Do Extra Sig Figs Affect Uncertainty in Calculation Results?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billabuwl50
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether extra significant figures (sig figs) in calculations affect the uncertainty of results or are merely a mathematical convention. It is clarified that sig figs are not strict mathematical rules but rather a guideline to convey measurement precision in inductive sciences. When averaging measurements, the result should not exceed the precision of the original data; for example, averaging 2.73, 2.73, 2.78, 2.74, and 2.54 yields 2.70, which is justified within the error bounds. The conversation emphasizes that while calculations may produce more precise numbers, the true uncertainty should be reflected in the final result. Ultimately, significant figures help indicate the reliability of measurements, but excessive precision can misrepresent the actual uncertainty.
billabuwl50
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
When your doing sig figs and you make an action such as average densities, and you end up with an extra sig fig, is there an actual change in the uncertainty if the quantity or is it just a rule of Math.

If I was forced to guess I would say the it was just a mathematical rule.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Sig figs aren't actually a math rule, since math doesn't deal with sig figs. They're a concept derived in inductive sciences, where measurements aren't 100% precise. Using significant figures, you give others an idea as to how precise your measurements are.

You shouldn't be ending up with extra sig figs that are more precise than your original... i.e., if your measurements looked like:

2.78
3.14

then calculating and coming up with a number such as

14.63

can be allowed, depending on the operation (there is an extra sig fig there), but something like:

1.463

shouldn't show up usually
 
for example

I have 2.73, 2.73, 2.78, 2.74, and 2.54. I want to average these usign sig figs. Currently they each have three. If I add them up you get 13.52. So now if you divide it by five you get 2.704, and you have still used sig fig rules.

Would this indicate an actual change in the uncertainty of the quanity, or is this a mathematical fact?
 
Don't you drop the extra once you're done?

So your final would be 2.70?
 
Nope, it stays. I just don't know what it means.
 
In general, significant figures (which aren't really math at all) are supposed to give a rough bound on the error. In particular, a number is presumed accurate to within 1/2 of a unit in the last place in general. With that assumption in place for the data, it's easy to see that the real average must then lie in the interval [2.699, 2.709]. Thus 2.70 is justified because the error is within 0.9 ULP (not as good as the 0.5 ULP of the data, but good enough). 2.704 isn't justified at all, since then the error would be within 5 ULPs, which is pretty bad.

Of course these are worst-case -- the errors usually cancel out, giving a better precision than interval arithmatic would suggest.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top