For a decimal FRACTIONAL string, the leading zeros/places have significance too,
Nope. Fail. Again.
For a decimal FRACTIONAL string, the leading zeros/places have significance too,
In that (my red highlighting) response from you above, you effectively assert that when writing 0.09 there is no leading zero to distinguish that from 0.9 ??!!
And you (who claim to be an "experimental physicist") do not know that the inclusion of leading/trailing zeros is also a means/convention of/for quickly and effectively indicating/conveying to the reader additional information regarding the specific level/degree of precision/accuracy the measurement was made to?
You reading and comprehension skills are as bad as your math skills. Enjoy beating up your newly created strawman.
You reading and comprehension skills are as bad as your math skills. Enjoy beating up your newly created strawman.
I think I'll have Ranch with this.
No, you either don't get your error or you pretend that you don't. Let's try again: when you multiplied 0.9 with $$10^{-2}$$ and you obtained 0.009, in what direction did the zeroes extend from the decimal point?
You initially answered it correctly (to the right) but after Undefined bullied you a little , you switched to the wrong answer.
No. The extension of zeros that matter are to the left of the fractional string generated at every division by ten; and these leading zeros extend to the left to infinity past the decimal point symbol. Any trailing zeroes to the right of the fractional string at any stage (of division process generating the actual string) do NOT affect the string value ITSELF at any stage. The only reason to include these trailing zeros would be as I already explained; ie, to convey further information to the reader regarding the level of precision/accuracy any particular measurement result string value was measured to. Please read again my earlier posts in context. Thanks.
No. The extension of zeros that matter are to the left of the fractional string generated at every division by ten; and these leading zeros extend to the left to infinity past the decimal point symbol. Any zero continuity right of the decimal point in a fractional string is INTERRUPTED by that string. And any trailing zeroes to the right of the zero-continuity-INTERRUPTING fractional string at any stage (of division process generating the actual string) do NOT affect the string value ITSELF at any stage. The only reason to include these trailing zeros would be as I already explained; ie, to convey further information to the reader regarding the level of precision/accuracy any particular measurement result string value was measured to. Please read again my earlier posts in context. Thanks.
fail.
You make that bald "fail" assertion without pointing to where the failure is, specifically. Please do so or retract. Thanks.
The whole post is a failure, a word salad.
But that is not what I posted, it's an editied version. Edited by you to support your insanity.
?arfa brane said:I suppose.
But let's look a bit more closely at my list model: if you have a number like 0.999 and multiply it by 10-2, the result is 0.00999, the single zero on the left of the decimal point must really be like a string of zeros extending infinitely to the right (which is inductively true since we can multiply by 10-2 indefinitely).
What does that have to do with you editing my post?Tach said:How did you calculate 0.00999 ?
Just to be sure.....What does that have to do with you editing my post?
What does it have to do with 000.9 = 0.9?
You accuse me of diversion, and here you are diverting from an issue. You edited my post to support your insane opinion of "what I think". You're a fuckwit.
For the sake of clarity - are you referring here to the string of zeroes between the decimal place and the first significant digit?
arfa brane said:I suppose.
But let's look a bit more closely at my list model: if you have a number like 0.999 and multiply it by 10-2, the result is 0.00999, the single zero on the left of the decimal point must really be like a string of zeros extending infinitely to the right (which is inductively true since we can multiply by 10-2 indefinitely).
Or the string of zeroes after the last significant digit?
I see 75 pages of posts in this thread. Apparently, there is some kind of simple dispute about zeros before or after a decimal point.
If Tach has any questions about significant figures, I'm sure I can help there, too.
In doing so, arfa apparently made a typo and said "to the right"
when he (as has been clarified between us after I asked for clarification) now says he meant to write "to the left".
And that should have been it, and both arfa brane ab=nd I understood each other perfectly
Actually, "to the right" is correct.
...while "to the left" is incorrect. So, your correction to arfa's post and his change of statement are both incorrect.
...as in both of you making the same arithmetic mistake. He finally corrected himself but you are still on the wrong train. He got very abusive when he finally realized his mistake. He always gets extremely twisted in his panties when he's proven wrong, the abuse signals that he's run out of logical and scientific arguments.![]()
I didn't "correct" arfa, I asked for clarification (in the specific context of what he wanted to say) as to what he meant and he responded with the clarification (in that same specific context). And arfa and I understood each other perfectly in that specific context.
So your 'faming' and 'correcting' is neither here nor there as it is OUT OF THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT.
The admin/mods should take this last obvious lying twisting from you as indicative of your incorrigible trollish and dishonest character and sinister intents.
The way you phrased it was interpreted by arfa as a correction. The net effect is he changed a right statement into a wrong statement under your (incorrect) influence. He's furious now, that he realized his mistake, this is why he's so abusive.
You both agreed on an incorrect statement, so I corrected you, what is the big deal, you make mistakes all the time.
There is no "sinister intents", I (like many others) correct your word salads once in a while. <shrug>
Who cares what you, a troll and uncomprehending context-chopper tragic, has to say. Your opinion is worthless now, as people don't need your dishonest ego-tripping twisting of other people's words/intents IN THE CONTEXT which you miss and so remain disruptive and irrelevant when opining basd on your own wrongheaded 'version' of the discussion points/reality.