how is a zero after a decimal significant?
ok this has got to be the most retardest thing I ever heard. I took a test the other day, and yes ill admit i did not study fully and i got my answer thru common sense. The question was, is the zero in 55.0 significant, and i put no, and the answer was yes!?!?1 How is a zero after a decimal place SIGNIFICANT!??! Especially if theres no numbers after it, like this really pisses me off. It pisses me off that we learn such friggen nonsense, like a zero after a decimal is significant. To me if theres no number after the zero then its NOT FRIGGEN SIGNIFICANT. IF YOU REMOVE THE ZERO FROM THE NUMBER THE NUMBER IS STILL THE SAME!!! GAWWD! i am sorry im ranting on here, but this is straight boogus, someone please tell me im right
Comments
hey this may help you...
Suppose you measure on a vernier scale the length to be 55.07 cm, then if you are asked to leave the answer to 1 significant figure, you have to write 55.0. Instead if you write 55, it means in your observation is exactly 55 (which it is not, and therefore the zero is so important). This is actually quite irritating, but that is the way the world is.
Yes, if you remove the zero from the number, it's still the same. That tells you that if the zero wasn't significant, you just wouldn't write it. So if you wanted to express this value with only two significant digits, you'd just write "55".
Or, you could consider scientific notation.
5.50x10^1 has three significant digits
5.5x10^1 has two significant digits
I'm sorry, I can't tell you you're right, because you're wrong.
Actually, if you wanted to express 55.07cm to one significant figure, it would be 60cm. Expressing it to one decimal place would be 55.1cm (three significant figures). Two significant figures, 55cm, would not mean your measurement was exact, it would mean you believed the true value lay between 54.5cm and 55.5cm.
GOT IT???????
Zeros aren't significant if their sole function is to position the decimal point. The zero in 55.0 isn't just positioning the decimal point, so it is significant.
Yes, if you remove the zero from the number, it's still the same. That tells you that if the zero wasn't significant, you just wouldn't write it. So if you wanted to express this value with only two significant digits, you'd just write "55".
Or, you could consider scientific notation.
5.50x10^1 has three significant digits
5.5x10^1 has two significant digits
I'm sorry, I can't tell you you're right, because you're wrong.
****************
Edit: Actually, Soham, if you wanted to express 55.07cm to one significant figure, it would be 60cm. Expressing it to one decimal place would be 55.1cm (three significant figures). Two significant figures, 55cm, would not mean your measurement was exact, it would mean you believed the true value lay between 54.5cm and 55.5cm.
Suppose you measure on a vernier scale the length to be 55.07 cm, then if you are asked to leave the answer to 1 significant figure, you have to write 55.0. Instead if you write 55, it means in your observation is exactly 55 (which it is not, and therefore the zero is so important). This is actually quite irritating, but that is the way the world is.