Hi Mathematician :)
You are right - I put an 8 where a 9 should have been. :)
Let's think about your dilema.
----------------------------------
634.182 = 6 hundreds + 3 tens + 4 units + 1 tenth + 8 hundredths + 2 thousandths
we know that
634.182= 6.34182 * 102
so
6.34182 * 102 = 6 hundreds + 3 tens + 4 units + 1 tenth + 8 hundredths + 2 thousandths
SEE the 4 is not hundredths it is units!
When you round off scientific notation you must talk about accuracy to so many significant figures.
Think about it - maybe then it will make sense.
You do not ever need to be sorry for asking questions. That is what we are here for.
Since 2 is the largest value, you move the decimal point 9 places to the left and have:
2.0333333333333333333333333 * 10^9
Then you round it to the nearest hundreths place and it becomes: 2.03 * 10^9.
Good answer Mathematician but you have not rounded it to the nearest hundredth!
You have rounded it to 3 significant figures
The whole of my operations was rounding it to three significant figures. In explaining that particular step though, it was clearer to say "hundreths place" than "three significant figues". I will add "three significant figures" to the end of my explanations if you think that will be a better answer for the question asker.
2033333333.3333333333333333 in scientific notation???
I think it would be: " 2 much "
You miss my point :))
It is not to the hundredth place
This is you number
2.0333333333333333333333333*10^9
I shall write it correct to the hundredth place for you
2033333333.33
0r
2.03333333333*10^9
Now that is written correct to the nearest hundredth !!! :)))
Are you trying to point out my "it" is not specific enough to explain what I am rounding to the hundreths place? I was not thinking of 2.0333333333333333333333333 * 10^9 as a value, I was explaining it as two seperate values.
I rounded the number 2.0333333333333333333333333 to the nearest hundreth: 2.03.
If I you explain my error in thinking more clearly or in more depth, that would be helpful.
Say you want to round 345.9824 to the neares hundredth.
The answer is 345.88
now 345.9824=3.459824*10^2
Using your logic then to round this to the nearest hundreth the answer would be
3.45*10^2
BUT
3.45*10^2 is not equal to 345.88 so they cannot both be rounded to the nearest hundredth.
That is simply not correct!
I still do not understand where my thinking is in error. I just have a different way of finding the solution and perhaps different ideas of the meanings of mathematical terminology. Also 345.9824 to the nearest hundredth is 345.98 not 345.88.
I am quite sorry that I am not understanding.
Hi Mathematician :)
You are right - I put an 8 where a 9 should have been. :)
Let's think about your dilema.
----------------------------------
634.182 = 6 hundreds + 3 tens + 4 units + 1 tenth + 8 hundredths + 2 thousandths
we know that
634.182= 6.34182 * 102
so
6.34182 * 102 = 6 hundreds + 3 tens + 4 units + 1 tenth + 8 hundredths + 2 thousandths
SEE the 4 is not hundredths it is units!
When you round off scientific notation you must talk about accuracy to so many significant figures.
Think about it - maybe then it will make sense.
You do not ever need to be sorry for asking questions. That is what we are here for.