Is it meaningless to divide an area by a length?
That depends! What are you trying to do?
What does it depend on?
Im not trying to do anything but understand and remove ambiguity in my understanding.
It depends on what you are trying to do. E.g., if you know the area of a rectangle and the length of one side then dividing that area by the length of the known side has meaning - it's the width of the rectangle.
Sometimes i wonder why God does not number his Jigsaw puzzles. When your missing the starting peices, the rest just keeps falling apart.
Thx for the reply.
Area of a chess board: 64 square inches.
Length of the chess board: 8 inches.
What is its width?
It would also be meaningful if you were trying to maximize the ratio of the area contained within a curve to the lenght of the curve.
i think spongebob hit it pretty close to answering the original question. There is a comparitive way to use a length to area, or an area to volume ratio. For example, for a given volume, what shape has the smallest surface area???? dimensionally, area divided by volume would give a result that is meaningless to understanding the answer to this question. im sure there is a more rigorous answer to this, but i havent studied it in any detail, so i have to rely on intuitive feel...
area is a length squared so to divide an area by a length would only provide you with another length
Why "only"? That's a worthwhile result!:rofl:
What does that even mean?
If this is one of those "but what does it all MEAN??" questions, perhaps it should be on the philosophy board. Richard Feynman refrained from talking metaphysics, so i reckon trackstar gave a decent answer if your question was physical.
a very good idea on his part
"Why "only"? That's a worthwhile result!" cuz i think he might be talking about more than just numbers like it says above
Separate names with a comma.