Maths year 11
Scroll to see replies
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
OK, if you have 64 100 000 to 3 significant figures, what other numbers would round to it to 3 significant figures?
For example, would 64 110 000 round to 64 100 000? What about 64 090 000?
An easier way to approach it might be to take off all the excess zeros for now, so you have the number 641. What is the lower bound of 641, if this is only accurate to 3 sig figs? Then, move that back up to the millions.
For example, would 64 110 000 round to 64 100 000? What about 64 090 000?
An easier way to approach it might be to take off all the excess zeros for now, so you have the number 641. What is the lower bound of 641, if this is only accurate to 3 sig figs? Then, move that back up to the millions.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
Not quite.
Would 640.8 round up to 641?
What about 640.7?
Or 640.1?
What's the lowest number that would round up to 641?
Answers to above:
Would 640.8 round up to 641?
What about 640.7?
Or 640.1?
What's the lowest number that would round up to 641?
Answers to above:
Spoiler
I got 640.95
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by z_o_e
But does 640.7 round up to 641? And is 640.7 lower than 640.95?
Yes, it does, and yes, 640.7 is lower than 640.95. So can 640.95 really be the lower bound? Or is the answer lower?
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
But does 640.7 round up to 641? And is 640.7 lower than 640.95?
Yes, it does, and yes, 640.7 is lower than 640.95. So can 640.95 really be the lower bound? Or is the answer lower?
Yes, it does, and yes, 640.7 is lower than 640.95. So can 640.95 really be the lower bound? Or is the answer lower?
Think answer might be something lower.
No I think 640.95 is the lower bound as it it closer to 641
And 641.05 is close to 641 and is the UB
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by z_o_e
Think answer might be something lower.
No I think 640.95 is the lower bound as it it closer to 641
And 641.05 is close to 641 and is the UB
Posted from TSR Mobile
No I think 640.95 is the lower bound as it it closer to 641
And 641.05 is close to 641 and is the UB
Posted from TSR Mobile
Remember, upper and lower bounds aren't about proximity: it's about what a measurement could have been before it was rounded to the stated degree of accuracy.
Say a tree is 240.5cm tall. I might round this height to three significant figures to get 241cm. If the tree is 240.49cm tall, I would have to round it down to 240cm (to 3sf). This means that the lower bound of 241cm must be 240.5cm. Now apply this to 641.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
Remember, upper and lower bounds aren't about proximity: it's about what a measurement could have been before it was rounded to the stated degree of accuracy.
Say a tree is 240.5m tall. I might round this height to three significant figures to get 241m. If the tree is 240.49m tall, I would have to round it down to 240m (to 3sf). This means that the lower bound of 241m must be 240.5m. Now apply this to 641.
Say a tree is 240.5m tall. I might round this height to three significant figures to get 241m. If the tree is 240.49m tall, I would have to round it down to 240m (to 3sf). This means that the lower bound of 241m must be 240.5m. Now apply this to 641.
641.49?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by z_o_e
That would be the upper bound (though we would just write 641.5, because the upper bound is 641.49999999999999999999 =~ 641.5)
But the question asks for the minimum population. So find the lower bound and scale it up to the millions.
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
That would be the upper bound (though we would just write 641.5, because the upper bound is 641.49999999999999999999 =~ 641.5)
But the question asks for the minimum population. So find the lower bound and scale it up to the millions.
But the question asks for the minimum population. So find the lower bound and scale it up to the millions.
Lb =640.5
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by z_o_e
Correct. That is the lowest number that would round up to 641 (accurate te 3sf). And then you need to scale that back up to the millions, as expressed in the question.
Just to test that you really understand this, find the upper and lower bounds of the following:
13 (accurate to 2 sf)
990 (accurate to 3 sf)
10.34 (accurate to 2 decimal places)
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
Correct. That is the lowest number that would round up to 641 (accurate te 3sf). And then you need to scale that back up to the millions, as expressed in the question.
Just to test that you really understand this, find the upper and lower bounds of the following:
13 (accurate to 2 sf)
990 (accurate to 3 sf)
10.34 (accurate to 2 decimal places)
Just to test that you really understand this, find the upper and lower bounds of the following:
13 (accurate to 2 sf)
990 (accurate to 3 sf)
10.34 (accurate to 2 decimal places)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by z_o_e
The first one was correct, but this second one is sneaky.
A number has been rounded to three significant figures to give 990.
995 rounded to 3sf is 995, and 985 rounded to 3sf is 985 ---> not 990.
Your bounds need to be numbers which, when rounded to 3 sig figs, give 990. For example, 990.152 rounded to 3sf is 990. However, 992.3 rounded to 3sf is 992, NOT 990.
This question was sneaky, but you need to really be careful to note what the degree of accuracy is. In this case, 990 has been rounded to 3 sf, so the upper and lower bounds will have 4 significant figures, which will round to the 3 sig figs of 990.
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
The first one was correct, but this second one is sneaky.
A number has been rounded to three significant figures to give 990.
995 rounded to 3sf is 995, and 985 rounded to 3sf is 985 ---> not 990.
Your bounds need to be numbers which, when rounded to 3 sig figs, give 990. For example, 990.152 rounded to 3sf is 990. However, 992.3 rounded to 3sf is 992, NOT 990.
This question was sneaky, but you need to really be careful to note what the degree of accuracy is. In this case, 990 has been rounded to 3 sf, so the upper and lower bounds will have 4 significant figures, which will round to the 3 sig figs of 990.
A number has been rounded to three significant figures to give 990.
995 rounded to 3sf is 995, and 985 rounded to 3sf is 985 ---> not 990.
Your bounds need to be numbers which, when rounded to 3 sig figs, give 990. For example, 990.152 rounded to 3sf is 990. However, 992.3 rounded to 3sf is 992, NOT 990.
This question was sneaky, but you need to really be careful to note what the degree of accuracy is. In this case, 990 has been rounded to 3 sf, so the upper and lower bounds will have 4 significant figures, which will round to the 3 sig figs of 990.
Yeah i need to work on the second one more. I still don't understand It that clearly. Llike significant figures are after the decimal point so I could have 989.999 which would round to 990. And I could have 990.095 I think
Original post by z_o_e
Yeah i need to work on the second one more. I still don't understand It that clearly. Llike significant figures are after the decimal point so I could have 989.999 which would round to 990. And I could have 990.095 I think
Ahh, there's a bit of a misunderstanding there.
For significant figures, we count all the digits after (and including) the first non-zero digit.
Say we have 2508.715
This number to one significant figure is just the first non-zero figure, ie the first figure. The first non-zero figure in (000000)2508.715 is 2. Now you round the figure furthest to the right: in this case, just the 2. There's a 5 after the 2, so it rounds up to 3. Hence, 2508.715 to 1sf is 3000.
To 2sf, we take the first 2 numbers after the first non-zero number, including the first non-zero number. 2508.715 to 2 sf is 2500.
To 3sf, we look at the three digits after (including) the first non-zero digit. These are 2, 5 and 0. 0 is furthest to the right (most precise) and we need to decide to round it. To the right of the 0 is an 8, so we round the 0 up to a 1. So 2508.715 to 3sf is 2510.
To 4sf, we repeat this again. Take the first 4 digits and round the one furthest to the right. We get 2509, to 4sf.
The zero rule is important, because if we have a number like 0.0000060127, we only count the first non-zero digit as the first significant figure. So this to 1sf is 0.000006, to 2sf is 0.0000060, to 3sf: 0.00000601, etc...
What is 2047 rounded to 3 significant figures?
[QUOTE="K-Man_PhysCheM;67073246"]Ahh, there's a bit of a misunderstanding there.
For significant figures, we count all the digits after (and including) the first non-zero digit.
Say we have 2508.715
This number to one significant figure is just the first non-zero figure, ie the first figure. The first non-zero figure in (000000)2508.715 is 2. Now you round the figure furthest to the right: in this case, just the 2. There's a 5 after the 2, so it rounds up to 3. Hence, 2508.715 to 1sf is 3000.
To 2sf, we take the first 2 numbers after the first non-zero number, including the first non-zero number. 2508.715 to 2 sf is 2500.
To 3sf, we look at the three digits after (including) the first non-zero digit. These are 2, 5 and 0. 0 is furthest to the right (most precise) and we need to decide to round it. To the right of the 0 is an 8, so we round the 0 up to a 1. So 2508.715 to 3sf is 2510.
To 4sf, we repeat this again. Take the first 4 digits and round the one furthest to the right. We get 2509, to 4sf.
The zero rule is important, because if we have a number like 0.0000060127, we only count the first non-zero digit as the first significant figure. So this to 1sf is 0.000006, to 2sf is 0.0000060, to 3sf: 0.00000601, etc...
What is 2047 rounded to 3 significant figures?[/QUOTE
GOT IT!!
2047= 2050
For significant figures, we count all the digits after (and including) the first non-zero digit.
Say we have 2508.715
This number to one significant figure is just the first non-zero figure, ie the first figure. The first non-zero figure in (000000)2508.715 is 2. Now you round the figure furthest to the right: in this case, just the 2. There's a 5 after the 2, so it rounds up to 3. Hence, 2508.715 to 1sf is 3000.
To 2sf, we take the first 2 numbers after the first non-zero number, including the first non-zero number. 2508.715 to 2 sf is 2500.
To 3sf, we look at the three digits after (including) the first non-zero digit. These are 2, 5 and 0. 0 is furthest to the right (most precise) and we need to decide to round it. To the right of the 0 is an 8, so we round the 0 up to a 1. So 2508.715 to 3sf is 2510.
To 4sf, we repeat this again. Take the first 4 digits and round the one furthest to the right. We get 2509, to 4sf.
The zero rule is important, because if we have a number like 0.0000060127, we only count the first non-zero digit as the first significant figure. So this to 1sf is 0.000006, to 2sf is 0.0000060, to 3sf: 0.00000601, etc...
What is 2047 rounded to 3 significant figures?[/QUOTE
GOT IT!!
2047= 2050
Original post by z_o_e
GOT IT!!
2047= 2050
GOT IT!!
2047= 2050
Correct! To consolidate your understanding, try and answer these questions (progressively more difficult):
1) Express the following to 2 sig figs:
a) 431 208
b) 30 800
c) 0.05081
2) Express the following to 3 sig figs:
a) 3.14159
b) 500.6
c) 0.03006
3) The population of Andorra is 79 000, expressed to 2 significant figures. What are the upper and lower bounds?
Original post by K-Man_PhysCheM
Correct! To consolidate your understanding, try and answer these questions (progressively more difficult):
1) Express the following to 2 sig figs:
a) 431 208
b) 30 800
c) 0.05081
2) Express the following to 3 sig figs:
a) 3.14159
b) 500.6
c) 0.03006
3) The population of Andorra is 79 000, expressed to 2 significant figures. What are the upper and lower bounds?
1) Express the following to 2 sig figs:
a) 431 208
b) 30 800
c) 0.05081
2) Express the following to 3 sig figs:
a) 3.14159
b) 500.6
c) 0.03006
3) The population of Andorra is 79 000, expressed to 2 significant figures. What are the upper and lower bounds?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by z_o_e
They are correct! Though if I'm really picky, in c) you shouldn't write the extra zeroes after the second significant figure, because that implies that you have rounded to 4sf instead of 2sf.
For example, 9.00001 to 3sf is 9.00, and to 2sf it is 9.0. If you were to write 9.00000, that would imply accuracy to 6sf instead of 2 or 3sf, and really it is 9.00001 to 6sf. They can sometimes be very picky with that, so just be very careful with not writing extra zeroes after the decimal point.
Original post by z_o_e
Again, kind of correct, but a) and b) have too many excess 0s.
3.14159 is itself expressed to 6sf, and 3.14000 would imply rounded to 6sf, which is wrong. 3.14 (without excess 0s) is better.
c) is completely correct.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How many GCSEs are you getting?
- I need some help
- Aiming for Oxford - a blog.
- How many GCSEs is 'normal'?
- Cars, working, automotive industry, sales
- I failed my maths end of year 10 exam, what now?
- Grade 1 in maths in year 11
- HELP: UKMT Senior Maths Challenge
- Jieay's Year 13 GYG - Actuarial Science applicant (2023/2024)
- retaking year 11
- Year 10 summer holiday revision?
- Gcse question help lol
- How can I get better at maths?
- GCSEs result
- Exam results
- Arkwright
- UKMT + how this affects me getting into oxbridge
- Yr10 summer
- need some advice, please be kind
- A Level Maths over year 11 summer
Latest
Last reply 32 minutes ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 36 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 37 minutes ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 43 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 hour ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 1 hour ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme correct me if wrongMaths
71
