Prev: Field automorphism of R
Next: Design of Reinforced Concrete, 8th Ed by McCormac, Brown
From: Bret Cahill on 21 Jan 2010 15:02
> > > The importance of a measurement to life, limb, prosperity and
> > > happiness is always inversely proportional to the number of that
> > > measurement's sig figs.
>
> > It's so easy to diminish the importance of precision it's surprising
> > more hasn't been done on this matter.

> moving from "*always* inversely proportional", to "vastly overrated"
> is quite a climb down in your thesis.

It's still not clear if even that weak qualification is justified WATC
(when all things are considered).

It was originally intended and expected that others would treat it as
something fun -- kind of a happy reverse Murphy's Law -- but but from
the responses here it looks like it may have touched a nerve.

Some of my long held secret suspicions are probably held by others:

Only nerds worry about being off by more than a few orders of
magnitude . . .

Maybe this really _does_ need some serious _philosophical_ attention.

> knowing what precision is necessary, whether that is high or low
> precision (and you can find endless examples of both), is the art,
> rather than maximising precision for its own sake.

Not enough practice that art. It's particularly useful in inventing
where the Big Question always is:

"What can I get away with?"


Bret Cahill


"The errors of great men are more fruitful than the truths of little
men."

-- Nietzsche

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

-- Einstein

From: Bret Cahill on 21 Jan 2010 16:00
> > > The importance of a measurement to life, limb, prosperity and
> > > happiness is always inversely proportional to the number of that
> > > measurement's sig figs.

> > It's so easy to diminish the importance of precision it's surprising
> > more hasn't been done on this matter.
> moving from "*always* inversely proportional", to "vastly overrated"
> is quite a climb down in your thesis.

It's still not clear if even that modest qualification is justified
WATAC (when all things are considered).

It was originally intended and expected that others would treat this
as something fun -- kind of a happy reverse Murphy's Law -- but but
from the responses here it looks like it may have touched a nerve.

Some of my long held secret suspicions are probably shared by others
but only I had the courage to speak out:

Only nerds worry about being off by less than a few orders of
magnitude . . .

Maybe this really _does_ merit some serious _philosophical_
attention.

I'll crosspost to alt.philosophy just in case.

> knowing what precision is necessary, whether that is high or low
> precision (and you can find endless examples of both), is the art,
> rather than maximising precision for its own sake.


Not enough practice that art. It's particularly useful in inventing
where the Big Question always is:

"What can I get away with?"


Bret Cahill


"The errors of great men are more fruitful than the truths of little
men."

-- Nietzsche

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

-- Einstein

"Fun is the father of invention."

-- Cahill



First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Field automorphism of R
Next: Design of Reinforced Concrete, 8th Ed by McCormac, Brown