2 way equation? (which is right?)

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RuroumiKenshin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conversion formulas between Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures. Participants compare different formulas, their derivations, and the accuracy of the results they yield, exploring both theoretical and practical aspects of temperature conversion.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for converting Celsius to Fahrenheit as c=f+30 x 2, expressing confusion over its validity compared to another formula found in a book.
  • Another participant argues that both formulas presented are incorrect and provides a corrected version of the conversion formula, emphasizing the importance of understanding the relationship between the two temperature scales.
  • A participant confirms the correct formula as F=(9/5)C + 32, noting that this aligns with the known conversion points of 0°C to 32°F and 100°C to 212°F.
  • One participant introduces a linear relationship approach to derive the conversion formula using test points, concluding with the equation F=1.8C + 32.
  • Another participant mentions an approximation for quick mental calculations, suggesting a simplified version of the conversion formula.
  • Several participants reference different books, highlighting discrepancies in the formulas presented and their applications, with one participant providing detailed examples from a book on how to use the conversion formulas.
  • There is acknowledgment of typographical errors in earlier posts, indicating a level of confusion and correction among participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the initial formulas presented. While some agree on the correct conversion formula, there is no consensus on the initial claims made by the original poster. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the accuracy of the formulas initially referenced.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the formulas depend on proper understanding and application of temperature conversion principles, and there are unresolved issues regarding the initial misstatements of the formulas.

RuroumiKenshin
2 way equation??! (which is right?)

I'm used to the formula(for converting celsius into farenhiet):
c=f+ 30 x 2. BUT, in some book (call it book B), its different. You just use F= 9/5 (C-32) and replace C with the given celsius temprature and multiply every thing by 9/5. Anyhow, I used both formulas, and got 2 different answers (and checked my work). Personally, I think the way book B put it doesn't make sense. If it makes sense to you, please explain.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Either you have a whole stack of books that should be thrown out or you are not reading them very closely. Both formulas are wrong!

For one thing you must surely know that 0 degrees celsius is 32 degrees Fahrenheit so you can use that as a check:
Using your formula: c=f+ 30 x 2 (as you wrote it) f= 32 would give c= 32+ 60= 96! Of course, you really meant c= (f+32)*2 but that would be 64*2= 128 which is even worse! c= (f-32)*2 would give c=0 for f= 32 but gives c= (212-32)*2= 180*2= 360 degrees for the boiling point of water when it should be 100 degrees.

The formula you give for "book B":F= 9/5 (C-32) is almost exactly backwards: it should be C= (5/9)(F-32) (or F= (5/9)C + 32) so that when F= 32, C= 0 and when F= 212, C= (5/9)(180)= 5(20)= 100 degrees.
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
[ The formula you give for "book B":F= 9/5 (C-32) is almost exactly backwards: it should be C= (5/9)(F-32) (or F= (5/9)C + 32) so that when F= 32, C= 0 and when F= 212, C= (5/9)(180)= 5(20)= 100 degrees.

These formulas are incompatible. Surely you mean F = (9/5)C +32?
 
what i learn also F=(9/5)C + 32 F
when C = -40...F= -40 also...
and use calculator can get the same answer
 
Let me (try to) make everything clear.
Take two test points :
0 C 32 F
100 C 212 F
X C Y F
(Tell me if my test points are wrong, i am not familiar with the fahrenhite system)
Now, try to solve the problem

Now, we know that the relation between X and Y is linear, so :
Y=aX+b
Apply this to the two test points
32=a*0+b
so ... b=32
Apply this to the second test point
212=a*100+32
(212-32)/100=a
a=1.8
So:
Y=1.8*X+32
or (the way people understand it more)
F = 1.8C + 32

And this is the right equation (isn't it ?)
 
^Yes.
 
I frequently use an approximation which resembles VMs first equation

C= (F-32)/1.8 ~ (F-30)/2

or
F= (1.8C)+32 ~ (2C)+30

The last of those relationships is much easier to do in your head and for normal temps is pretty close.

edit: opps! I fixed a sign error in the last line
 
Last edited:
Here's what book A says:
"We frequently want to convert from one scale to another, so we need a convenient formula to help us with the conversion. The formula C= 5/9 (F-32) shows us the relationship between Celsius and Fahrenheit and allows us to change form one scale or another.
Example one:
Change 77 degrees Fahrenheit to Celsius.

Analysis:
Let F= the Fahrenheit temprature
Let C= the Celsius temprature

We'll use our formula and then simply substitute 77 for F.

Work:
C=5/9(F-32) F=77:
C=5/9(77-32)
C=5/9(45)
C=25
answer: 25 degrees Celsius"

"Example 2:
Find the Fahrenheit equivalent of 55 degrees Celsius.

Analysis:"
F= Fahrenheit
C= Celsius
"Use the same formula and then just substitue 55 for Celsius.

Work:
C= 5/9(F-32) C=55:
55=5/9(F-32)

Multiply by 9/5: 9/5(55=5/9(F-32)
99=F-32
Add 32: 131=F"



And Book B:

"F= 9/5C+ 32" (the book basically tells you to solve for C)."

"You can estimate temprature in degrees Fahrenheit by the formula
F=2 x C+30"
 
And neither of those is what you gave in your original post!

(And, yes, I mistyped "9/5" for "5/9" myself earlier.")
 
  • #10
*Slaps head* Ahh! Stupidity Strikes Again! tsk, tsk, tsk...
Forgive my folly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
920
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K