Significant Figures: Is My Way More Accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter M_LeComte
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Significant figures
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of significant figures in calculations within a physics context, specifically related to a formula involving mass, spring constant, amplitude, and time. Participants are examining discrepancies in their results due to differing approaches to significant figures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compare their method of calculation with that of their physics book, questioning the accuracy of significant figures used. Some participants raise concerns about how intermediate calculations are handled, particularly regarding rounding and significant figures.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively exploring the implications of significant figures on their results, with some agreeing on the importance of maintaining additional significant figures during calculations to reduce rounding errors. There is an acknowledgment of differing interpretations of how to apply significant figures in this context.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of specific values and their significant figures, such as A being noted as 0.15 versus 0.150, which influences the final results. The discussion also highlights the potential for discrepancies arising from the order of operations and the treatment of intermediate results.

M_LeComte
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
The author of my physics book seems to be a little significant-figure-happy:
m=150.0, k=225, A=.15, t=3.00, δ=π
He does this : -A√k/m)sin(t√k/m)+δ)=-.15*1.22sin(3.00*1.22+π)=-.0907
Whereas I do: -A√k/m)sin(t√k/m)+δ)=-A√k/m)sin(3.67+π)=-A√k/m)sin(6.81)=-.0924

Isn't my way more accurate? These discrepancies are driving me nuts as they occur in almost every problem (and there is no method to his madness), so I just wanted to know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
M_LeComte said:
The author of my physics book seems to be a little significant-figure-happy:
m=150.0, k=225, A=.15, t=3.00, ?=?
He does this : -A?k/m)sin(t?k/m)+?)=-.15*1.22sin(3.00*1.22+?)=-.0907
Whereas I do: -A?k/m)sin(t?k/m)+?)=-A?k/m)sin(3.67+?)=-A?k/m)sin(6.81)=-.0924

Isn't my way more accurate? These discrepancies are driving me nuts as they occur in almost every problem (and there is no method to his madness), so I just wanted to know.

How did (3.00*1.22) become 3.67? THis alone accounts for the discrepency.
 
Here is a hint:

3 * 1.22 is 3.66 not 3.67

Does that help?
 
t=3.00, k=225, m=150.0
√k/m)=1.22
and
1.22t=3.66
but
t√k/m)=3.67

And therein lies the problem. He's making a sig fig calculation before multiplying √k/m) by t. There's also a discrepancy in the ways we approach what's inside the sine function, thus exacerbating the already-present difference in our answers. To me, mine seems the more accurate way to do it, but I just wanted to make sure.
 
OK, I actually agree with you. When solving intermediate solutions it's a good idea to keep "sig plus one" figures to minimize rounding error. It doesn't matter too much here, since the final answer is limited to two sig figs due to the A = 0.15 factor. The discrepency is only .091 vs. .092 .
 
When solving the intermediate, you give correct number of sig fig, but then continuing the path to the final answer without having rounded at all.
 
I think that it is always best so solve equations algerbraically first, then plug and chug the numbers :smile:
 
'A' should actually be .150, so the difference between our answers is a bit bigger.

Thanks guys.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K