Hello Ron,
> It all Depends on the "values" of "x" in realtion to an assumed limit...It's
> all variable,
> the closest we can get to Precision is an assumed limit with an assumed "mean"
> and that depends on the value of the measurement In relation to the intent of
> the
> subject with the object.
Yes. I mentioned the function that rounds to the nearest whole number because I
remembered you said you and your daughter had seen this play out on a
calculator.
And I mentioned this because it is something altogether different from the
problems
of precision and measurement. Setting a machine to filter its output is
different from
being able to repeat and reproduce the same input to the machine (e.g.,
measuring
device).
On the other hand precision and measurement are functions of variation in what's
being measured and in the measuring process. In my line of work the latter is
taken
to include both the human element and the measuring device. The same gauge used
by different people and producing the same result is called reproducibility.
And the
same gauge used by the same person and producing the same result is called
repeatability. Gauge R & R and elements of the manufacturing process combine
to provide the means to ensure that what is delivered to the customer is what
the
customer is told it can expect.
I suppose the philosophical implications of precision and measurement would be
knowledge and truth. For example, when the area of a building site is
communicated
to a potential buyer is the buyer told they're being offered some area ± some
variance
due to measuring process variations? Probably not because the variance is so
small.
What if they weren't? Imagine property law if the best a surveyor could do is
measure
to ± 10 feet. Every property would be bounded by zones of contention.
> The emphisis I'm making is that is not an absolute value ...that the value
> [(x) + (x)]
> is the The "real" value and not absolute. Only when a limit to
> perception/precision is
> applied is anything Useable and senseable. I'm seeing paralells to Bohrs
> philosophy.
> Is [(x) + (x)] the function Of Quality?
Right. It seems like or feels like discerning what's real is a matter of
perception that
includes a degree of uncertainty. Is that building site 100,000 or
100,000.0069 square
feet? If the area is measured 3 times and 3 different results are obtained
should the
variance be attributed to the measuring device, the measuring process or to
plate
tectonics? And what is the significance of 1 square inch to a 2.3 acre
building site?
The quality of the area measurement, it seems to me, is probably more a matter
of
using a calibrated measuring device correctly and reporting the results
accurately and
quickly than anything else.
Kevin
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
