Possible Error in 1m/192cm Calculation: Is it Actually 1m/1.92m?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chetzread
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Max
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of the ratio 100cm/192cm, clarifying that it should be interpreted as (100/192) cm, which equals approximately 0.52cm or 0.0052m, rather than 1m/1.92m. Participants emphasize that the original expression does not represent a fractional error but rather an absolute error in distance. The confusion arises from the misinterpretation of the units and the nature of the error involved in the calculation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric conversions (cm to m)
  • Basic knowledge of fractions and ratios
  • Familiarity with absolute vs. fractional errors
  • Ability to perform simple arithmetic calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study metric conversion techniques, focusing on cm to m.
  • Learn about absolute and fractional errors in mathematical contexts.
  • Explore the implications of unit misinterpretation in calculations.
  • Practice solving ratio problems with varying units of measurement.
USEFUL FOR

Students in mathematics, educators teaching measurement concepts, and anyone involved in precision calculations or conversions in scientific contexts.

chetzread
Messages
798
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


i suspect the possible error of 100cm/192cm = 1m /192 m is wrong , IMO , it should be 1m /1.92m , right ?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • IMG_20161014_101532.jpg
    IMG_20161014_101532.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 445
Physics news on Phys.org
chetzread said:
100cm/192cm
It is not 100cm/192cm. It is (100/192) cm, which is (1/192) m.
 
  • Like
Likes chetzread
haruspex said:
It is not 100cm/192cm. It is (100/192) cm, which is (1/192) m.
why ? i still didnt get it ? could you explain further ?
 
haruspex said:
It is not 100cm/192cm. It is (100/192) cm, which is (1/192) m.
why not (1 / 1.92 ) m ?
 
chetzread said:
why ? i still didnt get it ? could you explain further ?
It is not a fractional error, like 100 parts in 192 parts, which would be over 50%. It is an absolute error of the distance (100/192)cm, or a bit over 0.5cm. Why they would choose to express it that way I have no idea.
 
  • Like
Likes chetzread
chetzread said:
why not (1 / 1.92 ) m ?
Because that would be over 50cm, 100 times the error.
 
  • Like
Likes chetzread
haruspex said:
It is not a fractional error, like 100 parts in 192 parts, which would be over 50%. It is an absolute error of the distance (100/192)cm, or a bit over 0.5cm. Why they would choose to express it that way I have no idea.
do you mean it's 100/192 = 0.52cm = 0.0052m (1/192) ?
 
chetzread said:
do you mean it's 100/192 = 0.52cm = 0.0052m (1/192) ?
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes chetzread

Similar threads

Correct Calculation of Vertical Stress in Soil
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Car Wheel Statics: Calculating Radial Force at 1m
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Fan Manufacturer: 145W to Move 1kg of Air 1m
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
Power lost due to friction in a propeller
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
1-D Heat Distribution in Long Cylinder
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Thermal Resistance due to Convection Heat Transfer
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Compressing Gas: Work Done Calculation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Converting Units: Solving a Simple Density Problem
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Vertical foce of fluid jet split in two
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Problem with values for a bending moment diagram
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K