• Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    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…

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Unless the kid is even slightly above average and finds the idea that pi equaling 5 confusing.

      • NucleusAdumbens@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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
      9
      ·
      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…

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a dumb way of teaching and you are a dumb devils advocate for saying it. Go to H E double hockey sticks.

      • Papergeist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Even in engineering it is common to just round pi to 3 and quickly estimate whatever it is your doing.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          In astronomy, pi=1 or 10, depending on whether you’re trying to over or under estimate something. Because when you’re trying to estimate distances measured in millions of light years, the difference between 3 and 10 is just one or two orders of magnitude on a small number. It’s pretty common for astronomers to do napkin math by rounding every single number to the nearest zero. 91k becomes 100k for instance. Because the napkin math estimations are just trying to gauge whether some celestial event or object is a thousand light years away, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, etc… And pi becomes 10, because that’s the nearest round number.

          • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            Fermi Estimation. Where you’re dealing with something so big, you’re just interested in the magnitude.

        • maniclucky@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Excuse me what? I’ve been an engineer for a decade and have never met anyone that would do that. We have calculators.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I think they mean napkin math. Like you’re in a meeting and they ask for a general idea if something will work or not

            • maniclucky@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I suppose. I’m still internally outraged and haven’t run into such a situation before, but I accept this.

            • Jimbo@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              We all have phones with calculators, don’t really need to do napkin math anymore

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Depends on the level of precision you need. If I want the volume in a 500 foot long, 3 inch pipe to roughly estimate how much supply I need to order, I wouldn’t need a calculator. It would very roughly be 90-95 ft3. (Divide 500 by 4 two times and multiple by 3)

                Then I would spend 5 minutes double checking myself haha.