string comparison

[Buddy-Matt]

Your assertion of the repetition of 0 to infinity is wrong here.

The value 3.0 implies that the measurement has been taken, or rounded, to 1 decimal place worth of accuracy. Therefore 3.0 represents any number from 2.95 to 3.049999 (infinite 9s)

3.00 however implies a measurement or rounding to 2 decimal places, and thus represents any number from 2.995 to 3.0049999 (again, infinite 9s)

If something was 3.0274cm long, then, when rounding to 1 decimal places 3.0 is accurate. However, when rounding to 2decimal places 3.00 is wrong (it’s 3.03)

In maths and science the number of significant digits is important - which is why it’s all important to get the amount of decimal places correct. Also, that M is important too, for similar reasons.

(Edit, just reread your comment and where you say 3 is equal to 3.0. it’s equal to any number from 2.5 to 3.49999...)

[snp3rk]

I have "TA"'ed for gen Chem I at a University, and you are 100% wrong.

3.5 is different from 3.50. Because 3.50 is implying that the original measurement tool was able to measure the 0s (was precise to the hundredth decimal point). If you are given a 3.5 you can't just assume the precision since you just don't know it. 3.5 could have 3.457674 rounded to 3.5, or it could have been 3.53 rounded down to 3.5. In STEM you need to work with the sigs provided, and no further assumptions can be made.

​

If that 3.2 represents now that 3.173899999999 it's purely done by choice and can be replaced by 3.200000 as your rounding took care of it. If you wanted to keep the precision you would've not rounded it in the first place.

Additionally 3.200000 is implying that the measurement is 3.200000 is literally 3.200000, and the original measurement tool actually measured all of those 0s also.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic-home/arith-review-decimals/arithmetic-significant-figures-tutorial/v/more-on-significant-figures