Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: What is precision of a number representation?
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:17:13 -0700
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <mailman.198.1468275424.2295.python-list@python.org>
References: <834b1cce-38dd-474c-8915-4ff1cd6b27ec@googlegroups.com> <CALwzidmwcc0nTLtLBJm=JNAjOQNRe2umtmNXNAk=s+xoyxhU6Q@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.161.1468135349.2295.python-list@python.org> <7fcc8c21-106f-41d4-a5ba-409f3b54a56d@googlegroups.com> <CALwzidkiRh2+ttXewaQzyJhAKMjTb7AXYk=E2SxGyH_jw9o1gw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.180.1468249505.2295.python-list@python.org> <5783c91e$0$1622$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <5783D63F.5040307@stoneleaf.us> <8560sbvqqd.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <CAPTjJmqL=1cxkCK+PAdTK7Cky95B_QoUNTZkgBxKDcJ9XGf+Bw@mail.gmail.com> <57841AE9.3090508@stoneleaf.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmqL=1cxkCK+PAdTK7Cky95B_QoUNTZkgBxKDcJ9XGf+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:111298

On 07/11/2016 02:51 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Ben Finney wrote:

>> Precision is not a property of the number. It is a property of the
>> *representation* of that number.
>>
>> The representation “1×10²” has a precision of one digit.
>> The representation “100” has a precision of three digits.
>> The representation “00100” has a precision of five digits.
>> The representation “100.00” also has a precision of five digits.
>>
>> Those can all represent the same number; or maybe some of them represent
>> “one hundred” and others represent “one hundred and a millionth”.
>>
>
> Yep. Precision is also a property of a measurement, the same way that
> a unit is. If I pace out the length of the main corridor in my house,
> I might come up with a result of thirty meters. The number is "30";
> the unit is "meters", the precision is two significant digits, and the
> accuracy depends on how good I am at pacing distance.
>
> This is why it's important to be able to record precisions of
> arbitrary numbers. If I then measure the width of this corridor with a
> laser, I could get an extremely precise answer - say, 2,147
> millimeters, with a precision of four significant digits, and
> excellent accuracy. But if I multiply those numbers together to
> establish the floor area of the corridor, the result does NOT have
> four significant figures. It would be 64 square meters (not 64.41),
> and the accuracy would be pretty low (effectively, the *in*accuracies
> of both measurements get combined). But on the other hand, if you want
> to know whether your new fridge will fit, you could measure it with
> the same laser and come up with a figure of 1,973 mm (four sig fig),
> which would mean your clearance is 174mm (four sig fig). How do you
> record this? Is it 174.0? 0174? "174 with four significant figures"?

174.0, because those last tenths of a millimeter could be very 
important, while knowledge that there are no thousands of millimeters is 
already present.

So, so far there is no explanation of why leading zeroes make a number 
more precise.

--
~Ethan~