5th Year Maths Homework Question

[Kenai]

But rounded to the nearest 1000 would be 48000.
:

... And thus only fulfils one of the requested constraints, not both.

You need to find a number that rounds to 48000 as the nearest thousand and nearest hundred. 47900 only rounds to 48000 as nearest thousand.

Once you've grasped that bit, then you need to think about the other end of the constraint scale which says it should not round to 48000 as the nearest ten

 

[itchy]

... And thus only fulfils one of the requested constraints, not both.

You need to find a number that rounds to 48000 as the nearest thousand and nearest hundred. 47900 only rounds to 48000 as nearest thousand.

Once you've grasped that bit, then you need to think about the other end of the constraint scale which says it should not round to 48000 as the nearest ten

So what you saying is the right answer is 47951 and 48049?

 

[Pudney]

So what you saying is the right answer is 47951 and 48049?

They are the minimum and maximum numbers that work.

 

[Dis86]

So what you saying is the right answer is 47951 and 48049?

NO! He's not saying that. There are multiple numbers that can be the answer.

 

[itchy]

NO! He's not saying that. There are multiple numbers that can be the answer.

No the nearest would be 47999 and 48001 don't forget we rounding, but only to the nearest 1000 and 100.

See how it becomes complex as it does not mention units therefore I disregarded them from my initial calculation.

 

[Pudney]

No the nearest would be 47999 and 48001 don't forget we rounding, but only to the nearest 1000 and 100.

See how it becomes complex as it does not mention units therefore I disregarded them from my initial calculation.

Those numbers don't work...

 

[Pudney]

It wants 2 numbers. You have to round each of your chosen numbers 3 times.

Round it to the nearest 1000, the answer must be 48000
Round it to the nearest 100, the answer must be 48000
Round it to the nearest 10, the answer must NOT be 48000

This is what you need to do. Anything else and you're doing it wrong.

 

[D3K]

So many dumbs...

 

[itchy]

So many dumbs...

Well what is the answer then genius?

Rounding numbers is not hard at all but the wording of the question is.

Quick edit....

That is not a 5 year olds homework and am calling diddums.

 

[Pudney]

Well what is the answer then genius?

Rounding numbers is not hard at all but the wording of the question is.

Quick edit....

That is not a 5 year olds homework and am calling.

The wording isn't complex. Say it out loud and make sure you put the pauses in the correct place!

Edit: and it's 5th year, not 5 year old.

 

[D3K]

Well what is the answer then genius?

Rounding numbers is not hard at all but the wording of the question is.

Quick edit....

That is not a 5 year olds homework and am calling.

There are 2 ranges (4 if you swap which is over/under as the question does not stipulate which should be which).

If under is the 1000:

47501-47994

If over is the 100:

48006-48049

Also it's 5th year, not 5 year old. I can see why you're having difficulty with the English.

edit: someone will quibble over a single unit on the 1000 lower and 100 upper, np

 

[Dis86]

No the nearest would be 47999 and 48001 don't forget we rounding, but only to the nearest 1000 and 100.

See how it becomes complex as it does not mention units therefore I disregarded them from my initial calculation.

Lol it's for 10 year olds. It's anything but complex.

Try drawing 3 circles...it might help you understand.

 

[Dis86]

Oh so much irony in that post.

 

[Destination]

Missed that post, I did get an infraction though, so sorry if I offended Dirty Berty by questioning his intelligence in some fashion.

 

[Dis86]

He basically said you were wrong and referred to you as suffering from a physical/mental disability. When in fact he was wrong.

 

[Destination]

Right well back to the OP, just to reiterate

'anywhere from 48006 to 48049 and anywhere from 47951 to 47994 should work for this answer'
this is the correct range of answers above and below the figure given
it isn't that people get it wrong, we all do that from time to time, its the fact the continually argue their case in a way that makes no sense, nor stands to the basic scrutiny.
There's more pain in my head from reading this thread, than if I'd taken a lump hammer to add nails to my nethers.

 

[FoxEye]

48,001 and -48,002?

e: read the question wrong.

-48,999 and +47,623?

 

[Amp34]

Basically the question is easy. Basic rounding.

Unfortunately the maths teacher should probably take a leaf out of their kids books and follow them to their english class...

 

[johnloo]

47900

48100

48,001 and -48,002?

e: read the question wrong.

-48,999 and +47,623?

4800 nearest 1000 less than 48000
and 48000 100 greater

48100 ROUND BY Nearest 100
47900 ROUND UP Nearest 1000

 

[dowie]

Where is Dowie? He will be able to do it.

Here! I think it is a silly question as the statement about rounding to the nearest thousand is a bit spurious. Not quite sure what it is trying to test as teaching kids to round number could surely be done with simpler examples.

This is correct
anywhere from 48006 to 48049 and anywhere from 47951 to 47994 should work for this answer.

that isn't quite right there are two integers you're excluding (and infinite real numbers) that would satisfy the question - the answer can include any two numbers from each of the following ranges:

48005 <= x1 < 48050

and 47950 <= x2 <47995

for example 48005 rounded to the nearest 10 is 48010 - you're excluding it when setting a lower bound at 48006

See how it becomes complex as it does not mention units therefore I disregarded them from my initial calculation.

No one has mentioned units??? These are just numbers not measurements/observations