Limit Theory Forums

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:01 am**

I have broken more Elton John records, he seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really we do it without like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical: the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth. Right? The brain, more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:46 am**

Talvieno wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:46 pm

That. Thing. Looks. Awesome!

I want one! D:

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:17 am**

well this is freakin awesome

all hail Scott Manley

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:51 am**

Also, quantum computing will never work because you can't turn it off and on again as it's not on or off.

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:31 am**

Cody wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:51 am

Also, quantum computing will never work because you can't turn it off and on again as it's not on or off.

bahahahaha

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:35 pm**

Can someone smarter than me please explain this?

Either my Chemistry teacher is wrong, or my Physics teacher is wrong, or I misunderstood one of them. Or both of them.

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:37 pm**

4 is correct.

4SF means the four most useful specific numbers, NOT the number of decimal places.

0.005890

5890 is significant, you can tell the zero is, because it is there.
Thus 4 SF

But it's 6 Decimal Places deep.

if this number were a lot bigger, say by a trillion (1,000,000,000,000)
It'd display as:
5,890,000,000

And you would only be able to claim 3 SF. As only the 589 is obviously significant. (which is why you specify SF)

589.0 is also 4SF, you can tell because the 0 is there.
5890 could be 3 OR 4SF.

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:58 pm**

So, unless you guys use a different system for SF (which would be odd), Silver is kinda but not really correct.

To determine the amount of SF:
You count the amount of digits, from left to right, starting at the first non-zero digit.

In 0.005890 g, the first non-zero digit is 5, so that's 4 SF. Leading zeros don't matter, and here's why:
I can write that number as 5.890 mg, or 0.000005890 kg, and all of those have the same precision, but a different amount of leading zeros.

The rest of what Silver said, however, is wrong

5,890,000,000 has 10 SF, not 3. If someone writes 5,890,000,000 g, then that means their precision was a gram, and all of those zeros are significant. If they actually measured in tons (so 5890 tons, with 4 SF), but they wanted to write it in gram, they would write 5890E6 g. See, still 4 SF. Same for 5890, that's 4 SF, always.

I mean, if what Silver said was true, then 5890 g might have 3 or 4 SF, but 589.0 dag would have 4, despite being the exact same number with exact the same precision

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:42 pm**

Dinosawer wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:58 pm
The rest of what Silver said, however, is wrong
5,890,000,000 has 10 SF, not 3. If someone writes 5,890,000,000 g, then that means their precision was a gram, and all of those zeros are significant. If they actually measured in tons (so 5890 tons, with 4 SF), but they wanted to write it in gram, they would write 5890E6 g. See, still 4 SF. Same for 5890, that's 4 SF, always.

That's not how I learned SF...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

In a number without a decimal point, trailing zeros may or may not be significant. More information through additional graphical symbols or explicit information on errors is needed to clarify the significance of trailing zeros.

5,890,000,000 is 3 - 10 SF, to be on the safe side one would assume 3.
While in science any situation that needed a number like this is going to be written as: 5.890e9 (or x109)
Which makes it super easy to tell.
The long form is still perfectly valid.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:20 am**

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and that's not how I learned it... so refer to your handbook

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:46 am**

Dinosawer wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:20 am
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and that's not how I learned it... so refer to your handbook

Yeah, check with your teacher on that one to be sure you are using the correct convention.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:59 am**

For what it's worth, I've always been taught that "5,890,000,000" doesn't give information on how many significant figures are present (other than that it's at least 3 and at most 10), and that a qualifier is necessary (e.g. "3.s.f.", "to the nearest million", etc.) to give this information.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:26 am**

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:26 pm**

Playing around with newtonian flight controls.
It can actually be controlled quite ok after some practice...
Discount Shuttle

The actual purpose of that sim is to test out a PID controller (not implemented) that can stabilize the flight, and autolevel the shuttle.

Limit Theory Forums

Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random

Re: Random