Always BUFF
I post stupid ****
FixedYou had me until "Dion"
FixedYou had me until "Dion"
Oh yeah. Them.Cincinnati. Obviously.
Lol, really? That's an interesting hate school. How come?I generally dislike private religious schools, so I'll put TCU, Baylor, BYU on there.
But there's no D1 school I hate more than Iowa State.
Person I despised was overly proud of their degrees from ISULol, really? That's an interesting hate school. How come?
Yeah. I hadn't known anyone who hated the Clones. Figured there were probably some Hawkeye & KSU fans who did due to rivalry, but I've only encountered decent, reasonable folks from the ISU fanbase.Lol, really? That's an interesting hate school. How come?
Person I dispised was overly proud of their degrees from ISU
Stop trying to make Coaches ADsThe next AD when RG retires...Deion Sanders
Prime isn’t your typical coach…nor would he be a typical AD.Stop trying to make Coaches ADs
Out running today, I flashed back to this conversation.
I don’t think “incorrect” can be included in the definition of “precise”.
If I say pi is approximately equal to... | That answer is... |
3.14159265358979 | Precise and accurate |
2.06127651552485 | Precise, but not accurate |
3 | accurate, but not precise |
2 | neither precise nor accurate |
Right now, grammar nazis are looking pretty good.
Out running today, I flashed back to this conversation.
Let me expand. I correct is not included in the definition of precise, however, something can be precise and incorrect. And being inaccurate does not preclude something from being precise.
It's a common misunderstanding between accuracy and precision. Expanding on the pi example may help you.
If I say pi is approximately equal to... That answer is... 3.14159265358979 Precise and accurate 2.06127651552485 Precise, but not accurate 3 accurate, but not precise 2 neither precise nor accurate
How would you categorize 3.14?Out running today, I flashed back to this conversation.
Let me expand. I correct is not included in the definition of precise, however, something can be precise and incorrect. And being inaccurate does not preclude something from being precise.
It's a common misunderstanding between accuracy and precision. Expanding on the pi example may help you.
If I say pi is approximately equal to... That answer is... 3.14159265358979 Precise and accurate 2.06127651552485 Precise, but not accurate 3 accurate, but not precise 2 neither precise nor accurate
Saying π ~= 3.14 is accurate, and more precise than 3, but less precise than 3.14159.How would you categorize 3.14?
I don't know (remember) the context for this, but my initial impression is that by omitting that, you are being deliberately misleading.
In other words, where is "accurate and sufficient?"
For instance "**** bailer" is sufficient and accurate, though "**** Baylor University" would be accurate and precise.
The difference between precision and accuracy is taught in basic laboratory sciences.Haha. Wow. That was like 7 months ago.
My counter argument would be that you can be correct but not precise. But you cannot be precise without being correct (otherwise it’s all just randomness…which is the opposite of precise).
precise
(prɪˈsaɪs)
adj
1. strictly correct in amount or value: a precise sum.
2. designating a certain thing and no other; particular: this precise location.
3. using or operating with total accuracy: precise instruments.
4. strict in observance of rules, standards, etc: a precise mind.
Where Aviator and I are differing is on a linguistic vs a scientific definition of the term. He's correct that in everyday speech that hitting the target is required to be precise. But in physics, the definition of precision is independent of accuracy.The difference between precision and accuracy is taught in basic laboratory sciences.
The definitions used there, and in all the statistics I've engaged with, deals with measurement error.
For repeated measurements of the same characteristic, precision is how close each of the measurements are to each other and accuracy is how close the measurements are, on average to the true value.
If you're 180 pounds and have a cheap bathroom scale which you step on and off of 5 times and get measurements of 184, 178, 181, 175, 182 you'd call that scale accurate, but imprecise. On average it gets it right, but it's a scattershot of values.
Now you go to a doctor's office where the physician tried to calibrate the expensive scale hisself, but kind of messed up. You take five measurements and get 177.1, 176.9, 177.0, 177.0, 177.1. That would be a precise but inaccurate measurement.
The frequently used analogy in teaching is hits on a target. A tight grouping on the bullseye is precise and accurate, a loose grouping that surrounds the bullseye is accurate but imprecise, a tight grouping off the bullseye is innacurate and precise, a loose grouping skewed away from the bullseye is innacurate and imprecise.
File:Accuracy and precision.svg - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Accuracy and precision - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Saying π ~= 3.14 is accurate, and more precise than 3, but less precise than 3.14159.
The question of whether or not 3.14 is "sufficient" comes down to how many significant digits the other measurements have, in this case the radius. If you measure the radius to three or less significant digits, 3.14 is sufficient. If your measurement system of the radius goes to five, 3.14 not sufficient to avoid losing precision in calculating the circumference.
I've always owned it
Where Aviator and I are differing is on a linguistic vs a scientific definition of the term. He's correct that in everyday speech that hitting the target is required to be precise. But in physics, the definition of precision is independent of accuracy.
This is a frequent problem in our language (maybe every language?) -- nearly every word has multiple definitions and often they are in conflict.
interesting observation -- not unusual for you to give me a new perspective to consider.In everyday language, being too precise actually distracts from meaning and/or intention.
I don't know if there's an equivalent phenomenon in science.
I vaguely recall some pedagogical research about overly precise language and jargon reducing the effectiveness of communicating and learning.In everyday language, being too precise actually distracts from meaning and/or intention.
I don't know if there's an equivalent phenomenon in science.