confused

[khalil]

What would be the closest value for this: 9.92157? 9.9 or 10.0? Anwer is 10.0, why?

[shinny]

In what context or question was this given in? There's many situations in maths where you don't just simply round off in either direction, but only round up given the practical situation involved. e.g. When calculating the minimum number of a discrete objects that you require.

[enwiabe]

Yeah, like, you can't have 0.9 of a person. Well you can, but we call them women.

JK JK JK please don't hurt me women of this forum

[khalil]

This value is the calculated value of the area of land.

9.92157-9.9=0.92157
10-9.92157= 0.078433

[shinny]

This value is the calculated value of the area of land.

9.92157-9.9=0.92157
10-9.92157= 0.078433

You mean 9.92157-9.9=0.02157. I still don't get the context though. Can you post the entire question and preferably their solution too? It might just be a rounding error on their behalf, or them/you not carrying figures over on the calculator.

[samuch]

Yeah, like, you can't have 0.9 of a person. Well you can, but we call them women.

JK JK JK please don't hurt me women of this forum

lol. >_______>

[khalil]

As you wish...its a FM question, but you dont need to have done FM to do it. basically its spesh 1+2

[samuch]

maybe its just because the rest of the side lengths are rounded to the nearest km.....

[shinny]

Hmm, looks like they're just...wrong?

[khalil]

But they do have a point, 10 is closer. Is the rounded value always the most accurate?

[shinny]

But they do have a point, 10 is closer. Is the rounded value always the most accurate?

No it's not. You made a mistake above as I pointed out.

9.92157-9.9=0.02157
10-9.92157= 0.078433

Besides, by the usual rounding rules, it would round down anyway (which is what the above calculations form the basis of I guess).

[khalil]

Oh. Then maybe this is a mystery we will never solve.

[QuantumJG]

What would be the closest value for this: 9.92157? 9.9 or 10.0? Anwer is 10.0, why?

The reasoning is easy.

You are given every value correct to 1 significant figure. Even though 9.9 is more accurate it is too accurate for the given problem. In the solutions every other number is a whole number so in these cases never pick the odd one out. 10 is the closest whole number to the actual number given.

It would be the same as me with a stop watch which can give you an time like:

10s and me going well if the times for event "-" were 11s, 10s and 10s then the average time must be: 10.3 seconds.

How could I ever get a value like this when the clock can only give times correct to 1 second?

[shinny]

What would be the closest value for this: 9.92157? 9.9 or 10.0? Anwer is 10.0, why?

The reasoning is easy.

You are given every value correct to 1 significant figure. Even though 9.9 is more accurate it is too accurate for the given problem. In the solutions every other number is a whole number so in these cases never pick the odd one out. 10 is the closest whole number to the actual number given.

It would be the same as me with a stop watch which can give you an time like:

10s and me going well if the times for event "-" were 11s, 10s and 10s then the average time must be: 10.3 seconds.

How could I ever get a value like this when the clock can only give times correct to 1 second?

Ah yes sig figs. These never seem to spring to mind when I'm in a mathematical frame of mind sadly...although I still slightly disagree with their answer. With what's given, 9.9 still appears to be a very reasonable answer as they say do say 'closest to', and don't mention anything about sig figs.

[samuch]

Yeah, like, you can't have 0.9 of a person. Well you can, but we call them women.

JK JK JK please don't hurt me women of this forum

lol. >_______>

oh forgot to add... since when does a dick make up 1/10th of a person ? lol that would be............
(just had to say it lol sorry)