Do you mean you want the whole and decimal number rounded to the hundredths place? That would be 1.22
(wouldn't the number in the thousandths place have to be five or over to make the hundredths place round to the next number up?---It should not matter what other junk is after the 'four'. the four is not cutting it.)
IT IS 1.22. If you round to the hundredths or tenths or whatever, you look at the very NEXT number from the one you are rounding and determine whether it is five or above, then round up or down.
The logic that gets you to 1.23 is that 1.2247 rounds to 1.225, which rounds to 1.23.
If you treat .5 as the break point though, then it is pretty suspect to say that .45 rounds to 1.0. .45 is .55 away from 1.0, but only .45 away from zero, so why would you round that to 1.0?
If you were rounding to the thousandths place the number would be 1.225
The standard in rounding is that when you round to the hundredths place, you *only* look at the thousandths place and determine whether the number is at or above five to round the number up. If the number at the thousandths place is below five (like for example, four), the hundredths number remains the same. That is just the mathematical rule for rounding (at least that is what I taught my kids using Saxon math).
If you don't go by the rules, it is 1.23.
.45 (if you were rounding to the nearest whole number) would be zero. .5 (if you were rounding to the nearest whole number) would be 1.
8 comments:
1.23 - dh
I agree with dh. 1.23
Do you mean you want the whole and decimal number rounded to the hundredths place? That would be 1.22
(wouldn't the number in the thousandths place have to be five or over to make the hundredths place round to the next number up?---It should not matter what other junk is after the 'four'. the four is not cutting it.)
Aha! Now we come to the question!
I thought it was 1.23 but ds thinks it LOGICALLY should be 1.22 and then I got confused on how one does rounding.
The algebra text thinks it is 1.22 FWIW.
Anyone else??
IT IS 1.22. If you round to the hundredths or tenths or whatever, you look at the very NEXT number from the one you are rounding and determine whether it is five or above, then round up or down.
OK I mispoke.
The algebra text thinks 1.23 is the correct answer!
The logic that gets you to 1.23 is that 1.2247 rounds to 1.225, which rounds to 1.23.
If you treat .5 as the break point though, then it is pretty suspect to say that .45 rounds to 1.0. .45 is .55 away from 1.0, but only .45 away from zero, so why would you round that to 1.0?
If you were rounding to the thousandths place the number would be 1.225
The standard in rounding is that when you round to the hundredths place, you *only* look at the thousandths place and determine whether the number is at or above five to round the number up. If the number at the thousandths place is below five (like for example, four), the hundredths number remains the same. That is just the mathematical rule for rounding (at least that is what I taught my kids using Saxon math).
If you don't go by the rules, it is 1.23.
.45 (if you were rounding to the nearest whole number) would be zero. .5 (if you were rounding to the nearest whole number) would be 1.
It gets confusing after awhile!
Post a Comment