Error analysis: simple but confusing matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the topic of error analysis in the context of significant figures and mathematical expressions. Participants explore the implications of different formulations of the same mathematical relationship and how they affect the calculation of errors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the apparent contradiction in error calculations when using different expressions for the same variable, specifically comparing L = 2x and L = x + x.
  • Another participant points out that the errors in the two instances are correlated, suggesting that this correlation affects the accuracy of the error calculations.
  • A third participant introduces a more general formula for error propagation that includes covariance, indicating that the original formulas may not apply when variables are dependent.
  • There is acknowledgment that the derivation of error formulas assumes no correlation between variables, highlighting the need for caution in applying rules of thumb in error analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of errors in correlated variables. While some agree on the importance of considering covariance, others emphasize the confusion arising from different formulations of the same mathematical expression. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differing approaches.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumption of independence in error calculations and the potential for covariance to affect the accuracy of results. The discussion does not resolve how these factors interact with the rules of thumb for significant figures.

haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
3,077
Reaction score
1,596
TL;DR
Two rules give different answers for same expression
Dear all,

We learn students to work with significant figures. I guess we all know those rules of thumb. Now imagine I have an expression like L = 2x, where x is a length a the 2 is an amount, i.e. the value of a discrete 'function'. If x=0,72 m (2 significant figures), then L = 1,44 --> 1,4 (2 significant figures); we view the 2 as exact.

But if I write L=x+x, then L = 0,72+0,72=1,44, and I use the rule of thumb that I look at the same amount of decimals. What exactly is the origin of these contradicting accuracies?

Within error analysis, I can define a function z=f(x,y) and calculate the error dz as a function of dx and dy,

<br /> dz = \sqrt{(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} dx)^2 + (\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy)^2 }<br />

If z(x,y) = x+y, then

<br /> dz = \sqrt{(dx)^2 + (dy)^2}<br />

and if z(x,y)=x*y, then

<br /> dz = |x*y|\sqrt{(\frac{dx}{x})^2 + (\frac{dy}{y})^2}<br />

If I take y=x in z(x,y) = x+y, I obtain z=x+x and hence

<br /> dz = \sqrt{2}|dx|<br />

while if I take y=2 (dy=0) in z(x,y) = x*y, I obtain z=2x and hence

<br /> dz = 2|dx| &gt; \sqrt{2}|dx|<br />

Do these two different errors for the same mathematical expression make sense? Does it have it have to do something with different meanings to the expressions z=2x and z=x+x and errors canceling each other out such that the first error is smaller than the second? And is the answer to this question also the answer for my first question about significant numbers and those rules of thumb? Any references to this? Many thanks! :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kith, Stephen Tashi and etotheipi
Physics news on Phys.org
haushofer said:
But if I write L=x+x
The problem with this is that the error in the first x is perfectly correlated with the error in the second x.

haushofer said:
Within error analysis, I can define a function z=f(x,y) and calculate the error dz as a function of dx and dy,
You forgot to include the terms for the covariance.

haushofer said:
What exactly is the origin of these contradicting accuracies?
In the expressions you used it is important that the errors in the different terms be uncorrelated. In ##y=2x## there is a single term so there is no issue. But in your other equations there are multiple terms and the usual formulas you mentioned only work if the covariance is zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kith, haushofer, vanhees71 and 1 other person
I think @Dale is right, in my notes I have the more general formula, for a function of two variables ##z = f(x,y)##,$$s_z^2 = \left( \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} \right)^2 s_x^2 + \left( \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \right)^2 s_y^2 + 2 \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} s_{xy}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: haushofer, Dale and vanhees71
Yes, this sounds right. Indeed, the derivation of the error formules assumes no dependence/correlation between the variables.

A nice example of how careful one needs to be with those tules of thumb. Thanks guys!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi, vanhees71 and Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
998
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
698
Replies
3
Views
2K