spyro at f2s.com
Wed Feb 12 17:31:39 PST 2003
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:13:17 +0000 (UTC)
jschrod at uni-muenster.de (Jochen Schröder) wrote:
> exactly the number of the error of your area is larger then the error
> of your measured distance just think about an easy example.
> If you measure the distance from work to your house in kilometers and
> now you calculate the distance in meters you multiply by 1000, if you
> had an error of 1 km you now have an error of 1000 m not 1 m. But the
> m and km is the crucial point here thats where Rob's error came in.
Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. however, its still down to
precision, isnt it?
If I measure in km that it is 5.000km then I have an accuracy of 1m and
multiplying the 5.000 by 1000 is not introducing any inaccuracy.
so, to reduce it to maths, avoiding the problem of units...
If I have 0.1 and multiply it by 10, then the error (max +-0.05) has
become max +-0.5.
Robs example was still flawed in any case ;-)
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-chat