Jim Elwell wrote: >I had already read your explanatory notes, and am not referring to the >exact conversions. As my email noted, saying the precision is >"appropriate" >does not explain some of the different levels of precision shown for >non-exact conversions.
Well, I still have to defer to Dennis Brownridge for the explanation. The choice of the word "appropriate" is his. Maybe he'll read this thread and respond. (I haven't seen any postings from him in quite a while.) Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
