Calculating Errors in Measurement
Date: 08/06/2002 at 16:02:20 From: Jeaneen Aldridge Subject: Significant digits/calculating error in measurement Dr. Math: Please help. I've been looking everywhere for the answer to these two related questions. Suppose you are told that a digital scale measures to the nearest 0.2kg and asked to find the absolute error involved in using the scale to weigh a cat that weighs 7.4 kg. It's not clear from the question whether 7.4 is the cat's "true" weight or the weight given by the scale, but I'm going to assume that it is the weight given by the scale. The way I figured it, the scale is in increments of 0.2kg, so the cat's actual weight would fall between 7.3 and 7.5, making the largest possible value for the absolute error 0.1 kg. However, my friend says the actual value would be between 7.2 and 7.6 kg, making the absolute error 0.2 kg. The next question goes like this: a schoolroom ruler measures lengths to the nearest millimeter. Find the absolute error in using the ruler to measure a line of length 0.5 cm. Here again, I'm assuming that if you can measure to the nearest millimeter, the actual value (or the measured value; once again it's not clear which is which) would fall somewhere between 0.45 and 0.55 cm and the absolute error would be .05 cm. My friend agrees with me on this one, but somehow I feel that we are both on shaky ground. I need an authoritative answer and explanation. Hope you can help. Also, could you explain how to calculate the relative and percent error in cases like the two given questions, where you don't really know the "true" value of the quantity? In both questions above, I've assumed that since the "true" value isn't really known, you would just determine the greatest distance that the actual value could differ from the measured value and use that difference as the absolute error. Every place I've looked defines relative error as the absolute error divided by the true (or accepted) value. In this case, the true value is unknown. So, would you just divide the absolute error by the measured value? Thanks, ja
Date: 08/07/2002 at 13:03:49 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: Significant digits/calculating error in measurement Hi, Jeaneen. Suppose the scale is an analog scale that looks like this: 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 ...--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--... ^ Your digital scale sort of snaps the needle to the nearest marking; so the actual weight might be anywhere in this range: 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 ...--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--... |<--->| 7.3 7.5 So the absolute error would be no greater than 0.1. I can't imagine why your friend would think a cat weighing 7.2 kg could show up as 7.4. If we took the 7.4 kg to be the cat's actual, exact weight, then the absolute error would be 0, since the scale would show 7.4 kg. I doubt that this is what was intended; rather, you would see 7.4 not knowing that that was the exact weight, and would have to determine from your observation what is the MAXIMUM possible absolute error based solely on the precision of the scale, namely 0.1 kg. Note that the errors we are talking about are unrelated to any inaccuracy in calibration; if the scale were off by 5 kg, the absolute error would be 5.1 kg, not 0.1 kg, but we have no way of knowing that. You're right about the question concerning the ruler, and for just the same reasons as above. Of course, a ruler doesn't really measure anything; you read it and can often estimate more accurately than the markings. Often it is assumed that you can recognize a value halfway between markings, so that you could distinguish 0.45 from 0.5, and the error would be more like 0.25. But from the wording of the problem, I think you are intended to take it just as you did. >Also, could you explain how to calculate the relative and percent >error in cases like the two given the questions, where you don't >really know the "true" value of the quantity... Ordinarily you go by what you see, not by what you don't know, so you would divide the absolute error by the actual MEASURED value to find the relative error. After all, "true" values are NEVER known! But just to increase our confidence, let's suppose that the actual value is x, and we measured m. Then the relative error based on the actual value would be |m-x|/x whereas our calculation based on the measurement would give |m-x|/m How far off are we? For simplicity I'll suppose that m>x, so the difference in these two numbers is m-x m-x 1 1 m-x --- - --- = (m-x)[--- - ---] = (m-x)[---] = (m-x)^2/(mx) x m x m mx What is the relative error in our value for the relative error? It will be this number divided by the correct value, (m-x)/x: (m-x)^2/(mx) ------------ = (m-x)/m (m-x)/x Interesting: the relative error in the relative error is the same as the relative error itself! So for example if we found that the relative error was 0.1, the ACTUAL relative error would be off by no more than 0.1 of this, making it between 0.09 and 0.11: 10% plus-or- minus 10%. That's close enough for this sort of estimate. Does that help reassure you that we aren't losing anything by doing our calculations based only on what we know? - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Date: 08/07/2002 at 20:11:28 From: Jeaneen Aldridge Subject: Thank you Dr. Peterson: THANK YOU. You cannot imagine how incredibly happy I was to get your reply to my problem. I am so relieved to have an answer that makes sense - I have been struggling to find an answer to this problem for several days now, and I feel as if a big weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I teach high school math, and I am supposed to teach significant figures and errors in measurement for the first time in a couple of weeks. The book I'm using poses these problems with no examples and gives several incorrect answers in the key. I've been asking people and looking for information... you just don't know how happy you have made me. Now I can feel confident when I present the subject to my students. You've indirectly helped a lot of people - thanks again and know that you have really been a great help to me and my students. I really appreciate it. Sincerely, Jeaneen
Date: 08/08/2002 at 08:43:15 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: Thank you Hi, Jeaneen. It always helps to have several good references, so I looked for a few good sites on this topic that will either give a good overview, or will cover some of the details beyond what you probably have to teach. Here are a few (found by using google.com to search for "absolute relative error measurement"; there's a lot more): The Vocabulary of Error Analysis - Univ. of Michigan http://instructor.physics.lsa.umich.edu/ip-labs/tutorials/errors/vocab.html Error in Measurements - Introduction to Chemical Sciences, James A. Plambeck, Univ. of Alberta http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C14/C14Links/www.chem.ualberta.ca/courses/plambeck/p101/p01017.htm Relative Errors - Numerical Methods Tutorial, MathsDirect http://www.mathsyear2000.org/alevel/pure/purtutnumerr1.htm Also, don't forget to search our site for the phrases "relative error" and "significant digit"; we have several discussions that may help you. - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Search the Dr. Math Library:
Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994- The Math Forum at NCTM. All rights reserved.