Significant Figures: Why Leading Zeros Don't Count

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RaduAndrei
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Significant figures
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of significant figures, particularly focusing on why leading zeros are not counted as significant. Participants explore the relationship between significant figures, precision, and relative error in measurements, using examples from voltage measurements and discussing implications for different units.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why leading zeros do not count as significant figures, particularly in the context of measurements like 0.01 V compared to 8.84 V.
  • It is suggested that significant figures relate to relative error, with smaller values having larger relative errors.
  • Participants discuss the connection between significant figures and precision, noting that an instrument's precision can yield different significant figures for values above and below 1.
  • There is a proposal that significant figures may vary based on the magnitude of the measured value, with examples illustrating this variability.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between significant figures and precision, suggesting that the number of significant figures does not always reflect the precision of the measurement instrument.
  • A later reply summarizes a potential misunderstanding regarding the definition of precision and significant figures, indicating that significant figures may not accurately represent the precision of measurements across different magnitudes.
  • Another participant shares an anecdote about a javelin throw measurement to illustrate issues with precision and significant figures in practical scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between significant figures and precision, with no consensus reached on how these concepts interact, particularly for measurements of varying magnitudes.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions include assumptions about the definitions of precision and significant figures, and the implications of measurement scales, which remain unresolved.

  • #31
RaduAndrei said:
I am not saying 'add' in the way that I actually add the number of significant figures with the precision. I'm saying it in a figuratively way.
The more significant figures you have in the decimal places, the more precision you have.

Or is this wrong?
If the person doing the measurements knows what he/she is doing, the number of significant figures given represents the precision of the measurement. If not (see my earlier anecdote about introducing a lot of figures when converting from one standard to another), the number of "significant" figures are neither significant nor bear any relation to the measurement precision.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
RaduAndrei said:
I am not saying 'add' in the way that I actually add the number of significant figures with the precision. I'm saying it in a figuratively way.
The more significant figures you have in the decimal places, the more precision you have.

Or is this wrong?
That idea is correct. A better word choice might be "related".
 
  • #33
jbriggs444 said:
Significant figures do not add to precision. They express the precision in a different way.

Ok. I finally understood it. (with the help of the book introduction to error analysis by Taylor)

A measured value with n significant figures means an uncertainty of one unit in the nth significant figure. Sometimes it means a bigger uncertainty, sometimes it means a smaller uncertainty, depending on the situation. But we adopt a middle of the road definition that it is one unit.

An uncertainty of one unit in the nth significant figure means some variable precision depending on the number (here precision is defined as uncertainty/measured value). So for 10, the precision is 10%, while for 99 the precision is 1%. We can say that the precision is roughly 50%.

In general for n sign figures, the precision can vary from 10^(-n+3)% to 10^(-n+2)%.

Thus, there is an approximate correspondence between the number of significant figures (as we defined them) and the precision (as we defined it) given by:
roughly precision [%] = 10^(-n+3)/2 %

PS: Also we adopted the convention that all trailing zeros are significant.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
15K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
669
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K