In article <c6OdnVMGStFN-kDanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Chris Grubb" <threefates@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
It should be 7.77453196838 ft, to somewhat greater precision, but as
the radius is only given to 2 decimals, one cannot be assured of the
precision of the secant chord length to greater that 2 decimal accuracy.
Your 7.78 is apparently an artifact of double-rounding off, first to 3
decimal placess and then to 2 places, whereas a single roundoff from a
value accurate to 4 or more decimal places gives 7.77.
|
