2+2=5 (with 2.444...+2.444...) technically, it is still 2 if you round to the ones place. but, if you ad, then round, you get five, IN YOUR FACE LOGIC/SCIENCE/MATH!!!
>>1
so 2 +/- 0.5 + 2 +/- 0.5 = 4 +/- 1, ergo 2+2=3 too
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-08 23:00
>>1
In physics (and basically all science), the error on your value must be at least half a unit of your least significant digit. When you round 2.444 to 2, that's actually 2 +- 0.5.
(2 +- 0.5) + (2 +- 0.5) = (4 +- 0.7)
4 += 0.7 experimentally agrees with 5 because it is well within two standard deviations. Therefore the answer is correct.
>>6
chem/bio student uber failure, how do i summed standard deviation???
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-09 14:20
\text{ÄR DET EN MANGO? ÄR DET EN MANGO? ÄR DET EN MANGO? NEJ NEJ ÄR DET EN PAPPA? JA!}
Name:
Mornaf2008-10-09 20:41
>>7
hey... that means that 2+2 could equal 3. huh, neat. also, thanks for the info,
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-10 0:08
This is why math is not science
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-10 1:11
>>7
what are you assuming normality? you can't just assume normality. if your measurement device is akin to simply using a ruler (a scale) you don't need to get weird like that.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-10 1:14
>>7
what standard deviation, the 0.5 is just accounting for rounding, not a standard deviation.
This is the same shit as assuming that because all cats and dogs have four legs, all cats are therefore dogs. It was amusing the first couple times. Now people are being stupid and taking it seriously.