[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Question: representation of uncertainties in scientific notation
- Subject: Re: Question: representation of uncertainties in scientific notation
- From: Nick Spadaccini <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 02:27:46 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Brian H. Toby wrote: > Does anyone know how CIF handles numbers with "esd's" when they are > in exponential notation, (at least for DLL 1.x, where numbers may be > reported as -12.345(2) if the esd flag is true.) > > My understanding is the conventional crystallographic notation for a > number in exponential notation is > > -1.2345(2) x 10^1 > > but my reading of section 59 in > http://www.iucr.org/iucr-top/cif/developers/spec/cifsyntax.html > is that CIF uses > > -1.2345e1(2) > > I just want to check that -1.2345(2)e1 is not valid and has never been > intended to valid in CIF. I would guess that -1.2345(2)e1 looks more natural, but -1.2345e1(2) would be equally valid unless there is a case where you may need to record a standard uncertainty in the exponent. Unlikely. cheers Nick -------------------------------- Dr N. Spadaccini Deputy Head of Department Department of Computer Science & voice: +(61 8) 9380 3452 Software Engineering fax: +(61 8) 9380 1089 University of Western Australia email: nick@cs.uwa.edu.au 35 Stirling Highway w3: www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~nick CRAWLEY, Perth, WA 6009 AUSTRALIA CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: Question: representation of uncertainties in scientific notation
- Next by Date: Re: Question: representation of uncertainties in scientific notation
- Prev by thread: Question: representation of uncertainties in scientific notation
- Next by thread: Re: Question: representation of uncertainties in scientific notation
- Index(es):