• Expression Patterns by Eva Amsen

    It's a blog. I don't really know what it's about either.

    • Significant digits

      Monday, 07 Sep 2009 - 16:51 UTC

      Sometimes, when you measure things, you need to really really be very detailed about how much you have, and other times it’s more of a ballpark figure. One of my friends insists in measuring everything to the meniscus in the kitchen, even when adding a tablespoon to 10 cups of something else. It doesn’t matter on that scale.

      In the lab, it depends on your equipment. You can pipette 5 microliters with the P200 Gilson, or 5.0 with the P20, or 5.00 with the P5 (NB. I didn’t look this up so I might be wrong in the details, but you get the idea.) 1

      In adding things, you’re going to want to go with the lowest number of decimal points of the numbers you start with2. Adding 4.88 microliter to 10 microliter gives you 15 microliter, not 14.88. This has to do with the above pipettes. The bigger one can’t tell the difference between 10.04 and 9.99, so it’s just “10”. The smaller one can tell you have exactly 4.88, but if you don’t know whether you’re adding that to 9.99 or 10.04, you can’t say that you have 14.88 microliters in the end. You might have a bit more or less. So, 15 is the closest you can get to the actual amount in your tube.

      Summary: 10 + 4.88 = 15 (and not 14.88)

      You can’t just add extra numbers after the decimal point. This 15 is not the same as 15.0

      In multiplying numbers you need to stick with the lowest number of significant digits2. If you have 17.25 ml of a 7.7 M solution, you have 1.3 × 10^2 mmol altogether (not 132.825) because 7.7 only has two significant digits.

      Summary: 7.25 × 7.7 = 1.3 × 10^2 (and not 132.825)

      Again, you can’t just add extra significant digits. You don’t know if it’s 1.30 × 10^2 or 1.33 × 10^2

      So (and here’s the point of all of this) why are version of the World Wide Web expressed in two significant digits if we went straight from web 1.0 to web 2.0?

      1 Here is an old blog post of Jenny’s all about accuracy and precision of pipettes, because I am entirely unable to talk about these things without mixing up “accuracy” and “precision”, and skillfully avoided both in this post. Here’s another link with more info on how this relates to pipettes.

      2 Here’s how to calculate with significant digits

      Last updated: Monday, 07 Sep 2009 - 16:51 UTC

      • Comments

        • Date:
          Monday, 07 Sep 2009 - 17:58 UTC
          Bob O'Hara said:

          Because it’s not counted that way. Far too much detail here, but basically the number before the dot indicates which major release it is (a change here means the internals have been heavily messed with), and the number after which minor release. There is often a third number (e.g. R is currently 2.9.2), where the third number is bug fixes.

          Usually the shift from 0 to 1 means that the version is considered stable. This means that a certain amount of timidity results in this for one software package: 0.999375-31.

        • Date:
          Monday, 07 Sep 2009 - 18:52 UTC
          Alyssa Gilbert said:

          This is a great summary on significant figures, which always becomes an issue in first year physics (and I’m sure other science) labs. As for software programs – Bob seems to have covered it.

        • Date:
          Monday, 07 Sep 2009 - 19:15 UTC
          Eva Amsen said:

          I know it’s releases. Still, why go from .0 to .0?
          Shouldn’t we be on web 2.4 by now?

        • Date:
          Monday, 07 Sep 2009 - 19:20 UTC
          Richard Grant said:

          Bob’s a nerd and missed the point.

          I want my Web 2.4.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 08 Sep 2009 - 06:30 UTC
          Anna Vilborg said:

          What I’d really want is a Web 2.47. I like the sound of it. Maybe if we go back and re-measure the whole web thingy with more accurate tools? (or precise, which was it now?)

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 08 Sep 2009 - 07:43 UTC
          Mike Fowler said:

          If it’s a number less than 10, aren’t we supposed to write it out in full?

          Web two point four seven. Hmmm, boats ain’t being floated.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 08 Sep 2009 - 08:04 UTC
          Linda Lin said:

          hmm…i thought maybe it just sounds cooler/more pro if it was web 1.0 or 2.0, like “007”. but Bob’s explanation of it makes more sense.


Search blogs

web feed Want a blog?

Submit this post to

Advertisement