From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:40:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:40:24 -0400 Received: from yoda.planetinternet.be ([195.95.30.146]:54286 "EHLO yoda.planetinternet.be") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:40:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:39:49 +0200 From: Kurt Roeckx To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Kai Henningsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: temperature standard - global config option? Message-ID: <20010621173949.D378@ping.be> In-Reply-To: <200106082116.f58LGd2497562@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <83JR8lhmw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:18:12PM +0100, Jonathan Morton wrote: > I've been taught by every Maths, Engineering and Physics > teacher/lecturer I've encountered to write down significant figures > consistent with the precision of the value. So blindly writing down > a value of 59.42886726469 ±2°C is obviously ludicrous, even if that's > what my calculator gives me. I should instead write 59 ±2°C, since > that is the most precision I can possibly know it to. With some > advanced measuring techniques it *may* be acceptable to write 59.43 > ±2°C *at most*, and then only if you really know why you need the > extra information. What they teached me in school is about the same. But the rule for the precision was to use two signicifant(?) decimals. So you end up with 59.4 ± 2.0 °C or something. Also note that you have to round up the precision, so it couldn't have been 2.01, but could have been 1.01 the way you wrote it. Kurt