I will prove that averaging is more accurate than applying sig digs to averages
I have to go and do the rounds on 7 west not but i will be back
And then i will show you why using the average is almost always closer to the truth than
applying significant digits rules to the average.
First you have to prove that given a debate liiberal leftists don't tale the path of lying 100% of the time then attack the messenger that provides the facts. You are on the wrong side of the isle if you want to prove anything as fact. It isn't even in your sides agenda to do so. Liberal ideology would be doomed if facts won the day.
Here's a real world example for you. Suppose a carpenter has 16 pieces of 2X4, each longer that 16 inches, and wishes to cut each to be 16 inches long.
He takes 2X4 one, measures 16 inches and saws off at the measured point.
To save measuring time, he takes 2X4 one and uses it to measure and cut 2X4 two. Then uses 2X4 two to measure and cut 2X4 three. Then 2X4 three to measure and cut 2X4 four, and so on to the nth 2X4 sixteen.
Do you think 2X4 sixteen will be the same length as 2X4 one? Will the error among the resulting 2X4s be random and gaussian?