Snowflake's Feed

oh and if anyone is wondering, if i'm just making noise to discuss pointless trivia, no its in relatiion to the new game i'm practicing on. In grand prix time is accurate to 1/100 of a second, so people who have zero for the last digit, lose it, making there time still displayed correctly but appearing less accurate. nads here for example probably deserves the .90 instead of just .9

nads liked this post

I don't care how many zero's you add to a decimal, the number is always accurate to whatever the last non zero digit happens to be. .0920000000 is still .92 seconds because that's exactly the number you landed on. .0920000001 is a different story because they are not the same number. Not sure what you mean by less accurate in that instance, it's the same number. If I say I got "1 second" and you said you got "1.000 seconds" its the exact same thing. If I say I rounded my time, that's a completely different story and yours is then more accurate because we don't know if I had any decimals.

If a game tracks something, we should track it time wise. Most games don't go beyond hundredths of a second though.

ok ill elaborate, i didnt wanna drone on more. its what called "signficant figures" and no things are not accurate to the last non zero

consider if someone is 181lbs do you really think they're 181lbs and not 181.000001? we typically record to the last certain digit. so theres absolutely reason to say 181.0 as opposed to just 181 in the real world with tolerance. in the real world where nothing is perfect 181 we accpet is likely off by at least some microscopic ammount but we know it cant be off by more than 1. whereas 181.0 is off by no more than .1

even ignoring science and "signficant figures" consider video games where it applies here. if a game just records to the the .1 well if you get 32.9 maybe it was really32.86 maybe it was 32.94. since things are rounded to the nearest .1 you dont know

is that the entire reason to use extra digits? cause no, the prior digits are not exactly accurate. so if you're accurate to the 100s place you indicate that by including that digit.

in your example of .09200000 i would know the real number is between .091000009 and .090999999 but with the .09100000 i know the error is far more minor and it was measured far more precisely

are you really gonnna tell me if a speed run rounds to the nearest second you'll just assume 32 seconds there is equal to 32.000 seconds on someone who rounds to the nearest millisecond?

this is the difference between pure math and science. pure math and the real world where minor innacuracies exist and nothing is perfect so we give indicators of how precise we are

Originally Posted by thegamer1185

I don't care how many zero's you add to a decimal, the number is always accurate to whatever the last non zero digit happens to be. .0920000000 is still .92 seconds because that's exactly the number you landed on. .0920000001 is a different story because they are not the same number. Not sure what you mean by less accurate in that instance, it's the same number. If I say I got "1 second" and you said you got "1.000 seconds" its the exact same thing. If I say I rounded my time, that's a completely different story and yours is then more accurate because we don't know if I had any decimals.

If a game tracks something, we should track it time wise. Most games don't go beyond hundredths of a second though.

That's what I was thinking. I think he means that he wants more "definition" ?

john

.

I hate that. Snoflake posted as I was typing.

john

.

i should've said more "precise" than more "accurate" though in reality both.

if you weight 180lbs and i say you weight 131.567 pounds thats a very precise but very innacurate number.

extra decimals are more precise, and assuming you are accurate within that tolerance including the extra signficant figure helps

since we all have games with rounding and times i thought it would be clear what i meant, but if its not, no point in my going into detail on something thats already explained elsewhere. I'll just link you here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

you know what it doesnt matter. i'm learning more and more its not about just being right, its also about being clear. if this causes confusion, then right or wrong, its a bad idea

Originally Posted by Snowflake

ok ill elaborate, i didnt wanna drone on more. its what called "signficant figures" and no things are not accurate to the last non zero

consider if someone is 181lbs do you really think they're 181lbs and not 181.000001? we typically record to the last certain digit. so theres absolutely reason to say 181.0 as opposed to just 181 in the real world with tolerance. in the real world where nothing is perfect 181 we accpet is likely off by at least some microscopic ammount but we know it cant be off by more than 1. whereas 181.0 is off by no more than .1

even ignoring science and "signficant figures" consider video games where it applies here. if a game just records to the the .1 well if you get 32.9 maybe it was really32.86 maybe it was 32.94. since things are rounded to the nearest .1 you dont know

is that the entire reason to use extra digits? cause no, the prior digits are not exactly accurate. so if you're accurate to the 100s place you indicate that by including that digit.

in your example of .09200000 i would know the real number is between .091000009 and .090999999 but with the .09100000 i know the error is far more minor and it was measured far more precisely

are you really gonnna tell me if a speed run rounds to the nearest second you'll just assume 32 seconds there is equal to 32.000 seconds on someone who rounds to the nearest millisecond?

this is the difference between pure math and science. pure math and the real world where minor innacuracies exist and nothing is perfect so we give indicators of how precise we are

I completely agreed with you. My example of me saying I got "1 second" but I rounded my number is absolutely inaccurate compared to your "1.000". Mine my not have been a true one second where as your is. I was simply pointing out that if you got 1.001 seconds and my time displayed at 1.0010000 seconds we have the exact same time. Now if your point is that you honestly don't know if you landed exactly on 1.001, then yes they are different. We are agreeing, lets just put it that way, haha.

yes my point would include you honestly dont know if yo ulnaded exactly on 1.001 how could you? even countnig frames, is it truly 60 frames per second? theres always some slight innacuracy.

now take a game with an in game timer. i suppose since we all know the game records to the 2nd decimal, and if i only include the first decimal then sure one can assume the next decimal is zero. so i guess for the example i brought up you're right and my point was moot. plus people can click on the submission and figure it out. i think it just got me more how awkward and unflush it looks to have a game that records to the 1/100 and for us to include times to the 1/100 but leave off where its zero.

i'm also realizing the effort in fixing it and the likely bugs and confusion that owuld pop up along the way

so take this as an impetuous post where i just noticed something and immediately commented on it.

"Significant digits" is more of a maths term than a widely used understanding. "Visible digits" may be an easier term to explain the idea.

There was a point in the past of TGSAP era when the scoreboard displayed 5 significant digits and the community argued that the scoreboard should not display more digits than are in a game. There were then some games, like the Wii Sports Resort 3 Point Basketball where most people will get an integer score but someone completing all 30 shots will get a time bonus with a decimal component (this happened in pre-TGSAP era). It was necessary to show everyone's score (in the pre-TGSAP era) to one decimal place which made no sense for most scores...

Ultimately, the scoreboard is in a compromise of showing all relevant digits.

Snowflake thanked this post

right terminology for right group is tough. 'significant digits" is the term used in chemistruy and physics so i assume the term used in other sciences as well. took me a few rereading to realize what lexmark meant by defintion, i get it though, i think he's talking about like high def tv? in which case yes, a more refined granularity of measurement also describes the same concept. i care about semantcis in so far as they can help avoid confusion, but i dont care about semantics to try to elevate myself or any of that nonsense so i really am perfectly happy switching over to another term if that helps.

so thanks, i guess something did come out of this. any lesson that helps me communciate better, while not my original goal, is still helpful

Barthax thanked this post

Barthax liked this post