Quote:
Originally Posted by billbo911
Interesting!
I do believe the formal citation, from memory is, 364.4 plus or minus one ear. The plus or minus was to indicate the uncertainty of the measurement.
So, if precision is what we are after, then the the original determination of the measurement was flawed and can not be used as a basis for a precise answer.
I must say, I agree about detail. May favorite expression regarding this subject is: " Success lies in the details".
|
The original measurement was given as "364.4 Smoots, plus or minus an ear." With this, we knew both the precision and the tolerance of the measurement. The original measurement was accurate, within the tolerance specified (noting that tolerance was determined by the equipment used for the original measurement - a unit of precisely one Smoot). The citation of "364.4 Smoots, minus an ear" would be incorrect, in that it implies a precision that does not actually exist. Furthermore, it fails to provide any indication of an acceptable tolerance (it is noted that it could be argued that the "minus an ear" phrase could be an indication of tolerance, but in that case it over-constrains the measurement by doubling the tolerance requirement - which I would find to be intolerable
).
Why do we care about whether Smoot's ear is added or subtracted from the length of the Harvard Bridge? Because both precision and tolerance are important concepts within the engineering world, and worth understanding. Their use (or lack thereof) enables us to clearly communicate when accuracy is critical, and when "close enough" is "good enough." And in the real world, that knowledge translates very quickly into dollars (saved or required).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgin Clock
Quote:
"side tracked topic."
"off tangent topic."
"side tracked discussion."
|
etc, etc, etc...
::sigh:: ... |
Who says they are off tangent or side-tracked? I find the discussion of centi-Smoots one of the more interesting ideas in this whole thread.
-dave
.