Is super-accuracy matters?

[johnb]

(10-13-2023 08:44 PM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  I was in good practice with the slide rule though, so for single operations, the calculator was not significantly faster.

In 1981 in college chemistry, we had a prof who would run us through speed drills if the class finished a bit early. 99% of the class had calculators; he had a K+E slipstick, and he nearly always won.

I Wrote:I remember as a kid, just being amazed that I could multiply 1234 x 5678 and instead of getting ~ 7x10¹², it would (more or less promptly) flash "7,006,652."

Garth Wrote:Er... make that 7.01x10^6   (not 10^12)

And now the real reason I like calculators comes out. Maybe I was bad at using a slide rule? Could be worse... I could be an engineer who's bad at math?

I Wrote:"Wow, I've finally gotten good enough at eyeballing this cursor to get 2-3 significant digits, and this new clicky LED machine gives me EIGHT?"

Garth Wrote:You should always be able to get three digits on the C, CF, CI, CIF, D, and DF scales, ... On other scales you may get more.  For example, on the LL1 scale for natural logs, you can read off 1.01014. 

Definitely proves I no longer remember how to use a slide rule any more.