On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:44:15 Bill Potts wrote: >Marcus: > >One need go no further than Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary... Unfortunately, Bill, dictionaries do a very poor job of describing technicalities that only engineers/metrologists/professionals would "know" about (this is not to say that these definitions are wrong, but simply that they do not "tell the whole story"). More below. >1.70 EXPRESSES a greater degree of correctness than 1.7 (i.e., does so more >precisely). However, if it turns out to be an incorrect reading, relative to >the actual mass being measured, its ACTUAL degree of correctness (i.e., >accuracy) is low. > Your attempt to use such definitions is very commendable, but they're unfortunately "missing the target" on what I was addressing. You're again insisting on talking about "incorrect readings" when I don't recall haven't ever even being concerned about that. However, I do remember saying basically that I didn't have much beef or argument with you on this aspect. >I think you might want to entertain the possibility that the usage of the >terminology, in the University of Alberta's course materials, may be >incorrect. >... I honestly don't think so. Perhaps there may have been miscommunication or misunderstanding involved here. Therefore, I feel I should clarify this better. However, please allow me to do so by "taking a lift" from Gene's superb response on another mail, ok? Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
