Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around identifying and debating errata in the book "Thomas' Calculus Early Transcendentals Media Upgrade 11th edition." Participants focus on specific statements regarding the accuracy of approximations, particularly concerning the square root of 3 and the interpretation of decimal places versus significant digits.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note an illustration on page 179 that may not be a photograph, suggesting it could be an artist's rendition.
- On page 242, a statement claims that the linearization gives 2 as an approximation for \sqrt{3}, which is said to be inaccurate to one decimal place. Some participants argue that this is incorrect and that 2 is indeed accurate to one decimal place when compared to 1.9999999999999.
- Others challenge the interpretation of accuracy, suggesting that accuracy should be measured in terms of significant digits rather than decimal places.
- There is a discussion about how approximations like 2 for 1.9999999999999 and 2000 for 2001 relate to the concept of decimal places and significant digits.
- Some participants assert that the author's statement about accuracy is misleading, while others defend it, leading to further debate on the definitions of accuracy in this context.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express conflicting views on the accuracy of the approximation of \sqrt{3} and the interpretation of the author's statements. There is no consensus on whether the author's claim about accuracy to one decimal place is correct or incorrect, and the discussion remains unresolved.
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight the ambiguity in the author's use of "decimal places" versus "significant digits," which contributes to the disagreement. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of accuracy in mathematical approximations.