Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.033 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.93; '*S*': 0.00; 'algorithm': 0.04; 'says.': 0.09; '\xe2\x80\xa6)': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; '*any*': 0.16; '10:13': 0.16; 'expect,': 0.16; 'finney': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'wed,': 0.18; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'error': 0.23; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'am,': 0.29; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'ones.': 0.31; 'figure': 0.32; 'problem': 0.35; "can't": 0.35; 'good.': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'really': 0.36; 'acceptable': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'so,': 0.37; 'ben': 0.38; 'reported': 0.39; 'even': 0.60; 'different': 0.65; '30,': 0.65; 'percent': 0.68; '10%': 0.74; '(10': 0.84; 'predictions': 0.91; 'to:none': 0.92 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RidaS9IZdWRipgBDy7xmXnIuMB2o8TVtq5qqLo23AHU=; b=sH6Ac3YtRltGdAYd87CzdqjwWoH12WiDHqXelzAKrMFSnrY2Et7/UZvtm8CriLWmGx KsdMcnyBMC0Qti4Rb8uTS9YEH/n/26LyldgunKgGvyNonjKyDj1FnK5o1YngwSapSEp5 wuCrb9fkL1Bu8v1ahopBaD+lNe1haNaZVxekWySj+dpuMNB8/KvlfyPd0XvefXzV5B6T nJcSC7hCPcipZG3hRyxsQI9QbC46QHESdl3U+9+iSSTwXSM/b8MZPghtXJ26mdWjCzhV zTeLYyuQjzkmdowh+lO5rUJ0oW29s9muUyIjrNTwA937x9foCZl1yE/yLGj8cCCJ2k0L CwtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.74.200 with SMTP id yx8mr753291vcb.3.1398817075676; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:17:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <85bnvjk72p.fsf@benfinney.id.au> References: <535f0f9f$0$29965$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <85bnvjk72p.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:17:55 +1000 Subject: Re: Significant digits in a float? From: Chris Angelico Cc: "python-list@python.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1398817083 news.xs4all.nl 2877 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:55686 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:70742 On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > The problem is you won't know *which* 90% is accurate, and which 10% is > inaccurate. This is very different from the glass, where it's evident > which part is good. > > So, I can't see that you have any choice but to say that *any* of the > precision predictions should expect, on average, to be (10 + 1 + =E2=80= =A6) > percent inaccurate. And you can't know which ones. Is that an acceptable > error rate? But they're all going to be *at least* as accurate as the algorithm says. A figure of 31.4 will be treated as 1 decimal, even though it might really have been accurate to 4; but a figure of 27.1828 won't be incorrectly reported as having only 2 decimals. ChrisA