Summary shows wrong maximum

'Unfortunately' you give no credentials for your ex cathedra
pronouncement.  E.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_digits

says

The situation regarding trailing zero digits that fall to the left of
the decimal place in a number with no digits provided that fall to
the right of the decimal place is less clear, but these are typically
not considered significant unless the decimal point is placed at the
end of the number to indicate otherwise (e.g., "2000." versus
"2000"). To make things more clear, trailing zeros are only
recognized as significant figures if the number they are a part of
has a decimal point. For example, 450 only has two sig figs, but 450.
has three.

which directly contradicts you.  So this is at best a matter of
opinion, and credentials do matter for opinions.

In the elementary statistics text ``Statistics for the Life
	Sciences'' (Samuels and Witmer, Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed.;
	fairly respectable credentials)  there is an appendix on
	Significant Digits which says, amongst other things:

	``How many significant digits are in the number 23000?
	When the number is expressed in this way --- in ordinary
	rather than scientific notation --- it is not really
	possible to tell how many significant digits it has.''

	....

	``Scientific notation removes the ambiguity.''

	Determining the significance of digits from the presence
	of a decimal point is perhaps a ``reasonable'' convention,
	but it is certainly not one that is widely practiced or
	understood.  Relying on an obscure convention is fraught
	with risk.

					cheers,

						Rolf Turner
						rolf at math.unb.ca