Carrying Uncertainty in Math: A Paradox?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter t6x3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Uncertainty
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion clarifies the handling of uncertainty in mathematical calculations, particularly in the context of significant figures and rounding. The textbook emphasizes that intermediate results should not be rounded to maintain accuracy, as demonstrated in the example of adding 75.382 and 31.2, which should yield 106.6 before applying rounding rules to the final result. The conversation highlights the importance of retaining precision in intermediate steps to avoid discrepancies in the final answer, advocating for the use of a separate calculation to evaluate uncertainty. The standard notation for presenting results with uncertainty is also discussed, specifically using the format 1200 ± 1.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of significant figures in mathematical calculations
  • Familiarity with the concept of uncertainty in measurements
  • Basic knowledge of arithmetic operations and their properties
  • Awareness of standard deviation and its application in research fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of significant figures and their application in scientific calculations
  • Learn about the propagation of uncertainty in measurements and calculations
  • Explore the concept of standard deviation and its relevance in data analysis
  • Research best practices for reporting results with uncertainty in scientific literature
USEFUL FOR

Students, researchers, and professionals in scientific fields who require a clear understanding of how to manage uncertainty in mathematical calculations and reporting results accurately.

t6x3
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Ok so my textbook explains all the rules to carry the inherent uncertainty in measurements through mathematic calculations (the result of an addition must have as many decimal places as the term with the least decimal places, etc, it also explains significant figures etc...) and at the very end of the detailed explanation it warns us that we shouldn't round off results in intermediate steps because it will affect the final answer.

That is what I don't get at all and sounds contradictory to me maybe because of the wording the book is using to explain all of this.

Say we are trying to solve a long problem and we have an intermediate step (out of many), say an addition or what have you, 75.382 + 31.2 (disregard units), following the rules for carrying the uncertainty through calculations we should write 106.6 as a result right? and carry this result into the next step of the solving process. This to me is just that, carrying the uncertainty, it's not rounding off for the sake of rounding off!

If we take 106.582 as a result for the previous addition and input this into the next step we will be losing track of the uncertainty right?

Someone please make this clear because it looks like a paradox to me according to the book's wording.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What they mean is: suppose you have 75.382 + 31.2 + 7.24 + 42.519. You would add them all up without rounding and get 156.341. Then you apply the rounding rule and round it off to 1 decimal place to get 156.3.

If you round off after each step, the result might depend on the order in which you add them. But it shouldn't depend on the order, right?
 
If you want to give an uncertainty for your measurement, you should do this in a separate way. While it is obvious that 12.4 has an uncertainty which is at least of the order of 0.1: How precise is 1200? Is it "something between 1150 and 1250"? Or is it "something between 1199,5 and 1200,5"?

As you don't want to increase your uncertainty via rounding, try to keep a lot of digits in intermediate calculations and evaluate your uncertainty with another calculation. Round the final value to a useful number of digits, and add its uncertainty if you know it. 1200 \pm 1 is the usual way to present those results: The measured value is 1200, the uncertainty (usually the standard deviation, but it depends a bit on the research field) is 1.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K