Data scientists need to learn about significant digits

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by bigbillheck on Monday December 25, 2023 @05:50PM (#38767045)

> Do we really know this number or is it just a wild-assed guess?

Does it matter? You have 23 bits of mantissa to fill one way or the other, and if you don't know the lower, say, 12, one pattern of bits is as good as any other pattern.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by diarrhea on Monday December 25, 2023 @06:11PM (#38767226)

Precision beyond what can be justified by the uncertainty of the original input is wrong, not just as-good-as.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by bigbillheck on Monday December 25, 2023 @07:49PM (#38767870)

In terms of actual numbers in the physical world, sure, but the usual kind of floating point numbers don't have a concept of precision, and you're getting all 23 bits whether you want them or not.

Humans know the difference between "1.0" and "1.0000" but they're the same to the computer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by rcxdude on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @06:46AM (#38770956)

rounding, especially in decimal, isn't actually any better. If you want to specify precision, specify it explicitly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by tobinfricke on Monday December 25, 2023 @06:14PM (#38767242)

That would be fine if the number were accompanied by a confidence interval.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by pessimizer on Monday December 25, 2023 @06:28PM (#38767335)

The reason you get rid of those extra digits is because it will always be tempting to find meaning in them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Data scientists need to learn about significant digits by tobinfricke on Monday December 25, 2023 @06:58PM (#38767527)

Great answer!

[ Parent | on HN ]