Talk:Significance arithmetic

message: How many sig. figs. are allowed in the result of the following mixed calculation?
: \frac{7.2}{29 - 25}
Since 29 - 25 = 4, is the quotient 7.2/4 entitled to only one sig. fig.?
::Yes, the answer being then 2! --Methylene Blue 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed Calculations 

message: The part about adding and subtracting sig figs is wrong at the part where it says:
* 100 + 110 = 210
:* 100, 110 are significant up to the ones place, even though these digits are zeroes. So will the answer.
100 has 1 sig fig, and 110 has 2, therefore the answer would technically be 200.  In order to do what they are saying you would have to do 1.00E2 + 1.10E2 = 2.10E2
:I changed 210 to 200, added an example that does add to 210, and clarified some of the prose.  Redhookesb 07:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article on significant figures says that 100 can have 1, 2, or 3 significant figures. It does not necessarily have 1 significant figure, so it should be specified, when one says/writes 100, how many significant figures it has. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 has one sig. fig.

message: I removed the following from the article:
 example: bean counting)
I'd be interested to know what that was, but the link is dead.  --Slashme 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me. It should be put back in. --Djsonik 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link(s) 

message: It seems to me that most people searching for "significant figures" (or "significant digits") would like both the (relevant) information from that article, plus the information in this article. I plan to merge them together soon, with a substantial cleanup (and probably expansion), including pushing all of the (mostly beyond-the-scope of this article) dissenting views about the usefulness of sig figs into a section much like I did here yesterday. Any objections? Jon the Geek (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-merge with Significant Figures? 

message: In colloquial English, "error" is a synonym for a mistake.  Let's try to avoid that usage here.
Bkalafut (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "error" to mean "mistake". 

message: The subject of this article is the usage of so-called "significant figures" or "digits" that are a crude and nebulous approximation to real significance arithmetic and error propagation.
Real significance arithmetic is the arithmetic of probability distributions. In this context, all measurements are considered as probability distributions, and arithmetic is performed on the distributions.
Something coming close to significance arithmetic, using things like standard deviation, is briefly treated here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ErrorPropagation.html
The limitations of significant figures (also entirely ignored by this article) are discussed in extensive detail here: http://www.av8n.com/physics/uncertainty.htm
This site includes the real meat of significance arithmetic. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/index.html
71.231.158.201 (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire article ignores proper significance arithmetic 

message: Recent edits have replaced the "equals" symbol with the "approximation" symbol.  Slightly pedantic, but I'm in the direction of agreeing.  First time I've thought of this, though.  Wanted to point it out, because I don't think it's completely irrelevant. Out of Phase User (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the Approximation Symbool 

message: The article says that 9.9 + 9.9 + 9.9 + 9.9 + 3.3 + 1.1 = 40.0
Shouldn't it be 44.0?
"When adding or subtracting using significant figures rules, results are rounded to the position of the least significant digit in the most uncertain of the numbers being added"
The result, before making any adjustments for significant figures, is 44 (exact). 44 (exact) rounded to the nearest tenth (position of the least significant digit in all of these numbers since they are equally uncertain) is 44.0 (44.00 rounds to 44.0). TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition using significance arithmetic 

message: "Significance arithmetic is a set of rules (sometimes called significant figure rules) for approximating the propagation of uncertainty in scientific or statistical calculations." I am not about to say that this should be removed, but it would be beneficial to add another sentence after it starting with "More simply..." or "In other words...", and explain it more easily. I don't see why I have to go read what propagation of uncertainty is when hundreds of textbooks explain significance arithmetic without introducing pointless big words. I am not complaining just about that sentence; there are many instances in this article where simpler explanations would be conducive to understanding.TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big words 

message: Assume that I have to multiply a number whose finite digits are all significant by a number that has infinite or almost infinite significant digits (e.g. I have to multiply 2.31 by pi, where the three digits of 2.31 are all significant). How many digits of the number with infinite significant digits do I use (e.g do I multiply 2.31 by 3.14, 3.141, 3.1)? I think that you must use at least one more than the amount of digits that the number with finite digits has and that using more than that does not change the result (if you round). I am not sure about this though. I think this should be added to the article. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplying by numbers with infinite (or almost) significant digits. 

message: "So 6 × 10^1 is the best one can give, as other possible answers give a false sense of accuracy. Further, the 6 × 10^1 is itself confusing (as it might be considered to imply 60 ± 5, which is over-optimistic; more accurate would be 64 ± 8)."
First it says it is the best answer and then it says it is confusing and there is a more accurate answer... TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I agree with the @Jon the Geek's post above from 2008 () that this article should be merged into , and I agree with the IP editor above () that this subject of this article doesn't seem worthy of the title 'Significance arithmetic', which more commonly refers to (various) more serious scientific tools. Moreover, this current article is an unsourced mess.
I'm going to WP:BOLDly change this article's title into a redirect to that section. –jacobolus (t) 02:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be merged into [[Significant figures#Arithmetic]]