Frustrated Over Sig Figs Calculation

  • Thread starter Thread starter fiziksfun
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
AI Thread Summary
The confusion arises from the interpretation of significant figures in the calculation involving 4.80 x 10^4 and 1000. The number 4.80 x 10^4 has three significant figures, as only the digits in the coefficient count. The number 1000 can be ambiguous regarding its significant figures; it may have one to four based on its representation. In calculations involving exact conversions, such as meters to millimeters, the number 1000 is considered exact and does not affect the significant figures. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurate calculations.
fiziksfun
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
This problem is really making me mad.

I'm supposed to solve it using the correct sig figs

((4.80*10^4)(1/1000) = 48.0

HOW DOES THIS ONLY HAVE THREE SIG FIGS?

doesn't 1000 only have one sig fig and 4.80*10^4 has 5 ?? I'm so confused! HELP!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The number shown as 1000 has FOUR significant figures. If it were to be shown as ONE significant figure, it would need to be written as "1 * 10^4" (to the best than may be represented in a purely text-set format).
 
Well 4.80 \cdot 10^4 actually has 3 significant figures. When you have a number in scientific notation, such as this one, only count the number of sig figs in the factor multiplied by 10n (which in this case is 4.80).

As for the number 1000, my understanding is that numbers with trailing zeros and no decimal point can be a bit ambiguous. It could have 1, 2, 3, or 4 sig figs. The "1" could be the only significant figure or the "1000" could be written as 1.0 \cdot 10^3 or 1.00 \cdot 10^3 or 1.000 \cdot 10^3. Without seeing the actual problem I can't tell. Sometimes in problems you will convert units, for example, meters to millimeters and you'll have the number 1000 in your calculation. I think that in these cases you don't consider the 1000 in counting sig figs as there is no uncertainty involved (there are exactly 1000 millimeters in 1 meter).
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top