On 2014-04-29, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I'm trying to intuit, from the values I've been given, which coordinates
>> > are likely to be accurate to within a few miles. I'm willing to accept
>> > a few false negatives. If the number is float("38"), I'm willing to
>> > accept that it might actually be float("38.0000"), and I might be
>> > throwing out a good data point that I don't need to.
>>
>> You have one chance in ten, repeatably, of losing a digit. That is,
>> roughly 10% of your four-decimal figures will appear to be
>> three-decimal, and 1% of them will appear to be two-decimal, and so
>> on. Is that "a few" false negatives?
>
> You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not that the glass is 10%
> empty, it's that it's 90% full, and 90% is a lot of good data :-)
If you know _which_ is the good data and which is the bad...
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm sitting on my
at SPEED QUEEN ... To me,
gmail.com it's ENJOYABLE ... I'm WARM
... I'm VIBRATORY ...
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
