Whoops!
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Jim Clark wrote:
> I also felt that the rules presumed a certain consistency in
> writing out the raw numbers. For example if you measured
> something to the nearest second and recorded it as 2, 3, etc.,
> then it would be processed as though there were only 1
> significant digit; that is, as though you actually measured just
> to within .5 inch in each case. But if you wrote them down as
> 2.0, 3.0, etc. then there would be 2 significant digits, on the
> assumption you were now measuring to .05 inch. My suspicion is
> the latter would more properly characterize the measurement
> operation irrespective of what numbers were written down.
There I go mixing my metaphors again! Read "seconds" instead of
"inch" above.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
