 1.30 meters, it means we stopped measuring after a tenth of a meter.

I never learned that concept in school when I learned about significant figures. It only came to me when actually doing lab work.

- #20

- 768

- 4

1.3 meters is not 1.30 meters, it means we stopped measuring after a tenth of a meter.

I never learned that concept in school when I learned about significant figures. It only came to me when actually doing lab work.

I did learn that. My most confusing times currently are when I get to the end of a probability question and the final move turns out an enormous fraction which practically requires a decimal conversion to be useful comparatively. How far do I take it? As far as I like is my guess. So, that's to a 0, 1, or 9.

- #21

lisab

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 1,887

- 617

I don't do it for final answers, because then its just wrong, its assuming a known value for values that aren't known (or equivalently, assuming that all decimal places after the given measurement are zeros)

You will find it surprising how many students at the college level don't know the reasoning behind significant figuresand think that more decimal places means a more accurate answer.

1.3 meters is not 1.30 meters, it means we stopped measuring after a tenth of a meter.

I never learned that concept in school when I learned about significant figures. It only came to me when actually doing lab work.

A corollary to that observation: some people think a reading is more accurate if the instrument display is digital .

- #22

- 4,465

- 72

- #23

Dembadon

Gold Member

- 624

- 89

See, my problems are exact. It's not until the final calculation that things get decimal-ized.

Wait, wait. Let's get our terminology correct, here. Murdering a perfectly good symbol is

Share: