Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: Scientific notation [03]
Replies: 1   Last Post: Aug 17, 2009 5:36 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 DCJLEE@AOL.COM Posts: 28 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Scientific notation [03]
Posted: Aug 17, 2009 4:34 PM
 Plain Text Reply
 att1.html (2.3 K)

I agree with Bob's opinion. But that's not the point or purpose of this
thread.

Since we are talking about scientific notation, shouldn't the conversion
be carried out with a "physical (measurement) sense" in mind, even if it is
to be done in a math quiz?
I've read somewhere that ambiguity can be avoided in at least one scenario:
Write 255,000 if 3 significant digits is intended.
Write 255,000. (with a trailing decimal point) if 6 significant digits is
intended.
What are we to do (in a nonclumsy way) if we intend something in between?

In a message dated 8/17/2009 8:02:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bob@rsccore.com writes:

I would say that in a mathematical sense, your friend is right. In a
physical (measurement) sense, you are right. It is hard to talk about precision
without some context.

For example, 255,000 might only have 3 digits of precision. You really
don't know how many digits of precision that number has because it wasn't
indicated (which is an advantage of scientific notation). Generally, they would
indicate the precision separately if they are just using standard notation.

But you are correct to say that a number written as 2.55000 * 10^5 has 6
digits of precision.

Anyways, that is how I would describe it.

Date Subject Author
8/17/09 DCJLEE@AOL.COM
8/17/09 Michael Paul Goldenberg

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.