Jack

2020-01-12 22:37:09 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Jack

2020-01-12 22:37:09 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what

Tony Cooper

2020-01-12 23:19:56 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

water.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

musika

2020-01-12 23:43:07 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

--

Ray

UK

Ray

UK

musika

2020-01-12 23:47:08 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

--

Ray

UK

Ray

UK

Jack

2020-01-13 21:11:24 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

J. J. Lodder

2020-01-13 14:53:19 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2020-01-14 07:58:44 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

--

athel

athel

J. J. Lodder

2020-01-14 10:36:35 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

To quote wikip:

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

When setting a standard for a physical quatity,

a meter rod, or the second,

or marching a Roman legion through their paces

there is no specific value.

What matters is how much spread there is

between different attemps to reproduce the standard.

Typical modern example: atomic clocks can't be compared

with anything else, the -are- the second.

You can only observe how they drift wrt each other,

Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2020-01-14 15:01:59 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

illustrated by the following sort of comparison:

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

When setting a standard for a physical quatity,

a meter rod, or the second,

or marching a Roman legion through their paces

there is no specific value.

What matters is how much spread there is

between different attemps to reproduce the standard.

Typical modern example: atomic clocks can't be compared

with anything else, the -are- the second.

You can only observe how they drift wrt each other,

Jan

--

athel

athel

Katy Jennison

2020-01-14 15:05:47 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

--

Katy Jennison

Katy Jennison

Paul Carmichael

2020-01-14 16:03:24 UTC

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all accurate.

That's how I understand accuracy and precision too."A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all accurate.

--

Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

Eric Walker

2020-01-15 10:46:07 UTC

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all accurate.

That's how I understand accuracy and precision too."A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all accurate.

If the announcer of a ball game tells his audience that the first pitch

was thrown at 7:36 pm and 22 seconds, he is being quite precise; but if

it was a day game that started at around 1 pm, he is horribly inaccurate.

--

Cordially,

Eric Walker

Cordially,

Eric Walker

J. J. Lodder

2020-01-14 18:15:42 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

For all you know the Roman mile could have been

1.3895319 kilometres (exactly)

except for the fact that it was never defined exactly.

Compare the statute mile, which is nowadays defined to be

1,609.344 meter, (exactly)

So you can determine for anything claiming to be a statute mile

how accurate it is,

Jan

Peter Young

2020-01-14 18:53:02 UTC

On 14 Jan 2020 ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

[snip]

*Post by J. J. Lodder*

Compare the statute mile, which is nowadays defined to be

1,609.344 meter, (exactly)

So you can determine for anything claiming to be a statute mile

how accurate it is,

Except in Sweden, where the word "mil", translated confusingly as "mile"

is 10km.

Peter.

[snip]

Compare the statute mile, which is nowadays defined to be

1,609.344 meter, (exactly)

So you can determine for anything claiming to be a statute mile

how accurate it is,

is 10km.

Peter.

--

Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.

(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)

Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.

http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.

(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)

Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.

http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

musika

2020-01-14 15:21:14 UTC

Farbeit from me to argue with Wikipêia, but the way I learned it was

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

Why do you perpetrate these ad hominem attacks in threads that have"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

nothing to do with him?

--

Ray

UK

Ray

UK

J. J. Lodder

2020-01-14 16:04:03 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that [-]

only if there is, at least in principle,

a 'true' value that you can relate it to.

There is not one and only true platinum (or even gold)

Roman mile buried somewhere under the Via Aurelia,

Jan

bert

2020-01-14 16:07:22 UTC

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres"

is accurate but not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres"

is very precise but not at all accurate.

phil

2020-01-14 17:16:06 UTC

Farbeit from me to argue with Wikipêia, but the way I learned it was

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

I'd say the first is accurate only in the non-technical sense that it's"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

a true statement, but as JJL has said nearby, there's no absolute

standard Roman mile against which the figure of 1.5 km can be judged.

The second, I'd regard as spurious precision; giving it to eight

significant figures implies that you can measure the value with only a

tiny percentage error compared to the 'true' value.

Peter Moylan

2020-01-15 01:01:28 UTC

Some sources do give a Roman mile of 1 482 meter.

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

from, but it doesn't agree with what I understand the normal definition

to be. Perhaps it's used in some specialised field. Statistics, perhaps?

--

Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Newcastle, NSW, Australia

s***@gmail.com

2020-01-15 04:27:57 UTC

[relevant quotes not elided]

*Post by Peter Moylan*

*Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden*

*Post by J. J. Lodder*

*Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden*

*Post by J. J. Lodder*

Some sources do give a Roman mile of 1 482 meter.

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

While we're being pedantic, I think you mean precision.

<outpedanting> I think you are wrong about that.

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

Farbeit from me to argue with Wikipêia, but the way I learned it was

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

I agree with you. I'm not sure where that Wikipedia definition came

from, but it doesn't agree with what I understand the normal definition

to be. Perhaps it's used in some specialised field. Statistics, perhaps?

Nope, "The field of statistics, where the interpretation of measurements plays a central role, prefers to use the terms bias and variability instead of accuracy and precision: bias is the amount of inaccuracy and variability is the amount of imprecision. "

You should think instead of metrology. The field of measurements.

WP cite, again:

<quote>

Accuracy has two definitions:

More commonly, it is a description of systematic errors,

a measure of statistical bias; low accuracy causes

a difference between a result and a "true" value.

ISO calls this trueness.

Alternatively, ISO defines accuracy as describing a combination of

both types of observational error above (random and systematic),

so high accuracy requires both high precision and high trueness.

Precision is a description of random errors, a measure of statistical variability.

<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#ISO_definition_(ISO_5725)>

See also ISO 5725-1 (dating to 1994) and the 2008 issue of the

"BIPM International Vocabulary of Metrology" (VIM), items 2.13 and 2.14.[1]

<URL:https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/>

(One of the first links on that page is

"Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement:

JCGM 100:200 (GUM 1995 with minor corrections)

I would suspect that this is applicable to those measuring reagents

and to those analyzing xray diffraction data,

for just a couple of ways it might come close to some of the expertise

in this group.

(Not so much my expertise; I'm not even doing TDR these days,

and holding light sources up to a piano-sized spectrometer

or running a Kelvin probe are even more distant.

I do pay attention to free file space and to TOP's load measurements)

/dps

Some sources do give a Roman mile of 1 482 meter.

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

from, but it doesn't agree with what I understand the normal definition

to be. Perhaps it's used in some specialised field. Statistics, perhaps?

You should think instead of metrology. The field of measurements.

WP cite, again:

<quote>

Accuracy has two definitions:

More commonly, it is a description of systematic errors,

a measure of statistical bias; low accuracy causes

a difference between a result and a "true" value.

ISO calls this trueness.

Alternatively, ISO defines accuracy as describing a combination of

both types of observational error above (random and systematic),

so high accuracy requires both high precision and high trueness.

Precision is a description of random errors, a measure of statistical variability.

<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#ISO_definition_(ISO_5725)>

See also ISO 5725-1 (dating to 1994) and the 2008 issue of the

"BIPM International Vocabulary of Metrology" (VIM), items 2.13 and 2.14.[1]

<URL:https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/>

(One of the first links on that page is

"Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement:

JCGM 100:200 (GUM 1995 with minor corrections)

I would suspect that this is applicable to those measuring reagents

and to those analyzing xray diffraction data,

for just a couple of ways it might come close to some of the expertise

in this group.

(Not so much my expertise; I'm not even doing TDR these days,

and holding light sources up to a piano-sized spectrometer

or running a Kelvin probe are even more distant.

I do pay attention to free file space and to TOP's load measurements)

/dps

Quinn C

2020-01-15 04:52:14 UTC

[relevant quotes not elided]

Some sources do give a Roman mile of 1 482 meter.

I don't think the 'true' Roman mile is known to that accuracy,

or that the Romans could reproduce it to that accuracy,

"In measurement of a set, accuracy refers to closeness of the

measurements to a specific value, while precision refers to the

closeness of the measurements to each other."

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Does anyone agree, or am I just spouting nonsense that not even "Spains

Harden" would be guilty of?

from, but it doesn't agree with what I understand the normal definition

to be. Perhaps it's used in some specialised field. Statistics, perhaps?

You should think instead of metrology. The field of measurements.

<quote>

More commonly, it is a description of systematic errors,

a measure of statistical bias; low accuracy causes

a difference between a result and a "true" value.

ISO calls this trueness.

Alternatively, ISO defines accuracy as describing a combination of

both types of observational error above (random and systematic),

so high accuracy requires both high precision and high trueness.

Precision is a description of random errors, a measure of statistical variability.

<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#ISO_definition_(ISO_5725)>

precision is a measurement of how reliable extracted results are, i.e.

how likely it is that a retrieved result is a wanted one. In this

context, the sister term is recall, how likely it is that a wanted

result is retrieved.

These are numbers I have to estimate(!) all the time at work; e.g.

these days, for the identification of street addresses in German texts.

--

For spirits when they please

Can either sex assume, or both; so soft

And uncompounded is their essence pure,

-- Milton, Paradise Lost

For spirits when they please

Can either sex assume, or both; so soft

And uncompounded is their essence pure,

-- Milton, Paradise Lost

Peter T. Daniels

2020-01-15 14:17:41 UTC

Nope, "The field of statistics, where the interpretation of measurements plays a central role, prefers to use the terms bias and variability instead of accuracy and precision: bias is the amount of inaccuracy and variability is the amount of imprecision. "

definitions of the words they "prefer"?

Does going into statistics preclude statisticians from using English

comprehensibly?

(Does that mean my inability to retain the chi-square concept five

minutes after it's explained to me isn't my fault, but theirs?)

This may be related. In last night's debate, Sanders said "It's

incomprehensible that I would say a woman couldn't win the presidency."

(That may be true, but) He meant "inconceivable."

s***@gmail.com

2020-01-16 22:09:59 UTC

Nope, "The field of statistics, where the interpretation of measurements plays a central role, prefers to use the terms bias and variability instead of accuracy and precision: bias is the amount of inaccuracy and variability is the amount of imprecision. "

definitions of the words they "prefer"?

(see PM's post).

Does going into statistics preclude statisticians from using English

comprehensibly?

(Does that mean my inability to retain the chi-square concept five

minutes after it's explained to me isn't my fault, but theirs?)

This may be related. In last night's debate, Sanders said "It's

incomprehensible that I would say a woman couldn't win the presidency."

(That may be true, but) He meant "inconceivable."

/dps

Mark Brader

2020-01-15 08:32:37 UTC

I first read that as being some German word that I didn't know.

Quê?

*Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden*

but the way I learned it was

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

Exactly. And examples like the last one can be called "false precision".

Quê?

but the way I learned it was

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but not

very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at all

accurate.

--

Mark Brader "Hacking for 8 years gives a guy a memory.

Toronto If you was with a woman -- I'd've noticed."

***@vex.net PHANTOM LADY

Mark Brader "Hacking for 8 years gives a guy a memory.

Toronto If you was with a woman -- I'd've noticed."

***@vex.net PHANTOM LADY

Peter T. Daniels

2020-01-15 14:23:17 UTC

Looks more like Yiddish, where far- is the transliteration of the prefix

corresponding to German ver-.

corresponding to German ver-.

s***@gmail.com

2020-01-16 22:13:49 UTC

Looks more like Yiddish, where far- is the transliteration of the prefix

corresponding to German ver-.

/dps " or far out, man!"

Peter T. Daniels

2020-01-16 22:26:21 UTC

Looks more like Yiddish, where far- is the transliteration of the prefix

corresponding to German ver-.

/dps " or far out, man!"

spelled the same as the ver- words (<far->). This is the Totally

Official YIVO orthography, introduced in 1936. In the later 19th

century and after, there was a Germanizing orthography of Yiddish

that would have inserted a <h> after the <a>.

Peter Moylan

2020-01-16 00:37:08 UTC

I first read that as being some German word that I didn't know.

Quê?

but the way I learned it was illustrated by the following sort of

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but

not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at

all accurate.

precision".

student error, especially among those who use a calculator as a

substitute for thinking.

--

Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Newcastle, NSW, Australia

J. J. Lodder

2020-01-16 11:27:47 UTC

I first read that as being some German word that I didn't know.

Quê?

but the way I learned it was illustrated by the following sort of

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but

not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at

all accurate.

student error, especially among those who use a calculator as a

substitute for thinking.

Put a bar over the last significant digit,

and carry it through in the arithmetic

with the standard rules for precision.

I have seen some computer programs that are also capable of it,

but for students it seems to be a lost art,

Jan

David Kleinecke

2020-01-16 19:16:15 UTC

I first read that as being some German word that I didn't know.

Quê?

but the way I learned it was illustrated by the following sort of

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but

not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at

all accurate.

student error, especially among those who use a calculator as a

substitute for thinking.

Put a bar over the last significant digit,

and carry it through in the arithmetic

with the standard rules for precision.

I have seen some computer programs that are also capable of it,

but for students it seems to be a lost art,

Jan

was good reason to avoid it but nowadays IMO all computation

should be done in what I know of as "interval arithmetic". One

does not, in this arithmetic, calculate a number. Rather one

calculates upper and lower bounds on the number.

Maybe people are already doing that. I am out of touch.

David Kleinecke

2020-01-16 21:30:08 UTC

I first read that as being some German word that I didn't know.

Quê?

but the way I learned it was illustrated by the following sort of

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but

not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at

all accurate.

student error, especially among those who use a calculator as a

substitute for thinking.

Put a bar over the last significant digit,

and carry it through in the arithmetic

with the standard rules for precision.

I have seen some computer programs that are also capable of it,

but for students it seems to be a lost art,

Jan

was good reason to avoid it but nowadays IMO all computation

should be done in what I know of as "interval arithmetic".

before the days of computers.

It saves doing superfluous work.

One does not, in this arithmetic, calculate a number. Rather one

calculates upper and lower bounds on the number.

I strongly doubt that "precision arithmetic" was much used

by human computers. I never worked as a computer but my mother

did the calculating for the fusion project at Livermore Lab and

she never heard of the idea. The physicists and engineers I

discussed the idea with back then had difficulty grasping the

idea and wondered why plus-or-minus wouldn't be just as good

(results can be presented that way after an adjustment but the

computed interval is almost never symmetrical around the computed

single value.)

My attention was called to this situation by attempts to calculate

smog that failed because the round-off errors would drive the

amount of small pollutants below zero on occasion (an easier

solution to that problem is don't calculate the amount of

pollutants - calculate their logs.)

J. J. Lodder

2020-01-17 13:00:49 UTC

I first read that as being some German word that I didn't know.

Quê?

but the way I learned it was illustrated by the following sort of

"A Roman mile was about one and a half kilometres" is accurate but

not very precise.

"A Roman mile was 1.3895319 kilometres" is very precise but not at

all accurate.

precision".

student error, especially among those who use a calculator as a

substitute for thinking.

Put a bar over the last significant digit,

and carry it through in the arithmetic

with the standard rules for precision.

I have seen some computer programs that are also capable of it,

but for students it seems to be a lost art,

Jan

was good reason to avoid it but nowadays IMO all computation

should be done in what I know of as "interval arithmetic".

before the days of computers.

It saves doing superfluous work.

One does not, in this arithmetic, calculate a number. Rather one

calculates upper and lower bounds on the number.

I strongly doubt that "precision arithmetic" was much used

by human computers.

Doing things like predicting solar eclipse for exanmple,

or planetary positions, with sine tables and hand-cranked calculators.

You stop the calculation when you are no longer adding significance.

I never worked as a computer but my mother

did the calculating for the fusion project at Livermore Lab and

she never heard of the idea. The physicists and engineers I

discussed the idea with back then had difficulty grasping the

idea and wondered why plus-or-minus wouldn't be just as good

(results can be presented that way after an adjustment but the

computed interval is almost never symmetrical around the computed

single value.)

then and now, and there are many nonsense results around.

Wheeler formulated his 'First Moral Principle' with good reason.

Jan

--

Wheeler's First Moral Principle: Never make a calculation until you know

the answer.

Wheeler's First Moral Principle: Never make a calculation until you know

the answer.

Lewis

2020-01-13 03:25:26 UTC

A crossword puzzle has the clue: Distance equalling 1,482 meters.

The answer is 'mile'.

Does anyone know what kind of mile might have that size?

--

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo

Picasso

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo

Picasso

Loading...