chetzread
- 798
- 1
It is not 100cm/192cm. It is (100/192) cm, which is (1/192) m.chetzread said:100cm/192cm
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 ?haruspex said:It is not 100cm/192cm. It is (100/192) cm, which is (1/192) m.
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.chetzread said:why ? i still didnt get it ? could you explain further ?
Because that would be over 50cm, 100 times the error.chetzread said:why not (1 / 1.92 ) m ?
do you mean it's 100/192 = 0.52cm = 0.0052m (1/192) ?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.
Yes.chetzread said:do you mean it's 100/192 = 0.52cm = 0.0052m (1/192) ?