After some thought, this wrapper class might be better named something like
BigMeasurement (or just Measurement?). Significant figures and precision
are very closely tied to measurements, since the act of measuring is really
what causes the uncertainty to begin with.
I think a static method to cou
I believe the convention is to take the *least* precise term and apply that
precision (here "precision" != "sigfigs" - Ive been using both terms to
mean sigfigs, but for these purposes precision is actually defined as how
small a fraction the measurement is able to convey - e.g 0.01 is more
precise
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 17:13, Daniel Watson wrote:
> BigSigFig result = new BigSigFig("1.1").multiply(new BigSigFig("2"))
Multiply is easy as you take the minimum significant figures. What
about addition?
12345 + 0.0001
Here the significant figures should remain at 5.
And for this:
12345 + 10
Ah I see what you were asking. Yes it is up to the human entering data to
understand that 1 has exactly one sigfig according to standard
convention. If you need it to have more then you must write it in full
scientific notation. Obviously If a specific precision is required due to
some flaw in
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 15:43, Daniel Watson wrote:
>
> Hope that answers more questions than it creates!
It does not address the issue of the last significant zero, e.g:
1 (4 sf)
1 (3 sf)
1 (2 sf)
One way to solve this with standard parsing would be to use scientific notation:
1.000
Before I answer your questions - I'll say that looking at the commons-math
codebase it is apparent that it's focused on specific functional
computation, rather than util-like features. So I agree this probably
doesn't fit well there. I honestly did not know commons-numbers existed.
I'll check there
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:27, Daniel Watson wrote:
> This feature is necessary when working with scientific/clinical data which
> was reported with significant figures in mind, and for which calculation
> results must respect the sigfig count. As far as I could tell there is no
> Number imple
I noticed there is not (or I could not find) a function within commons-math
to count the number of significant figures in a number string. I wrote a
function to do it and want to make sure I'm not missing something within
commons-math before submitting a PR.
This feature is necessary when working
