>>>> 0.98 * 7.61 ------> 1 * 8 (not sure about the 0.98 going to 1 on this one)
>>
>>>The fourth example, once again, is correct: rounding to 1 s.d. means, in this case, rounding to the closest 0.1; 0.98 is closer to 1.0 than to 0.9. Or just look at the algorithm in the previos paragraph (the 8 is dropped, 0.9 is increased to 1.0).
>>
>>There is a "fudge" factor inherent in rounding: how big is the difference percentage-wise to the rounded operand.
>>In case of the fourth example I'd be perfectly happy to spare myself the effort to round up to 8 and leave it at 7.61, which is much closer to the actual result. Even true for 1.02 * 7.61, were at least the sides of the cut off parts are eaqulizing and not both skewing in the same direction.
>
>Well, for a 5th. grade course, let's keep it simple... but yes, even the concept of "significant digits" is only a rough approximation. 98 = 100-2, and 102 = 100+2, so the error as a percentage of the total is almost the same (about 2% in each case); but the first has 2 significant digits, the second has 3.
I was not answering to the original question but more on how to get valid ballpark estimates.
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only