Degree radian conversion issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter xzi86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a confusion regarding the conversion between degrees and radians, specifically interpreting the equation 2pi/radian = 0.110/degree. Participants clarify that this equation does not imply 2pi equals 0.110 degrees and emphasize the relationship between radians and degrees, noting that 2pi radians equals 360 degrees and pi radians equals 180 degrees. A suggestion is made to rewrite the equation for clarity, highlighting the need for consistent units. Additionally, a more accurate approximation of pi is discussed, with 355/113 being preferred over 22/7. The consensus is that the original textbook may contain errors, leading to confusion in understanding the conversion.
xzi86
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Not really a standard question, just need some clarification.

So I saw this in the textbook: 2pi/radian = 0.110/degree

What does this mean? Does it mean 2pi equals 0.110 degrees? But I don't think that's the case. I'm trying to find out the value of radians from this equation. Would you say in radians it's 2pi? Sorry I'm very confused on this especially by the / sign. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pi = 180 degrees
1 = (180 degrees)/pi
 
I don't quite understand that equation, but all you need to convert back and forth between radians and degrees is 2pi radians = 360 degrees.
 
pi radians = 180 degrees, so (for example) 40 degrees = (40/180)*pi radians, and 3 radians = (3/pi)* 180 degrees. Note that pi is NOT 22/7, or 3.14 or anything simple like that. However, in most everyday applications the *approximation* pi ~3.1413 is good enough.

RGV
 
Yes, and if you were to estimate use 355/113. 355/113 is about 3.14593 or pi rounded off after five digits out from the decimal point. 355/113 is a much better approximation than 22/7, which is only accurate to two digits out from the decimal point.
 
Sorry: there is a typo in the above. I should have said pi~3.1416 (or 3.14159 or 3.141593 or 3.1415926 or ... )

RGV
 
This looks like a proportion to me. Maybe it's supposed to be written like this?
\frac{2\pi \text{ rad}}{1 \text{ rad}} \approx \frac{0.110 \text{ rad}}{1 \text{ deg}}

Though the units are mixed up. This would be better:
\frac{2\pi \text{ rad}}{57.296 \text{ deg}} \approx \frac{0.110 \text{ rad}}{1 \text{ deg}}
 
Last edited:
eumyang said:
This looks like a proportion to me. If it was written like this:
\frac{2\pi \text{ rad}}{1 \text{ rad}} \approx \frac{0.110 \text{ deg}}{1 \text{ deg}}
... then it would make more sense to me.
Why would that make more sense? (Those ratios aren't even close.)
 
Typo. Fixed.
 
  • #10
That's more like it.
 
  • #11
The solution to your problem is to throw that book away. There is no telling what other mistakes it contains.
 
Back
Top