Decimal Places and Significant FiguresDate: 02/05/99 at 04:04:13 From: zakia ali Subject: Number skills If a length of 5.738km is rounded to 5.7km, then the accuracy is either "to .....d.p." or "to .....s.f." I am stuck on this problem. Could you help me? Date: 02/05/99 at 12:46:29 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: Number skills Welcome to the Doctor's office, Zakia. I'm happy to help, and I'll give you a little more than you asked for - an explanation of why "d.p." and "s.f." matter. "Accurate to N decimal places" means the number of digits to the right of the decimal point that you can trust is N. For example, if I measure a length with a ruler that shows millimeters, the measurement will be accurate to one millimeter, or 3 decimal places if I write it in meters (0.001 m). If I claimed to have measured it as 1.1293 m, you'd know I was guessing about the 3, and would round it off to the nearest thousandth: 1.129. The ruler will always produce the same number of decimal places. So your number, 5.7 km, is presumed to be accurate to one decimal place. "Accurate to N significant figures" means the total number of meaningful digits that you can trust is N. For example, in my 1.129 m, there are four digits I consider dependable, based on how I measured. If I had measured 0.024 m with the same ruler, there would be only two significant figures. (The zeroes are there only to show the place value of the other digits, and aren't "significant.") The ruler doesn't always produce the same number of significant figures, because it is better at measuring larger things. If I tried to measure something smaller than a millimeter, it would be useless - it wouldn't give me any significant figures at all! In your number there are two significant figures, 5 and 7. The number of decimal places matters when you are adding the numbers. For example, if I add 1.2 and 3.45, with different numbers of decimal places, I don't know what the hundredths place of 1.2 is, or what the thousandths place of 3.45 is. I can put an X for the unknown digits and see what happens: actual with X's 1.2 1.2XX + 3.45 + 3.45X ------ ------- 4.65 4.6XX You see, since I don't know all the hundredths I'm adding, I have no idea what the hundredths place of the result is, so I have to drop the 5, and call the answer 4.6, accurate to only one decimal place. (Even the tenths might be wrong because of a carry, but it won't be too far off.) When I add numbers, the result is only accurate to the smallest number of decimal places I'm adding. In this case, since 1.2 has only 2 decimal places, that's all I can keep in my answer. On the other hand, if I multiply numbers, what counts is the number of significant figures. Suppose I run for 1.45 hours at 6.1 miles per hour. Then I've gone 1.45 * 6.1 miles. How accurate is that? Again I'll put an X for the unknown places and see what happens: actual with X's 1.4 5 1.4 5 X x 6.1 x 6.1 X --------- ----------- 1 4 5 X X X X 8 7 0 1 4 5 X --------- 8 7 0 X 8.8 4 5 ----------- 8.8 X X X X You can see that the number of significant figures in the result (2) is the smaller of the significant figures for the two multiplicands (3 and 2), so I have to write my answer as 8.8, rounding it to two significant figures and dropping two digits that I worked hard for and would otherwise have thought were good. Since 6.1 has only two significant figures, I can't keep more than that in my answer. So that's why decimal places and significant figures are both useful. I hope that gives you a better feel for this concept. It's especially important in the age of calculators, which give us a false sense of accuracy in cases like this! - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994-2013 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/