Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14

# My thoughts on number rounding

 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2013 11:12:47 AMPosted: 4 years agoWhenever an accurate figure is desired, and rounding is necessary, wouldn't rounding a non-siginifcant figure to five rather than zero better reflect the true value? For instance, say I have a scale and I want to weigh myself. The scale is only accurate to the nearest 10 pounds. I weight myself and it spits out 170 pounds. Because it's accurate only to the nearest ten pounds, I could also weigh 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 or 179 pounds. Because each of these is equally likely, and a single number needs to represent these possibilities, wouldn't it make sense to take the average of them, and choose the statistically 'least wrong' number, e.g. 175?"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2013 11:13:50 AMPosted: 4 years agoWait, never mind, I just realized that it goes to 169, 168...."In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2013 11:20:06 AMPosted: 4 years agoPay no nevermind to my previous post, actually. It's still relevant."In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
 Posts: 4,037 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2013 11:43:58 AMPosted: 4 years agoThat scale would read 170 if you weighed 165-175 pounds, not 170-180.Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 13,014 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2013 11:52:17 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 4/20/2013 11:43:58 AM, Subutai wrote:That scale would read 170 if you weighed 165-175 pounds, not 170-180.It depends on the kind of scale. If the scale just compared your weight to 10 pound increments, and indicated at which point you weighed the same or more than 170 but not more than 180, then what I'm saying would be relevant."In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
 Posts: 18,337 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/20/2013 1:22:27 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 4/20/2013 11:52:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 4/20/2013 11:43:58 AM, Subutai wrote:That scale would read 170 if you weighed 165-175 pounds, not 170-180.It depends on the kind of scale. If the scale just compared your weight to 10 pound increments, and indicated at which point you weighed the same or more than 170 but not more than 180, then what I'm saying would be relevant.Then, it would be an unusually sucky scale.
 Posts: 4,233 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/21/2013 1:19:03 AMPosted: 4 years agoNo, in that case it would be best to say 170 (" 10) pounds. This shows both the reading and the amount of uncertainty. Well, not really, because the last digit is just so completely uncertain that you should use scientific notation and drop it entirely, but you get the idea. The scale gave you a reading and that reading is useful. But, so is the uncertainty.Don't take me too seriously plz, i'm rarely on here sober