Timeline for Could one measure a stick to an arbitrary precision by having its length estimated by enough people?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 9:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 8, 2016 at 16:44 | comment | added | gerrit | @kutschkem It does, and it's similar to the problem in estimating an uncertainty from repeated digital measurements. If my measurement series in counts is $[10, 10, 10, 9, 10, 11, 10, 10]$, digitisation will affect uncertainty estimates and propagation. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 9:18 | comment | added | kutschkem | Does the fact that people will probably only estimate the discrete mm steps change anything? Since that's not really normally distributed?! Assuming people do not just round the real length, which would break the question immediately. | |
| Apr 8, 2014 at 19:42 | history | bounty ended | yippy_yay | ||
| Apr 8, 2014 at 18:55 | comment | added | yippy_yay | I also agree with this answer - the result is astounding, but I presume correct if the - valid - objections of @Daniel Mahler - can be avoided by posing this question in a manner which doesn't attract bias. | |
| Apr 8, 2014 at 18:50 | vote | accept | yippy_yay | ||
| Apr 8, 2014 at 2:25 | comment | added | user6972 | 7 billion people gives you a sigma down to about 230 cesium atoms. But I doubt you'll get 1cm accuracy from 7 billion people. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:10 | comment | added | Ali | This is the correct answer I would expect for this question. | |
| Apr 1, 2014 at 21:43 | history | answered | Colin McFaul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |