Re: NEC-LIST: Accuracy vs precision

That sounds like the definitions I learned long ago. Actually,
precision, if it's repeatable, is worthwhile, too, in that you may
be able later to calibrate and correct earlier measurements. For
example, I can make frequency measurements based on a very stable
oscillator which is not properly calibrated, and later (or at
essentially the same time) measure a primary frequency standard to
generate a correction factor. I may be able to trust the oscillator
to be stable, for example, to one part in 10^9, but know that it was
not initially set accurately to even one part in 10^6. So in
addition to "accuracy" and "precision", I think it's worthwhile to
mention "repeatability" and/or "stability".

Cheers,
Tom

alan.boswell_at_baesystems.com wrote:
>
> Dan
> Thanks for your comments and the dictionaries I looked up define 'accuracy'
> as 'conforming to a standard or to truth' while 'precision' seems to be more
> concerned with the number of decimal places quoted: the New Penguin
> Dictionary of Science says that to state that pi is equal to 3.452546 would
> be precise but significantly inaccurate. So accuracy is worth having,
> precision on its own is not - does that agree accurately with your
> remarks?
> Alan

-- 
The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca>
http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-list