"unruh" <un...@invalid.ca> wrote in message
news:uNJar.12581$qc3.8...@newsfe16.iad...
[]
Most likely I would be looking at a histogram of the reported offsets,
and
see whether it was gaussian, flat, or whatever, and how wide. I might
learn something from that.
No. Not if it is just noise.
.. but until I see I won't know.
[]
precision is not accuracy.
and where did I say it was?
In science we teach students not to report unwarranted precision-- the
precision should reflect the accuracy of the measurements. We keep
getting measurements to the mm and reported precision to angstoms
because that was what the calculator spit out.
I hope you teach error estimation as well.
I am not averse to reporting with a precion maybe up to a factor of 10
better than the accuracy, but any more is just silly and misleading (as
you are demonstrating in believing that a greater precision would convey
some extra information.
Should you read what I wrote, including the bug report, perhaps you would
see that I was quite happy for the number of reported digits to depend on
the precision which NTP reports, but to keep things simple I suggested
using the same reporting precision as is used in the loopstats, The
present integer microseconds are no longer adequate for the faster and
better of today's NTP systems.
David
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
