Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site tpvax.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!inc
From: inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: significant digits
Message-ID: <681@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 13:16:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: tpvax.681
Posted: Thu Aug 29 13:16:22 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 06:20:45 EDT
References: <2244@utcsstat.UUCP> <382@rti-sel.UUCP>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 44

>>... "What's the area of a table 3 meters wide by 4
>> meters long?"  I poked around with various counter-probes like, "Do you
>> mean the area of just the top surface, or the top and bottom combined?" and
>> then came up with the obvious answer; 12 meters^2.
 
> I cannot see what is wrong with the 'obvious answer',
> and I cannot recall reading in any textbook the justifications
> used for the answer '1x10^1 m^2'.  Even if we assume
> inexact measurements '12 m^2' is the best integral estimate.
> Perhaps I could be enlightened.
> 
> If I tell you that a right triangle has sides of length 3 and 4
> and ask you for the length of the hypotenuse are you going
> to answer '5' or are you going to worry about errors in measurement?
> If I ask you 'What is 6+7' are you going to answer 1x10^1??
> 
> If I ask you for 'the area of a table' are you going to
> ... assume I meant the area of an imaginary plane which has a good fit
> with the approximate surface of the table? Are you going to assume I meant
> the area of an idealized table which is flat and rectangular, and then
> assume I used a ruler accurate only to a half meter?? If that is the answer,
> then I am wrong and proud of it.
> 
> 	Tom Truscott
 

Right On! It always surprises me to see how applying a little common sense
can make mathematical concepts more clear |-)

Thanks for a breath of fresh air, Tom. It seems so droll and esoteric to
insist that the table exists in some realm of thought unaffected by first
rules. Your examples were all to the point, and nicely refute the eggheads'
stubborn stance. It's those who argue the obverse who give science it's
reputation for stogginess and indirection.

Just sign me --

Wrong And Proud Of It, Too


-- 
 Gary Benson  *  John Fluke Mfg. Co.  *  PO Box C9090  *  Everett WA  *  98206
   MS/232-E  = =   {allegra} {uw-beaver} !fluke!inc   = =   (206)356-5367
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ascii is our god and unix is his profit-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_