Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure Rules

  • Thread starter jrtayloriv
  • Start date
Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure "Rules"

Let's say I have a scale which can accurately read weights out to ten-thousandths of a gram so it might read 1.0005 g or 0.0005 grams ... why is it that the first reading has 5 significant figures and the second has only 1? Same instrument ... so how is it less precise just because the item weighs less? If I want to add two measurements together from the same scale ... say 0.0056 and 1.2345 --- why do I have to make it a two digit number? Why does that cause me to lose precision?

Please do not tell me how to apply the "rules" for significant figures -- I can read the tables in my chemistry/physics books just fine. I am asking how the rule is derived ... everywhere I've asked, I've had people saying "well leading zeroes aren't significant" ... I know this, and like a good monkey can apply the rules without a problem -- but I want to know why they aren't "significant".

I want an explanation centered around arithmetic of numbers in the decimal representation system -- something explaining why precision is lost because of leading zeros ... this is why I put it into the math section ... I figure this is more of a number theoretic question than anything else...


Thanks.
 

mathman

Science Advisor
7,668
383
Re: Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure "Rules"

Typically precision is thought about in terms of fractional error. A number such as .05 could be off by 10%, while a number like 1.05 has a fractional error of 0.1%. That is the reasoning behind significant digits.
 
Re: Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure "Rules"

Well here is a thought...

Errors are usually (like Mathman said) linked with percentage error. So in you example we have (in Absolute Error):

0.0005 +/- .00001 g = 0.0005 +/- 20%
1.0005 +/- .00001 g = 1.0005 +/- .001% (wlthough you might ceil the value to 1%)

Hence in practice, most of the time one would try to use higher masses or time to more oscillations (e.g. 10) etc...

I believe the answer to your question lies in the way we mathematically evaluate the number of significant figures in a number. However, in Physics (like MM said), it is better to use the Percentage error or sometimes absolute error when quoting precision/accuracy.
 
Re: Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure "Rules"

Got it -- that's the first time someone has been able to explain it to me clearly. Thanks a bunch!
 

Borek

Mentor
28,025
2,525
Re: Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure "Rules"

Note that significant numbers are faulty by design. Take a look at 1 and 9 - one siginificant digit in each case. In each case that means that the number is known with +/- 0.5 accuracy. That in turn means 50% accuracy for 1 and around 6% accuracy for 9.

That's why they are not used in real science. Some even claim that they are ONLY taught to poor HS students for no apparent reasons, as they are not used anytime later.
 

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,700
870
Re: Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure "Rules"

It is much better to express the number in "scientific notation". 1.005 g has clearly been read on a scale where you CAN read to the nearest 0.0005 g. 0.005 is ambiguous. If you were to write it instead as 5 x 10-3 you can see that there is, in fact, just the the one significant figure.
 

Related Threads for: Mathematical Derivation of Significant Figure Rules

Replies
3
Views
272
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
17K
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top