Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!oliver
From: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: The Perils of Nutrasweet: digits of precision
Message-ID: <82@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 17:49:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.82
Posted: Sat Aug  3 17:49:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Aug-85 07:28:16 EDT
References: <771@burl.UUCP> <394@petrus.UUCP> <182@steinmetz.UUCP> <208@steinmetz.UUCP> <5183@elsie.UUCP> <1634@orca.UUCP>
Reply-To: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver)
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 29
Summary: 

In article <1634@orca.UUCP> andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) writes:
>>> I am positive that more than .007% of the
>>> people I know are affected by Nutrasweet-sweetened soft drinks,
>>> so I am much more inclined to believe the 10% figure.
>>
>>	3-digit precision based solely on anecdotal evidence?
>>	This sugar/aspartame/honey/etc stuff
>>	is getting more & more ridiculous every day!
>
>Both the quoted numbers (.007% and 10%) have only one significant
>digit.  Leading and trailing zeroes are not significant.
>
>If we're going to argue that science is on our side, we must avoid
>abusing mathematics, the language of science.
>
>  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew)       [UUCP]
>                        (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay)  [ARPA]


Perhaps the misunderstanding is due to problems of measurement as
opposed to numerical representation.  While, indeed, as far as
representation goes, 7E-3 and 1E1 are of the same significance,
a measurement of 0.007 has a much different significance than
10. For instance, a measurement of 0.007 grams implies an accuracy
of 0.0005 grams, while a measurement of 10 grams implies an accuracy
of 0.5 grams.  Indeed, in this case, 10 is by no means the same as
10.000, and the trailing zeroes are of great importance.

Bill Oliver