You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

evand comments on Solved Problems Repository - Less Wrong Discussion

25 Post author: Qiaochu_Yuan 27 March 2013 04:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (270)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: evand 31 March 2013 07:13:43PM 1 point [-]

Excellent point.

I suspect you're basically correct, but I would not take the stats results at face value. There are many possible problems resulting from the physical and electrical properties of the scale you're using, that I would not expect to be well behaved in a stats sense. In particular: quantization errors, non-linearity / non-monotonicity of the scale A/D converter (depends strongly on type of A/D used), temperature dependence of both the scale strain gauges and A/D, etc.

The general rule here is that trying to get too many more bits of precision out of a measuring device than it is intended to provide is tricky.

You could calibrate the scale in a number of ways; easiest would probably be to check that it gives consistent readings over time for a fixed weight that's not too small compared to you. You could simply weigh the fixed weight, or you could weigh you and (you + weight).

Comment author: [deleted] 02 April 2013 11:37:25AM 1 point [-]

You're right, any time-varying systematic error (due to temperature, ageing of the scale, etc.) would screw up the analysis. (Quantization errors shouldn't matter that much so long as they're much smaller than day-to-day fluctuations.)