The phrase 'discrepancy is small' is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe the size of a difference between two things. For example: "We found that the discrepancy between the two estimates was small."
Then, too, we are guided by an unflagging faith in modern technology — a sense that no discrepancy is small enough to defy absolute quantification.
The discrepancy is small, generally a few tens of centimetres or less, but it can be determined by a comparison of satellite radar measurements of sea-surface shape with the shape calculated from the very best estimates of the Earth's total gravity field.
The discrepancy is governed by the line averaging effect along potential slip curves – the discrepancy is small if the line averaging is strong.
However, in broth the residual fitness discrepancy is small, suggesting that the remaining design elements have little impact on fitness.
Szklo and Nieto's 32 established textbook notes that the cumulative incidence approach we have used leads to a lower absolute value for the incidence than with a person time rate but when events are rare (as here) the discrepancy is small.
The discrepancy is smaller in real numbers (the median white household lost about $20,000 dollars, compared to about $12,000 for the median Hispanic) and in absolute terms the wealth gap narrowed a bit.
The value obtained for solidification is also less than that predicted by the same thermal conductivity models; however, for solidification, the impact of this discrepancy is smaller.
The predicted heat removal rate of the tubes is in a good agreement with the measured value; the discrepancy is smaller than 4%.
Fallin and Schork [13] stated that the discrepancy was small.
First, in percentage terms, the discrepancies were small.
The remaining 3 sections, which were incorrectly scored, were all from the low COX-2 expressing group but the discrepancies were small, giving an average error of <5%.
