I think that is a good choice as except for very high precision measurements the assumption is that the errors in the constants are uncorrelated. In the case where the measurement/calculation is sensitive to the correlations the user should be carefully checking those correlations and would have to do a thorough review of the literature and probably recalculate the correlations to make sure they have things correct.
Jonathan On Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:47:45 PM UTC-5, Eviatar wrote: > > Now that I look through > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/RevModPhys_80_000633acc.pdf, I've > decided not to implement uncertainty (except as an attribute of the > constant object), since taking into account the correlation coefficient > between any two constants is more difficult than I thought (see > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Correlations/index.html and > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/LSAData/index.html; apparently the covariance > matrix for 2006 and 2010 isn't even available). -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
