R. wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] newbie question on timing' on Thu, Dec 01 at 15:46:
> Olin Lathrop wrote:
> >R. I. Nelson wrote:
> >>most of the stuff I did was + or - 0.0005".  but we
> >>still tried and usually achieved 0 tolerance.
> >
> >Clearly not.  Saying stuff like this that obviously can't be true just
> >eliminates your credibility.  
> 
> I think your credability has just been put in question with your above 
> statement. http://www.mytoolstore.com/starrett/micro009.html.
> This one gives readings of  0.0001

You know that's still not 0, only "close enough" for some situations
to be considerd "effectively" 0, right?  I'm pretty sure the pedantic
point is that when you said "zero tolerance" you meant "close enough
to zero for our situation".  You could well be off by .00005 and still
read "zero" with that particular tool.  That's the great thing about
real numbers  / continuous scales - there's always an infinite number
of steps between one and the next, no matter how precise you get.

--Danny, probably not emphasising "pedantic" adequately
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist