Is there a more scientific way of determining the number of significant digits to report for a mean or a confidence interval in a situation which is fairly standard – e.g. first year class at college.
I have seen Number of significant figures to put in a table, Why don't we use significant digits and Number of significant figures in a chi square fit, but these don't seem to put their finger on the problem.
In my classes I try to explain to my students that it is a waste of ink to report 15 significant digits when they have such a wide standard error in their results – my gut feeling was that it should be rounded to about somewhere of the order of $0.25\sigma$. This is not too different from what is said by ASTM – Reporting Test Results referring to E29 where they say it should be between $0.05\sigma$ and $0.5\sigma$.
EDIT:
When I have a set of numbers like x
below, how many digits should I use to print the mean and standard deviation?
set.seed(123)
x <- rnorm(30) # default mean=0, sd=1
# R defaults to 7 digits of precision options(digits=7)
mean(x) # -0.04710376 - not far off theoretical 0
sd(x) # 0.9810307 - not far from theoretical 1
sd(x)/sqrt(length(x)) # standard error of mean 0.1791109
QUESTION: Spell out in detail what the precision is (when there is a vector of double precision numbers) for mean and standard deviation in this and write a simple R pedagogical function which will print the mean and standard deviation to the significant number of digits that is reflected in the vector x
.
Best Answer
The Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) recommends that the uncertainty be reported with no more than 2 digits and that the result be reported with the number of significant digits needed to make it consistent with the uncertainty. See Section 7.2.2 below
http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf
The following code was my attempt to implement this recommendation in R. Noe that R can be uncooperative with attempts to retain trailing zeros in output, even if they are significant.