🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jofluINNt5t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>>>>Most thermometers that you would use to measure body temperature are
>>>>accurate to 3 digits anyway.
>>>
>>>BULLSHIT: 3 digit accuracy implies 1 part per thousand.
>>>	  You might manage 1 part per 50 (ie 2%).
>>>	  This implies tenth of a degree over a 5 degree range (37 to 42C).
>>
>>In case you hadn't noticed, a tenth of a degree on a temperature between 10
>>and 99 gives you three digits of accuracy...
>>
>>I seem to recall reading medical thermometers to the nearest 0.1 or 0.2'F;
>>I know that the digital thermometers currently in use can easily read to
>>the nearest 0.1'C.
>
>In case YOU haven't noticed (and obviously you haven't), the person to whom you
>were replying pointed out that, though, within a couple of degrees of normal
>human body temperature, the thermometer has [technically] the accuracy you
>claim, the scientific community has a different definition of "3-digit
>accuracy."  The latter definition means, as you fail to understand, "one part
>in 1000."

Sorry, what definition of "3-digit accuracy" do you use where, say, a
temperature of 37.2 +/- 0.1 degrees doesn't meet the definition?  First
poster said that medical thermometers were accurate to 3 digits; next
poster said "bullshit"; I pointed out that I had SEEN such thermometers.
Is there some distinction between "3 significant figures" and "3 digit
accuracy" that I'm not aware of?  Do you insist that your thermometer
actually HAVE a range of 1000 before you'll allow that its readings are
accurate to within 1 part in 1000?  Carl, you've completely lost me.

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca