• Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    7 months ago

    To be Devil’s Advocate:
    Given that the rest written in Comic Sans, it may be an early elementary school exercise, aimed at teaching kids to do multiplications. In this case, it’s tolerable and/or defensible to find a simplification for pi.

    That said, making pi equal to 3 would have been more accurate for that…

      • NucleusAdumbens@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        …if they’re above average, I think they’ll figure out the explicitly defined variable. I think the instructor is trying to make sure this problem doesn’t require a calculator and figured defining pi as 5 makes it clear that you can treat it as a whole number. 3 would be more accurate and just as easy, but meh idk that this is that great of a blunder.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          You can be a smart kid and not realize that adults are lying.

          I remember the Peas and the Punnett Square. Sure, mendelian genetics explains pea plant colors, but doesn’t explain dog fur colors. Just providing a footnote that more completed genetics exists would have been nice.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Or it’s from an ME. They seldom can remember the rounded value of Pi, but they’re pretty sure it’s somewhere between 3 and 4. But you probably should use 5 just to be safe…

  • lowleveldata@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s how you know math is OP when you can calculate volumes in parallel worlds where circles don’t even looks like circles

  • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    With π=5 maths break down completely. If π=5, then e^(5i) = -1, meaning -1 = cos(5) + i * sin(5), or -1 ≈ 0.284 - 0.959 i

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think you’re overthinking it. The first thing you’re told when you learn algebra is that a letter represents a number and you can say “let a equal (number), b equal (number)…” so you can let pi equal whatever you want for the purposes of one simple problem.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, if we want to be pedantic, they never said that h is the height and r is the radius of the base circle. They could be just random numbers.

          Also, since we never calculate with all the digits of pi, it is not any less weird to round to the nearest 5 and say that it’s 5, than to the nearest 0.01 and saying it’s 3.14. It just has a higher amount of rounding error.

          • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Why are we upset by rounding to the nearest 5 for elementary schoolers when we round to 10 m/s/s for gravity in collegiate physics classes anyway?

            • maynarkh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s not even a bad thing to do for quick mental calculations, if you know that you will overshoot. Multiplying by 5 is easy.

      • CaptSneeze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re talking about variables. But, pi isn’t a variable, it is a constant number. This would be more akin to saying “let 7 = 9”.

        • Bob@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well I suppose for example rounding to the nearest integer is a method of implying “let 1.8 = 2”, no? Not too outlandish, I don’t think.

        • skulblaka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          Except pi isn’t a variable. It is a known value that we refer to as pi for convenience, and pi is a fundamental aspect of how a circle is. Saying “let pi equal 5” is all fine and well but is physically impossible, you will not be determining the volume of a cylinder if you let pi equal 5, because the ratio of a circle does not equal 5, it equals 3.14

          • Bob@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            But I suppose part of solving a maths problem is staying within the confines of the question and listening to instructions, so if someone says “using pi equals 5”, I’d just use pi equals five and take my point with grace.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think it’s actually a very interesting question. Pi does not equal 5 in our universe, but perhaps we can think of a meaningful universe where it does? Perhaps some mathematicians/physicists can chime in?

  • ThatFembyWho
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 months ago

    Damn inflation is everywhere now, even the transcendentals :'(

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 months ago

    Idk, if you want to test people on how they understand formulae and order of operations without letting them just punch it into a calculator. The actual math isn’t hard, but if you don’t get substituting values into an equation then it’s not trivial

          • Norgur@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            Oh don’t you try to sell me on the “you won’t always have a calculator in your pocket” thing. I have fucking Excel in my pocket.

            • notabot@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s not just about haveing a calculator, it’s also that it’s faster and more convenient if you can do simple sums like this in your head. It also means you can sanity check the numbers your calculator gives you to make sure you didn’t make a mistake entering the sum.

              To your point below about products having their unit cost displayed, more than once I’ve seen that just be wrong, so I wouldn’t rely on it. Make sure you can check it in your head.

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              Who really wants to use Excel to figure out if the 24-pack of Coca-Cola or the 3 12 packs is a better deal?

              • Norgur@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                7 months ago

                I don’t need to, there’s a legal requirement to print prices per liter or kg on every price tag here.

                • Gork@lemm.eeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Does this requirement exist for toilet paper? Because I don’t know what the hell is considered a better deal based on all the marketing.

  • oo1@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Teaching them to to obey dumb instructions from incompetent bosses.
    Very useful skill.

    Assume the earth is a flat disc . . .