> It's great that you use significant digits, but then you have to be explicit about it, and display exactly that many digits, in this case all the zeros (1,00000).
Yes, I completely agree from a statistics/physics viewpoint. The reason I display it as `1` right now is that I only have a fixed number of sign. digits (and not the sophisticated solution that you propose - which would be great!). If I always displayed all six digits, one would get `3 - 2 = 1.00000`...
> A better solution would be to not use a fixed number of significant digits, but to display the result with the precision of the least precise number the user entered. If you could follow the propagation of uncertainty through the calculations, that would be even better.
> It's great that you use significant digits, but then you have to be explicit about it, and display exactly that many digits, in this case all the zeros (1,00000).
Yes, I completely agree from a statistics/physics viewpoint. The reason I display it as `1` right now is that I only have a fixed number of sign. digits (and not the sophisticated solution that you propose - which would be great!). If I always displayed all six digits, one would get `3 - 2 = 1.00000`...
> A better solution would be to not use a fixed number of significant digits, but to display the result with the precision of the least precise number the user entered. If you could follow the propagation of uncertainty through the calculations, that would be even better.
That would be fantastic. I'll look into it.
> PS: Great job anyway, bookmarked, thanks!
I'm glad you like it!