Thank you fellas'
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47dd6604$0$7030$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Laurence Reeves" <l@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:282dnfKk6ILx_0DanZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Greg Neill wrote:
>> "Chris Grubb" <threefates@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:2b6dnUqlBKqgyEDanZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Isn't that the arc length?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:47dd3189$0$6998$9a6e19ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Chris Grubb" <threefates@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:GP6dnXs02r_ngkDanZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> A circle has a radius of 42.13 feet and is equally divided around
>>>> the cir***ference into 34 pieces.
>>>> What is the chord length?
>>> 7.78 ft
>>
>> No, but the chord length is close to the arc length.
> Now, the arc length of each of the 34 pieces, rounded to two decimal
> places, would be 7.79 ft. As there was no specific chord defined in
> the problem, one can only assume that the chord corresponding to one
> of these pieces is meant, and that, rounded to two decimal places,
> would be
> 7.77 ft, so I guess that 7.78 ft would be something else.
My calculator had rounded to 3 places at 7.775,
and I then rounded up to 7.78 . Ah well, my bad.
|
