Mathematics desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 24

significant figures

what are the significant figures in 2900 corrected to 10 . Please explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.102.108 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean rounded to the nearest 10 ? (So 2890, 2900, 2910, etc.) ? Gives us your answer and we will comment. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation is here. DroneB (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes rounded to nearest 10

To expand on the article a bit, 2900 is ambiguous in terms of significant figures because it's not clear how many of the 0's, if any, are significant. You can get around this using scientific notation, i.e. 2900=2.9×10³=2.90×10³=2.900×10³ numerically but 2.9×10³ has two significant digits, 2.90×10³ has three and 2.900×10³ four. You can even go past the decimal with 2.9000×10³ having five significant figures. If the 2900 is accurate to within 10, then the scientific notation for it would be 2.90×10³ — three significant figures. --RDBury (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a confusion in this, as 2895,2896,2897,2898,2899,2901,2902,2903,2904 are rounded to nearest 10, all have 4 significant figures and their is ambiguity in digits, so why answer 3 is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.114.240 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers all had 4 significant figures, but once rounded to the nearest 10, to get 2900, and then you have 3 significant figures. So why would you drop the last significant digit ? Well, if the accuracy of your measurement just isn't that good, then saying a value is 2901 is just a guess. But personally, I dislike significant digits, and would write it as 2901 ± 5, if the measurement was 2901, and the accuracy is to the nearest 5. That's a more precise way of stating things. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2900±5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.24.172 (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC) 2900 may have 2,3 or 4 significant digits[reply]