McLeod wrote:

Calgary, Alberta.

Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

Brian C. Baird wrote:

Precision
n.
1. The state or quality of being precise; exactness.

Well, if you don't use a technical dictionary, then
anything is possible, including circular definitions.

2. a The ability of a measurement to be consistently
reproduced.

Factually wrong, that's accuracy.

b The number of significant digits to which a value
has been reliably measured.

By even your previous statements, this is only half
true, by only one definition of significant digits.

Now some will report precision as the number
of digits past the decimal point, but that is a
numerical definition only applicable in the world
of math where you don't have to worry about
the accuracy of your measurement.

Pure baloney. Precision past the decimal point has
been used in every engineering job I've done for
the past thirty years.

I mean, how else would you account for 0.5336 km
and 533.6 m? They are both precise to 4 figures...

You didn't convert to common units, which is
fundamental in any discussion of this type. If you
do that, which you would in a lab, a drafting room
or a work site, you'd see your argument falls apart.
Both figures are equally precise to a common unit.

I'm going to break off here. Have a nice day.

Calgary, Alberta.

From: Alan Browne

Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

That's a baaaaad joke.

Calgary, Alberta.

From: Alan Browne

Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

That's a baaaaad joke.

Calgary, Alberta.

From: Alan Browne

Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

That's a baaaaad joke.

Google GROUPS, Carl! Click on the word "Groups" at the top of the
Google page, and then repeat the search - it's not a normal Web
search.

In fact, I also took the liberty of searching for any Jon Pike images
(that's Google IMAGE search) - as he claims on many of his posts to be
a well-known photographer. Also any articles, a web page, etc..
Guess how many images or references I found? Right. I *did* find a
disturbing archived copy of an old website he had - and I would like
to feel sorry for him, but Geez, read some of those postings...


Now lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite.. here is a small gallery
of *my* images.

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm

They are not my best work (in fact a couple of them are poorly
post-processed and show bad burnt highlights and oversharpening,
tut-tut) - they were all taken on a single day down at my local marina
to test out a new camera. (And no, Chaz S. isn't my real name. Unlike
Jon, I don't feel any great urge to identify myself absolutely, so
that's all the evidence you get. Judge me by what I say, and if I'm
wrong, tell me and show references. If I am repeatedly wrong and
won't admit it, then feel free to call *me* a dick, too...)

(O;

Google GROUPS, Carl! Click on the word "Groups" at the top of the
Google page, and then repeat the search - it's not a normal Web
search.

In fact, I also took the liberty of searching for any Jon Pike images
(that's Google IMAGE search) - as he claims on many of his posts to be
a well-known photographer. Also any articles, a web page, etc..
Guess how many images or references I found? Right. I *did* find a
disturbing archived copy of an old website he had - and I would like
to feel sorry for him, but Geez, read some of those postings...


Now lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite.. here is a small gallery
of *my* images.

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm

They are not my best work (in fact a couple of them are poorly
post-processed and show bad burnt highlights and oversharpening,
tut-tut) - they were all taken on a single day down at my local marina
to test out a new camera. (And no, Chaz S. isn't my real name. Unlike
Jon, I don't feel any great urge to identify myself absolutely, so
that's all the evidence you get. Judge me by what I say, and if I'm
wrong, tell me and show references. If I am repeatedly wrong and
won't admit it, then feel free to call *me* a dick, too...)

(O;

Google GROUPS, Carl! Click on the word "Groups" at the top of the
Google page, and then repeat the search - it's not a normal Web
search.

In fact, I also took the liberty of searching for any Jon Pike images
(that's Google IMAGE search) - as he claims on many of his posts to be
a well-known photographer. Also any articles, a web page, etc..
Guess how many images or references I found? Right. I *did* find a
disturbing archived copy of an old website he had - and I would like
to feel sorry for him, but Geez, read some of those postings...


Now lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite.. here is a small gallery
of *my* images.

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm

They are not my best work (in fact a couple of them are poorly
post-processed and show bad burnt highlights and oversharpening,
tut-tut) - they were all taken on a single day down at my local marina
to test out a new camera. (And no, Chaz S. isn't my real name. Unlike
Jon, I don't feel any great urge to identify myself absolutely, so
that's all the evidence you get. Judge me by what I say, and if I'm
wrong, tell me and show references. If I am repeatedly wrong and
won't admit it, then feel free to call *me* a dick, too...)

(O;

Mickey, *you* probably need to look a little more closely at the types
of precision and how they are applicable. If you look back, you'll
notice that the numbers were in millimetres, but then jumped to
centimetres, plus there were ratios, etc.. Think about how logical it
is to just use 2 digits after the decimal, if you then *change* the
decimal by a factor of ten or a hundred - should it *still* be two
digits? If so, where will the new numbers come from, or what about
the ones that disappear? (O:

Two digit decimal precision refers to a tight set of circumstances
where your units don't keep changing around, and it is not
particularly relevant in this case. And Jon certainly didn't start by
using two digit precision - if he did, then his initial figures of
35.5 and 24.5 mm are WRONG. The measurements of a 35mm negative are
NOT 35.50mm and 24.50mm. It's nitpicking, I know, but when one claims
high ground and criticises others, well...


Thanks for the Monster comment, but that musta been my evil twin..
I'm innocent.

Chrlz wrote:

Mickey, *you* probably need to look a little
more closely at the types of precision and how
they are applicable.

See other posts.

If you look back, you'll notice that the numbers
were in millimetres, but then jumped to centimetres,
plus there were ratios, etc.

Well, had you cited my post and your precursor, you'd
note that in the point under discussion, no such jumping
around occurred. I remarked specifically upon one
comment where two multiplicands with xx.1mm precision
resulted in a single product with xxx.01mm precision,
which you described as "five-digit precision." Discussion,
too, can be precise.