Yeen never lied.

You ace that exam

Zack Stone that was 5 years ago lol

Elite Alpha Views yeah Ik 😂

I hope you aced the exam :)

@@crimsondawn1996 Why are we all commenting on a comment that is 5 years old? She's probably in her 3rd year of University rn

choper me

send help

@@jaymanh lmfao same fam

손

Yep

the dick riding crazy

stupid

LOLOLOLOL!!! Awesome! You got it!

@@GPCTM You must be fun at parties

what's a party?

Gracie Hines Same！

Your final digit is the estimated digit, which is one power of ten smaller than the divisions that are marked on the ruler. If the length of the object falls somewhere between the marks at 0 cm and 10 cm, the final digit in your estimate of length should go to the one's place (for example: 6 cm). If the length of the object falls somewhere between 6 cm and 7 cm, the final digit in your estimate of length should go to the tenth place (for example: 6.5 cm). If the length of the object falls somewhere between 6.7 cm and 6.8 cm, the final digit in your estimate of length should go to the hundredth place (for example: 6.75 cm).

Norman Dañez Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the true value. There is no difference in accuracy between 6 cm, 6.0 cm, and 6.00 cm. They are all the same, in terms of their numerical value. On the other hand, precision refers to a set of measurements and how close they are to each other. When the word "precise" is used to describe a measurement (or a ruler in this case), it refers to the fact that there is a small range of error. A measurement of 6 cm can fall between 5 cm and 7cm. A measurement of 6.00 cm falls between 5.99 cm and 6.01 cm. Therefore 6.00 cm is more precise than 6 cm because there is a smaller range of error.

+Michael Farabaugh Can one say that the second and third rulers have a better resolution and therefore the measurement is more accurate (rather than precise)? If I understood right precision refers to a set of measurements not to one single measurement as in the video?

A measurement of 5.412 cm is more precise than a measurement of 5.41 cm. If we assume that the final, estimated digit can vary according to ± 1, then 5.412 ± 0.001 cm is more precise than 5.41 ± 0.01 cm because it has a smaller range of uncertainty associated with it.

Focus on the number, and not the unit. If the number 36000 has no decimal point at the end, then all we can say for sure is that we know this value to two significant figures. The actual value of the number could fall anywhere in between values of 35500 and 36499. If, on the other hand, we have a measurement of exactly 36000. we need to place a decimal point at the end of the number. This would indicate that the value is known to five significant figures.

In my opinion, I would still estimate the length of the object to the nearest 0.1 cm

Michael Farabaugh thanks

High school chemistry (10th grade)

It sounds like you want the measurement "200" to have exactly two significant figures. The only way to do this is to use scientific notation, as in 2.0 x 10^2

+Shamma Altenaiji I'm 6th

8th

10th

college sophomore xD

11th

I would say that a reasonable person could estimate the length of any object on that particular ruler to within ± 2 cm of the actual measurement. If we assume that the uncertainty is ± 2, then I would say the measurement of the pencil would be recorded as 6 ± 2 cm.

Michael, you are inconsistent with your statements. Once you are saying that you measure to the one tenth of the scale (so in the case that we have ruler with marks at 0 and 10 cm, we can read up to 1 cm). But above you are saying that with particular ruler one can measure to within ± 2 cm. So which is right??? My answer to that question is - NEITHER. With the ANY ruler or scale you can read ONLY up to the HALF of the smallest grading. So, in the above example at 5:00 min, the readout can be done to within 5cm (one half of the 10 cm); that means that the correct answer is: 5 cm ± 5cm Of course it means that one should use different ruler to measure that pencil. As a rule of thumb - with any ruler/scale one can measure/report value ONLY up to the HALF of the smallest grading (unless Vernier scale is there). That is because the Manufacturer of the ruler made it in such a way that we can be sure only up to the half of the scale marks. Otherwise producer would put more lines for me. The reason there is no more lines b/c they are uncertain!!!!

If you weigh the 8000kg on a scale with 10kg division, then it shows up as 800. Then you have to add up ".n" , that is the estimated digit, e.g. it becomes the value 800.0 (x 10) kg. That yields to 4 sig figs. That is what I guess it should be.

If you follow this youtube video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNWPhLJzm5uoZ58.html, you will actually get your expected answer of 3. Let me calculate it briefly: The resolution is 10kg which is shown as 1 digit in the least signficant position. This digit is already the estimated sig fig, which is estimated by the scale for you. You must not estimate another digit. Also this least sig digit represents a range from 5 to 14 kg due to mathematical rounding to 10kg. Recap: The number "800." (x10) kg has 3 sig fig digits. Also listen carefully to this part of that video to get the explanation kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNWPhLJzm5uoZ58.html . Hope this helps a bit.

Suppose that the initial reading on a buret (with lines every 0.1 mL) is recorded as 1.52 mL. After dispensing some liquid from the buret, the final reading is recorded as 26.52 mL. How much liquid was delivered from the buret? Now imagine that you have liquid in a beaker (with lines every 10 mL). The volume of liquid is roughly halfway between the 20 mL mark and the 30 mL mark. How should this volume be recorded? The buret delivered 25.00 mL (4 significant figures). The beaker holds 25 mL (2 sig figs). Significant figures give us information about the level of precision associated with the piece of equipment that was used to record the measurement. Since 1500 L (in your example) has only 2 sig figs, the volume could be somewhere between 1400 L and 1600 L. If you had said that the volume is 1500. L (4 sig figs), that narrows it down. The volume would be somewhere between 1499 mL and 1501 mL. A measurement of 1500. L is more precise than a measurement of 1500 L, because there is a smaller range of error.

eden wtf

@@che1sxii you CRACKHEAD

I'm not sure why there are two leading zeroes in your number. If your number represents 234000 (two hundred thirty-four thousand) with no decimal point at the end of the number, then it has three sig figs.

I can see your point, but you must remember to distinguish between trailing zeros (at the right side of the number) with leading zeros (at the left side of a number). Don't focus on the position of the zeroes relative to the decimal point. Focus on the fact that the measurement 0.0075 m contains three leading zeroes, all of which are not significant. The first significant digit in 0.0075 is the "7". A better way to understand this concept is to convert 0.0075 into scientific notation. If you do that, you get 7.5E-3. The number 0.0075 has two significant figures, no matter which way you write it. Those first three leading zeros don't matter. You haven't gotten to a measurement yet until you arrive at the first nonzero digit, which happens to be the "7."

Michael Farabaugh d