Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures
|
#2
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more
detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
#3
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When adding measurements, the final answer needs to be rounded off to the
least significant place value of the measurements: The answer to 12.3 + 312.56 should be rounded off to the .10's place. The answer to 1200 + 346 should be rounded off to the 100's place. When multiply and dividing, the final answer should be rounded off to the least number of significant digits. The answer to 245 x 1.2 should be rounded to 2 digits and adding zero's for place value if necessasry. "Rick Rothstein" wrote: I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
#4
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The short answer is no... The problem that you run up against with this type
of rounding is that there is no definitieve way to assess the least significant digit. In your example with 1200 you indicate that the result should be rounded to the nearest 100. Your assumption is that 1200 is only accurate to the nearest 100 units of measure. It could actually be accurate to the nearest single unit. 1201 would be accurate to the nearest single unit. To be truely accurate you either need to know the the accuracy of the least significant digit, or if you have a large enough data set of repeated mesurements that you can use stats to determine the least significant digit. -- HTH... Jim Thomlinson "bgarey" wrote: When adding measurements, the final answer needs to be rounded off to the least significant place value of the measurements: The answer to 12.3 + 312.56 should be rounded off to the .10's place. The answer to 1200 + 346 should be rounded off to the 100's place. When multiply and dividing, the final answer should be rounded off to the least number of significant digits. The answer to 245 x 1.2 should be rounded to 2 digits and adding zero's for place value if necessasry. "Rick Rothstein" wrote: I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
#5
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My recollection about measurement "theory" is that 1200 has four significant
digits of accuracy because it is presented using four digits (the assumption being it was measured to the last shown digit). On the other hand, had it been presented as 1.2x10², then there are only two significant digits (the power of ten is immaterial) and, as I recall, in a calculation of measurements, the answer should be rounded to the least of the significant digits among the values making up the calculation. -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "Jim Thomlinson" wrote in message ... The short answer is no... The problem that you run up against with this type of rounding is that there is no definitieve way to assess the least significant digit. In your example with 1200 you indicate that the result should be rounded to the nearest 100. Your assumption is that 1200 is only accurate to the nearest 100 units of measure. It could actually be accurate to the nearest single unit. 1201 would be accurate to the nearest single unit. To be truely accurate you either need to know the the accuracy of the least significant digit, or if you have a large enough data set of repeated mesurements that you can use stats to determine the least significant digit. -- HTH... Jim Thomlinson "bgarey" wrote: When adding measurements, the final answer needs to be rounded off to the least significant place value of the measurements: The answer to 12.3 + 312.56 should be rounded off to the .10's place. The answer to 1200 + 346 should be rounded off to the 100's place. When multiply and dividing, the final answer should be rounded off to the least number of significant digits. The answer to 245 x 1.2 should be rounded to 2 digits and adding zero's for place value if necessasry. "Rick Rothstein" wrote: I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
#6
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
How would you distinguish 1200 measured to 2 significant figures from 1200
measured to 3 or 4 significant figures? -- David Biddulph "bgarey" wrote in message ... When adding measurements, the final answer needs to be rounded off to the least significant place value of the measurements: The answer to 12.3 + 312.56 should be rounded off to the .10's place. The answer to 1200 + 346 should be rounded off to the 100's place. When multiply and dividing, the final answer should be rounded off to the least number of significant digits. The answer to 245 x 1.2 should be rounded to 2 digits and adding zero's for place value if necessasry. "Rick Rothstein" wrote: I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
#7
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When I took significant figures, we differentiated it as follows:
1. 1200 is 2 sig figs 2. 1200. is 4 sig figs (note the decimal point) 3. 1.20 x 10^3 is 3 sig figs Regards, Fred. "David Biddulph" <groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message ... How would you distinguish 1200 measured to 2 significant figures from 1200 measured to 3 or 4 significant figures? -- David Biddulph "bgarey" wrote in message ... When adding measurements, the final answer needs to be rounded off to the least significant place value of the measurements: The answer to 12.3 + 312.56 should be rounded off to the .10's place. The answer to 1200 + 346 should be rounded off to the 100's place. When multiply and dividing, the final answer should be rounded off to the least number of significant digits. The answer to 245 x 1.2 should be rounded to 2 digits and adding zero's for place value if necessasry. "Rick Rothstein" wrote: I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
#8
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is all correct. But is there away to get Excel to round to the correct
place value. I know the TI-83 calculators have an application that can round to correct significant figures. I have no idea how to do this. "Fred Smith" wrote: When I took significant figures, we differentiated it as follows: 1. 1200 is 2 sig figs 2. 1200. is 4 sig figs (note the decimal point) 3. 1.20 x 10^3 is 3 sig figs Regards, Fred. "David Biddulph" <groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message ... How would you distinguish 1200 measured to 2 significant figures from 1200 measured to 3 or 4 significant figures? -- David Biddulph "bgarey" wrote in message ... When adding measurements, the final answer needs to be rounded off to the least significant place value of the measurements: The answer to 12.3 + 312.56 should be rounded off to the .10's place. The answer to 1200 + 346 should be rounded off to the 100's place. When multiply and dividing, the final answer should be rounded off to the least number of significant digits. The answer to 245 x 1.2 should be rounded to 2 digits and adding zero's for place value if necessasry. "Rick Rothstein" wrote: I am not finding your question to be clear.. can you provide a little more detail as to what you are looking for along with 3 or 4 examples of what you have and what you expect them to look like after being rounded? -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "bgarey" wrote in message ... Can I use excel to round operations with measurements to significant figures |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
format cells number to 3 significant figures?? | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
How to display results to certain number of significant figures | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Automatic formatting of Significant Figures .... | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Rounding/Significant figures | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
Significant figures (not decimal places) | Excel Worksheet Functions |