Friday

April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014

Posted by **Anonymous** on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 2:41pm.

For example:

My book states that zeros that come before a digit are NEVER significant. Now this makes sense if you have a number like 0.123 which would have three significant figures... But the book gives the example of 0.0055 which it says only has two significant figures. This isn't logical to me! 0.0055 IS NOT the same as .55 so how can those two zeros after the decimal point, not be significant?

The other part that confuses me is when zeros come after the numbers. For example, .3400 has four significant figures. This isn't logical to me either. Isn't .3400 the same as .34? I feel like these rules are wrong and should be switched around.

Is there something I'm not understanding about significant figures that would shed some light on these rules?

- Science -
**SraJMcGin**, Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 7:23pmYou should find help in a tutorial:

http://www.google.com/search?q=significant+figures+tutorial&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Sra

**Related Questions**

Science (Chemistry!) - I just do not understand ANYTHING about multiplying/...

Physics - Talking about significant figures, my Physics textbook lists 5 rules ...

Significant figures - How would I go and express these numbers with 3 ...

Science Significant Figures - Calculate the area, with the appropriate number of...

significant figures - 82.453 in 3 significant figures with scientific notation...

math - significant numbers 2.8723 * 1.6 = 4.59568. Is it 4.6 because it is the ...

significant figures - hi what is 43342 to 1sf because my old maths teacher said ...

Significant figures in chemistry - can someone please explain significant ...

chemistry - use exponential notation to express the number 480 in 3 significant ...

Math - Any help would be appreciated! What is 38.896/5.1 + 509.15 to the correct...