you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm confused by this statement, the answer is 3. Why do all these extra steps for a wrong answer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's not wrong, it's close enough. And the point it works with more numbers and more type of calculation. Let's calculate 4% of 1243. That's the same as 1243% of 4, right, much easier to calculate by simply changing the 2 numbers... While my method is the same, by simply rounding everything.

    And in engineering you always multiply/divide your results by a 1.5 or 1.25 safety factor, depending on situation. So you don't have to calculate exact results, just close enough. E.g. G is always 10m/s2. π is only 3.14, the other digits doesn't matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's the stupidest shit I have heard today. You should feel ashamed if you really are an engineer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's how engineering is. In civil you can round π=5 for a lot of calculations. In astrophysics I've seen e=π=10

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Rounding once may be okay but rounding multiple times and that errors add up. Astrophysics?! If im working with wood, i don't care measuring to 0.1 mm and it might be okay in astrophysics to use 10 for pi, but that doesn't make guessing your math correct in general.

    Maybe we are doing things differently here in germany.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Huh? It's not "close enough", it's exactly accurate. 4% of 75 is 3 exactly. I don't know where the rest of what you wrote comes from. This post is about pure arithmetic

  • source
  • parent