|
DelphiAegis posted:Yes but if you measure things in 12s, it's much easier to say "you three of you get 4 things each" than it is if you measure by 10s and having to say "you three get three things and a tiny bit more, each" is my point. you can also count to 12 on one hand using your thumb on the phalanges of your fingers. Assuming, of course, you still have all your fingers.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
emf posted:Counterpoint: 1/2 is exactly as precise as 0.5, 1/4 is exactly as precise as 0.25, 1/3 is infinitely more precise than 0.33333333333
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Very few Americans are truly illiterate, in the sense of being unable to read a sentence and understand its meaning. Less than 4% of the adult population reads at that level, not including people with cognitive disabilities that would prevent them from doing a literacy test in the first place. A more disturbing fact is just how low the level of literacy is among people who are able to read. More than half the country reads at PIAAC level 2 or below, which roughly corresponds to what used to be called a sixth-grade level. At that stage you can read a paragraph pretty well, but you may not be able to e.g. pick multiple pieces of information from different parts of a text and synthesize them to understand the theme. You can read the instructions on a pill bottle, but you might not be able to get through the full list of side effects. You definitely can't understand all of the content in a voter information guide. Half the country. Where have we seen that number before Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
zedprime posted:1/4 is one significant digit and 0.25 is two so I'd call them different precision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:This is some smoke and mirrors poo poo Precision is what your result looks like and how many characters are needed to describe it. That's it, don't ascribe more to it, I'm begging all of you Accuracy is how often you get the same result doing the same thing. Both these terms are useless mathematically and only mean something in context of doing something to a physical thing compared to alternative methods of doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
I use a ruler that is divided into sevenths so all my measurements have like ten sig figs once I convert them to decimal. It's one trick for insane precision that engineers don't want you to know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_qjp2kdIMBo1w5pr9j.mp4
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Well, gently caress that
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
I use an IEEE 754 ruler, sometimes my pencil skips around a bit
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Would you also argue 0.2 and 0.20000 are the same precision because they are mathematically the same number? I am pretty sure that fractions do not have sig figs, like the concept does not apply to them The concept has always been a bit strange to me anyway, like the official Kg was 1.0000000000 Kg but the measurement would be "more precise" if it was 1.0000000001 Kg - Sig Figs are only really meaningful when you don't know the accuracy of your measurement instruments or who measured them, they aren't magic, it's just a useful rule Plus, I don't think many chemists are using inches in their calculations so it's probably not super relevant anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
it works don't it
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
This thread has taught me that the film Sorcerer is terribly unrealistic, real truck drivers would just floor it over that bridge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Someone once told me that the reason that Imperial measurements are fractional instead of decimal is that it's much easier for illiterate people to work with fractions, even if decimals are more precise. Not sure if it's true, but it sure makes a lot of sense. How on earth are fractions easier to work with. Ask nearly anybody add convert and add fractions together and you'll get blank looks. See: burger king 1/3 pounder failed because people thought it was smaller than McDonald's 1/4 pounder. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pikrntjcbyw
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PerfectlyShots/status/1328791535022989318?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Would you also argue 0.2 and 0.20000 are the same precision because they are mathematically the same number? fractions don't have significant digits, hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
stratdax posted:How on earth are fractions easier to work with. Ask nearly anybody add convert and add fractions together and you'll get blank looks. See: burger king 1/3 pounder failed because people thought it was smaller than McDonald's 1/4 pounder. Also: If you're dealing with weights and lengths to measure out grain or metals for barter or for cutting stone or wood for construction, fractions are far easier. Finding the midpoint to cut something in half is simple. It's only when you're doing something like machining metal to the tolerances to build a steam engine that decimal units get better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
BMan posted:fractions don't have significant digits, hth lol thank you im a math teacher that guy doesnt know what the hell hes talking about HugeGrossBurrito fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
stratdax posted:How on earth are fractions easier to work with. Ask nearly anybody add convert and add fractions together and you'll get blank looks. See: burger king 1/3 pounder failed because people thought it was smaller than McDonald's 1/4 pounder. Also:` people who have to do approximate math in their head regularly: fractions are better people who have to do precision math with tools regularly: decimals are better the vast majority of americans, who are barely numerate and can't figure out a 20% tip without a calculator: blank stare this isn't perfectly cut at all!! the perfect cut would be 1 frame after it explodes, or perhaps the instant it hits him in the chest
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Ok let me use the good math words because I don't know how to make a story clearer than the basket of flour. I am a merry miller and I loving love base 4. I have a basket of 10 flour. I want to give my 10 friends their flour. So I split it up in all four parts. Part 1 for my first friend, part 2 for my second friend, part 3 for my 3rd friend, and part 10 for my 10th friend. I measure out 1 base 4 each time. 1 is the extent of my precision at this point. 1/4 is homologous to 1 part out of 10 base 4. Ps. Ror posted:I use a ruler that is divided into sevenths so all my measurements have like ten sig figs once I convert them to decimal. It's one trick for insane precision that engineers don't want you to know. E.e. final word: I regret using the term significant digits but everything I have said about precision is bullet proof. Measuring flour by hand for four people, 1/4 is low precision high accuracy and measuring by 0.25 is high precision low accuracy. Thank you God bless zedprime fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Ok let me use the good math words because I don't know how to make a story clearer than the basket of flour. I took 10d4 psychic damage from this post
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
zedprime posted:1/4 is one significant digit and 0.25 is two so I'd call them different precision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/wUTbjeB.mp4
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
They ... almost made it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Powershift posted:you can also count to 12 on one hand using your thumb on the phalanges of your fingers. Whoa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
I thought this would end in power lines. Probably best he never made it airborne.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Podima posted:Whoa. It even has a cool name, dozenic finger counting.  And who said you never see em fing
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Wow, I didn’t know they made another season of Good Omens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It even has a cool name, dozenic finger counting. finger binary is where it's at
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:I am pretty sure that fractions do not have sig figs, like the concept does not apply to them 1.0000000000 1.0000000001 Those two numbers have the same significant figures and are equally precise. If you have a digit in front of the decimal, then every digit after the decimal adds to the precision. That's the entire point of scientific notation. If I have the number 2350, how many sigfigs does it have? It could be 3 or 4, there's no way to tell for sure. But 2.350e3 has 4 sigfigs no doubt about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It even has a cool name, dozenic finger counting. I do a history of math as the first week of all my classes and I had them come up with ways of counting without numbers and a kid figured this out on their own it was cool as poo poo. When I related it back to base 60 ie 60 seconds in a minute etc it really blew the classes mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It even has a cool name, dozenic finger counting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:1.0000000000 You're right of course I got a detail wrong, it's been ages since I've used sig figs for anything point still stands that a measurement of 0.1000 and 0.1001 can be just as accurate and come from the same device, but the solution is basically to fudge it in the first case to note it the second way The system has important uses but also significant drawbacks
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
HugeGrossBurrito posted:I do a history of math as the first week of all my classes and I had them come up with ways of counting without numbers and a kid figured this out on their own it was cool as poo poo. When I related it back to base 60 ie 60 seconds in a minute etc it really blew the classes mind. I wish you were my math teacher because I just figured that poo poo out with the help of the internet a few months ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
HugeGrossBurrito posted:I do a history of math as the first week of all my classes and I had them come up with ways of counting without numbers and a kid figured this out on their own it was cool as poo poo. When I related it back to base 60 ie 60 seconds in a minute etc it really blew the classes mind. I mean, the Sumerians spent a good 2000+ years figuring out their numbering system. They definitely got a few things right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Stingwing posted:This guy got a degree and became a teacher even though he was illiterate. Wait till you see who's the president!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:I mean, the Sumerians spent a good 2000+ years figuring out their numbering system. They definitely got a few things right. makes sense, nobody could call themselves a sumerian and not be able to figure a few sums
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:You're right of course I got a detail wrong, it's been ages since I've used sig figs for anything I feel like what you're getting at is that properly reporting the uncertainty of a measurement is more useful than simply reporting the resolution that measurement was taken from? For example, it's better to state that a dimension was measured as 0.1 inches with an uncertainty of 0.0001 inches, and to properly report the origin of that uncertainty (i.e., trace the calibration of that measurement back to the definition of the meter.) Technically, I agree with you! But if you expect everyone to follow the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement for literally everything, that seems... unlikely. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf "How thick would you like your cheddar cut? Our deli slicer had been calibrated traceable to NIST with an uncertainty of 0.25mm over its entire settings. Here's the calibration certificate."
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
zedprime posted:1/4 is one significant digit and 0.25 is two so I'd call them different precision. This loops back into your main point about it coming from how you measure because they are mathematically the same number but if you're going to mention precision in a technical matter I think it's worth quibbling. Besides the point being if you have a basket of flour that you want to split between four people it's going to be more accurate to assemble with precision of 1/4 than 0.25 because you can just divide it equally twice compared to divide it 100 times and put 25 back together. Working in engineering with fractions was always kinda hosed because the tolerances end up being based on the size of the measurement, not the values of the fractions (ie, 0-12" it's +/- 1/64, 12-36" it's +/- 1/32, and anything over 3 ft is +/- 1/16). We did everything in SAE at my last job, but used decimals on our prints. but that gets funny if you have a, say, a hole pattern with 1/4" spacing, but only need the precision of one decimal point, so you get a bunch of holes 0.3" apart and you're out 1/2" on the tenth hole (which is why you dimension everything to the same reference instead of relative to each other, but that's another matter), so you dimension it to two decimal places and create a custom tolerance of one decimal place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Working in engineering with fractions was always kinda hosed because the tolerances end up being based on the size of the measurement, not the values of the fractions (ie, 0-12" it's +/- 1/64, 12-36" it's +/- 1/32, and anything over 3 ft is +/- 1/16). We did everything in SAE at my last job, but used decimals on our prints. but that gets funny if you have a, say, a hole pattern with 1/4" spacing, but only need the precision of one decimal point, so you get a bunch of holes 0.3" apart and you're out 1/2" on the tenth hole (which is why you dimension everything to the same reference instead of relative to each other, but that's another matter), so you dimension it to two decimal places and create a custom tolerance of one decimal place. This poo poo is why GD&T exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
One of my go-to pointless rants is that we should convert the world to a base 12 number system. Just think, it's all the advantages of the SI system and metric units, except you also get all the sweet division options from base 12, you can count on one hand, and you get to keep time units in their current form without their maths being so awful
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:31
|
|
