Which of the following reading is more precise? (Physics)
If those times were measured using the same device, then b. and c. are more precise: They specify the time two 2 decimal places rather than to just 1 decimal place.Think of precision as a magnifying glass. If you look at a painting with your eyes, you get an accurate view (your truly see the painting). If you look at it with a magnifying glass, you can see more fine-grained detail - you see it with the same accuracy (you truly see the painting), but you view it more *precisely*.Let’s say you measured how tall I am and got the following three answers. All are *accurate* (true), but some are more precise than others:6 feet tall: Accurate, but not very precise: It tells us nothing about the first decimal place6.0 feet tall: Accurate, and more precise: It tells us about the 1st decimal place6.00 feet tall: Accurate, and even more precise, since it tells us about the 2nd decimal place.The more you “zoom in”, the more precise your answers are.
How can I define more precise data types than double in C/C++?
How can I define more precise data types than double in C/C++?First of all, there’s no such language as “C/C++”. C and C++ are closely related, but they’re two different languages.Both languages have the same set of three built-in floating-point types: float, double, and long double. Typically long double has greater precision and range than double (though there are implementations where they’re the same).(Some compilers might provide wider floating-point types as an extension.)If you need more precision than long double provides, there are a number of packages that implement arbitrary-precision numbers. The most widely known one is probably GMP, the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library.
Would you rather be accurate or precise?
Well, i'm going with the physics definition of precise and accurate. And I would rather be accurate. Presicion is hitting multiple times a spot without ever looking beyond the result youre getting over and over again. Its more of a systematic error than someone really trying to get an answer(hit the center). Instead accuray gets close to the point just not all the time, and I feel this is much more human as sometimes we are close to the answer just not completely sure it is it. So we try different things and we mess around with the center of truth, and we undertand it much more than anyone who thinks precisely and only looks at their repetitive results.
Why is granulated sugar easier to measure more precisely than flour?
flour has more air than white sugar is. the right way to measure flour is to spoon flour into a measuring cup then level off with a spatula or knife. don't tap nor shake it it will change. as for the brown sugar takes more space compared to white. when measuring brown sugar, spoon brown sugar and press it and spoon again press it again until it can't be pressed down anymore then level off with a spatula. you know it's right when you remove it from the measuring cup it's still holding the shape of the cup.
What is more precise...a graduated cylinder or a flask?
Both the flask and the cylinder are graduated so any measurement with is correct, and just as valid. Therefore the containers are equivalent and have little influence on the accuracy of the measurements. Since each container has a similar neck above the salt solution the shape of the container has little to do with the accuracy. So the only relevant factors are the SIZE of specimens. If you have a larger sample then you will get a better AVERAGE solution for the question on density. If you have a smaller sample then you have a less representative sample so it would be less accurate. The key word is GRADUATED is both containers are graduated then they are calibrated to give a measurement that conforms to a specific measurement, and all measurements should be equal. to any measurements in any other container. The next question is how you plan to determine the salt content. If you are just weighing the samples and comparing that weight to the weight of pure water then the only difference If you are boiling the water and analyzing the contents then the round flask will spread the heat more evenly and allow for a uniform boil, but that won't change the resulting salt residue contents. Unless the contents themselves are changed by the heat applied. Then there is the Buchner Flask, the Florence Flask, the Erlenmeyer Flask or the Retort. All of which are different shaped and designed for different uses, but in the final analysis if they are graduated then the graduation means that the shape doesn’t matter so you are left with the size of the sample.
Do you prefer a short and precise answer rather than a lengthy and more thorough one?
I prefer a lengthy and a thorough answer than a short one, especially when I have the time to read it. When you read a short answer, you end up making assumptions about missing pieces. And one thing I’ve learnt in my professional experience so far is that nothing is more harmful for any conversation than unverified assumptions. In a lengthy and thorough answer, the author gets a chance to provide all the details she has at her disposal, so that the readers are least prone to be mislead. It is an art to craft a short answer that conveys the precisely required information in least possible words while also ensuring that readers are not mislead.I guess that’s why we have very few poets and so many bloggers. Writing in less words and conveying the same (or even more effective) message is not everyone’s cup of tea.
When cutting the legs of a table to make it lower, precision is usually far more important than accuracy. ?
Accuracy is the idea of having the correct value. Precision is the idea of having a value that can be obtained repeatedly. So while you may want a table to be a specific height, if it's a bit higher or a bit lower, it's probably not that important as long as all the leg heights are the SAME. If you were really accurate with one leg (you got the exct height you wanted) but were not able to get that height with the other legs (you were not precise with the other legs) then you're going to have a wobbly table.
Meteorology: Why is still so hard to predict weather accurately and precisely?
As you're leaving for your office, you peep outside the window and see that its not raining. You decide not to carry the raincoat as it adds extra carriage.You head to the parking, and kick-start that bike you so adore. A couple of minutes into the journey, the rain begins. You reach the office completely drenched.This was just an example from our everyday lives. I was just trying to explain how weather is a very unpredictable phenomenon.Mathematics and statistics have helped us understand the physics involved in atmospheric phenomena. This has allowed us to predict beforehand for the convenience of the society.What should be understood is that we cannot play god. Nature will always have an upper hand. No matter how much we predict, nature will always have a couple of surprises for us.That being said, the IMD hasn't been that bad lately, actually their current forecasts are really good.Their cyclone warnings have been accurate and precise in the past few years. Had the IMD not given advance warnings, storms like Phailin and Hudhud would have left behind huge loss of lives. It is the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre for the North Indian Ocean cyclone basin, and this honor is bestowed upon by none other than the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).The monsoon long range forecasts end up to be near-perfect, thanks to recent advancement in research and advanced computing capabilities.There is no debate for accuracy. Being a national agency the recorded temperatures/rainfall adhere to international standards. They don't just happen to be a WMO recognised agency.What the problem is:Lack of good weather coverage. India has reached a point where it can have a 24x7 weather reporting television channel, like the United States does.Lack of awareness among the common public. Weather does not matter to us unless we are affected by it.Lack of faith in the agency among the common public. This question wouldn't have been asked otherwise.