15 posts • Page 1 of 1
These both have the same amount of significant figures. During one of the lectures, Dr. Lavelle had stated that significant figures are easily understandable when you put them into scientific notation. For example, these two numbers(125 and 125.) are both 1.25 * 10^2 and have 3 significant figures.
Basically, zeroes before the decimal point with the decimal point behind them and zeroes following the decimal point are significant. The only zeroes that aren't significant are zeroes in a number like 120 where they are no decimal points.
Bianca Barcelo 1G wrote:For these types of values involving leading zeros behind a decimal, (e.g., .041), would you disregard the 0 as a significant figure?
I believe for the example of 0.041 there would be 2 sig figs so the 0 is not a sig fig
The reason 120 has 2 significant figures while 120. has 3 is that the decimal tells you that any zeros before and after it are considered significant. So, 120 has 2 sig figs, while 120. has 3 sig figs and 120.0 has 4 sig figs. The zeros after nonzero numbers are only significant if there is a decimal. 1200 only has 2 sifg figs because the zeros are not followed by a decimal.
Manya Kidambi 3I wrote:Can someone explain the difference in sig figs between 125 and 125. , if there is one?
125 and 125. both have 3 significant figures. However, 125.0 has 4 significant figures. The reason being that there is a 0 behind the decimal point in 125.0 while 125. does not have a 0. 125.00 would have 5 sig figs, 125.000 would have 6, and so on.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests