- #1

- 3

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- B
- Thread starter HuuChi1778
- Start date

- #1

- 3

- 0

- #2

- 17,675

- 7,633

Have you tried figuring the answer out for yourself? If so, what were your thoughts?

- #3

- 3

- 0

I do have a few ideas on this topic. I think that significant digits are there to determine the amount of precision of the given data. I believe that the reason why we take the least number of decimal places when adding and subtracting is because we cannot have a result that is more precise than the least precise number(s). For example, when adding 5.1 + 5.20, the answer should be 10.3. It is because the precision (+- 0.1) of the number 5.1 is less precise than the precision of the number 5.20 which is +- 0.01. However, I cannot think of a good reason why we apply the rule of rounding to the least number of significant digits instead round the number to the least decimal places. I would like an answer from an expert like you. Thank you!

Last edited:

- #4

- 17,675

- 7,633

What happens to the errors when multiplying?

- #5

- 3

- 0

- #6

- 17,675

- 7,633

Adding two numbers gives you

$$

(a \pm \delta a) + (b \pm \delta b) = (a+b) \pm \delta a \pm \delta b = (a+b)\left( 1 + \frac{\pm \delta a \pm \delta b}{a+b}\right).

$$

Clearly, the larger of ##\delta a## and ##\delta b## here dominates the error and you should use the larger error (the number with the smaller number of decimals has the larger error) to determine how many decimals you can reasonably use.

Multiplying two numbers gives you

$$

(a \pm \delta a) (b \pm \delta b) = ab (1\pm\delta a/a)(1\pm\delta b/b) \simeq ab (1 \pm \delta a/a \pm \delta b/b),

$$

where we have assumed that the errors are relatively small so that the product of the errors is negligible. Clearly, the number with the larger

- #7

- 830

- 197

Why do we take the least number of significant digits when multiplying/dividing?

Actually you round to the least number of significant figures

- #8

- 17,675

- 7,633

YouActually you round to the least number of significant figuresaftermultiplying/dividing. During the process itself I believe you keep one or two more significant figures (if you have them) than the least precise multiplicand/dividend/divisor contained in your product/quotient.

- #9

jbriggs444

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 10,512

- 5,112

*gets up from his front porch chair and shakes his cane at the young whippersnappers walking by*. In my day...Youneverround your answer until all computations are done, regardless of the operation.

If you are computing with longhand arithmetic, you will want to round off. Each multiplication would otherwise double the number of figures you are computing with and each division would likely result in an infinite string. If you are using a log or trig table in your handy CRC, those results are already rounded.

Edit: And if you are a whippersnapper, using a calculator or computer, you are almost certainly rounding off anyway. Which

- #10

- 17,675

- 7,633

*gets up from his front porch chair and shakes his cane at the young whippersnappers walking by*. In my day...

If you are computing with longhand arithmetic, you will want to round off. Each multiplication would otherwise double the number of figures you are computing with and each division would likely result in an infinite string. If you are using a log or trig table in your handy CRC, those results are already rounded.

I think "never" is accurate enough for a B-level thread in an age where people are using calculators and computing numbers with at most three significant digits ...

- #11

Khashishi

Science Advisor

- 2,815

- 493

3.24 + 5.5

we are really adding

(3.24 +- 0.005) + (5.5 +- 0.05)

Now, if we don't have any additional information about the distributions of the errors, then we just use the rule of thumb where we "absorb" the smaller error into the larger one, and we get

8.74 +- 0.05

which is just 8.7

Now, as an exercise, try the same thing with multiplication.

By the way, if you do have more information about the distribution of errors, then you probably shouldn't use the rules of significant figures and instead use explicit propagation of errors.

Share:

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 7K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K