:::Fortunately, the one advantage is that they can be fairly easy to think about even if very difficult to describe precisely. Let's say you have a cube where the length is 99% accurate, the height is 99% accurate and the width is 99% accurate. What is the accuracy of the volume of the cube if all the inaccuracies are inaccuracies of smallness? You might think it's 99% since all the accuracies match. But what you do is multiply them through .9900000 x .9900000 x .9900000 = .970299..., and you get only about 97.03% accurate for the volume. You might want to learn more about the accuracies of your measurements and how big of a mass the total inaccuracy is to see the size of the mass that might be "missing" from the equation. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:19, 24 June 2015 (EDT) | :::Fortunately, the one advantage is that they can be fairly easy to think about even if very difficult to describe precisely. Let's say you have a cube where the length is 99% accurate, the height is 99% accurate and the width is 99% accurate. What is the accuracy of the volume of the cube if all the inaccuracies are inaccuracies of smallness? You might think it's 99% since all the accuracies match. But what you do is multiply them through .9900000 x .9900000 x .9900000 = .970299..., and you get only about 97.03% accurate for the volume. You might want to learn more about the accuracies of your measurements and how big of a mass the total inaccuracy is to see the size of the mass that might be "missing" from the equation. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:19, 24 June 2015 (EDT) |