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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a potential error in a calculation involving the conversion of measurements from centimeters to meters, specifically questioning whether the expression 100cm/192cm should be interpreted as 1m/192m or 1m/1.92m. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and clarification of units in a homework context.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related, Mathematical reasoning, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suspects that the expression 100cm/192cm is incorrect and proposes it should be 1m/1.92m instead.
  • Another participant clarifies that the expression should be interpreted as (100/192) cm, which equals (1/192) m.
  • There is a request for further explanation regarding the interpretation of the calculation.
  • One participant argues that the error is not fractional but absolute, equating to (100/192) cm, which is slightly over 0.5cm.
  • Another participant questions why the expression would not be (1/1.92) m, leading to a response that this would imply a much larger error.
  • Participants engage in confirming the conversion of (100/192) to its decimal equivalent, with one confirming it as 0.52cm or 0.0052m.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct interpretation of the measurement expression, with no consensus reached on whether it should be 1m/192m or 1m/1.92m.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the context of the original calculation and the reasoning behind the choice of expression, which may affect the interpretation.

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: 453
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: chetzread
chetzread said:
why not (1 / 1.92 ) m ?
Because that would be over 50cm, 100 times the error.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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   Reactions: chetzread

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K