Rounding 0.45: To Round Up or Down?

  • Thread starter Thread starter em370
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
When rounding 0.45 to the nearest whole number, the correct approach is to round down to 0. This is because 0.45 is closer to 0 than to 1, as 0 is 0.45 away and 1 is 0.55 away from 0.45. The confusion often arises from how to interpret the decimal point, but for whole number rounding, the first decimal is the key factor. Therefore, rounding 0.45 results in 0. Understanding this principle clarifies the rounding process.
em370
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
I feel very pathetic for asking this but if you have to round 0.45 to the nearest whole number do you take the 5 into account as it would round the 4 to 5 and round to 1 or just base the rounding off the first decimal.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No. If you are rounding to the nearest whole number you round to 0 because 0 is .45 away from .45 and 1 is .55 away from .45.
 

Thread 'Trigonometry problem of interest'

Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
View full post »
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'

Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'

Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
View full post »
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'

Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'

Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Death Rally: an intricate probability problem?
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Decimal Precision - Multiplying, Rounding, and Adding
Replies
8
Views
2K
MHB Find a solution using the table
Replies
1
Views
4K
MHB How to Calculate Percent Correct: 87.5% - Understanding Decimals and Rounding
Replies
12
Views
3K
I Roulette system -- which optimization is better?
Replies
11
Views
4K
B Validating Darts Tournament Skill Levels: A Non-Intrusive Approach
Replies
4
Views
2K
Round Numbers to Desired Significant Figures
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Rounding decimals to ruler scale (log, pow math?)
Replies
3
Views
1K
MHB Creating a Balanced Single Round Robin Tournament Schedule
Replies
1
Views
4K
MHB How Do You Correctly Round Decimals for Econ Homework?
Replies
8
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top