Whats 12.949 rounded to one decimal place

[Clarissaintheway]

........?

How are people still getting this wrong!!!

If something costs £1.49 and I asked you which whole pound it was closest too, you'd say £1 because it is 49p away from £1 and 51p away from £2.

You wouldnt said it's closer to £2 because it rounds from £1.49 up to £1.50 which then is rounds to £2. That's wrong. The last digit has nothing do do with it. The only digit that matters is the digit directly to the right of the whole pound number.

It doesn't matter if you're rounding to a while number or a decimal place; whichever place to are rounding to, the only number that has any effect is the one directly to the right.

So, round £1.49 to the nearest pound. That becomes £1 because you only look at the 4 directly to the right of your rounding point. You'd never go all the way to the end, in this case 9, and round the 4 to a 5 and then round the £1 to £2. It doesn't work like that.

Round 12.949 to 1 decimal place, that becomes 12.9 because you only look at the 4 directly the right or your rounding point.

Or, is £12.94 closer to £12.90 or £13.00.
Seriously people, we teach this stuff to 8 and 9 year olds these days. It's on the curriculum for Year 4.

Oh I love the money examples, I think they may actually be the best way to explain this, as money is very concrete for most people.
Love a good explanation.

(makes note for next tutee)

On another note, we were taught that the O stood for 'other' which was a catch all for orders, square roots etc.
I am now wondering if anything else does come under orders, or is it just orders (or indices)?

• On another note, we were taught that the O stood for 'other' which was a catch all for orders, square roots etc. I am now wondering if anything else does come under orders, or is it just orders (or indices)?*

I think it's just indices. Is there any other basic mathematical operator? 'Other' sounds like a slightly misleading simplification- square roots are not different, in terms of mathematical operators, from squares are they?(power 1/2 vs power 2)

Oooh, I love a Maths thread on Mumsnet, they are just like driving threads. People get so shitty with each other!

Errol - so does that mean that square roots DO fall under the I or O part of BODMAS?

I never get to teach square roots, so I'm a bit rusty!

Beer I think people get shitty because when you know it is wrong, it is like listening to someone saying - black is white.
Not a problem, if when someone explains the penny drops, but when they insist it feels like gaslighting

@steppemum A square root is a fractional indices, so comes under the O or I stage.

I think it's exasperation rather than 'shittiness' on the whole - how are we supposed to respond to people who either CBA to RTFT or who persist in giving answers on factual questions which differ from those of multiple experts in a field? Their wrong answers can't be left unchallenged.

"- square roots are not different, in terms of mathematical operators, from squares are they?(power 1/2 vs power 2)"
You're right but I'm not sure id expect a year 6 child or whatever to understand that.

No, bit I'm sure steppemum can!

just abouty Errol

abouty??? blimey that sounds like Alan Partridge

I would've thought "other" was due to someone mishearing "order" at some point.

Steppemum, what level do you teach? I would've expected someone tutoring maths to be familiar with this!

I am primary teacher (by training, not currently in classroom) and I do primary school level tutoring and 11+ preparation.

Other was not mishearing order, I have seen it written down.
When I started tutoring, I can't remember why I settled on using BODMAS rather than BIDMAS, and using 'other.' I think it was because dds school used BODMAS.

For the level I teach I never need anything other than squared or cubed for the 'orders' part of BODMAS.
Most of the kids have no clue what orders or indices mean. (I do find that most of them, even really high achievers, use very little correct maths terminology. It is one of the things they have to learn, as the 11+ exam using only formal terminology, and it trips them up)
I have the most trouble persuading kids to do the x before the +!

I am not a maths tutor.

I was just asking, to confirm what I thought was correct, and in the spirit of the thread I am 'asking' what is correct and not assuming!

sorry, that was a typo.

I teach BODMAS and 'order'

I was taught 'other' at school myself.

I've just googles it, and apparently it is used to stand for

Orders, Ordinals, Over, Other, pOwer and power Of!

It's one thing debating a point of opinion and getting shitty, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when it's a mathematical certainty and yet people stroll into the thread and say, "well, I think such and such" and are clearly wrong but persist in their error, it's even more bloody annoying.

Haha in my defence I misread the OP and thought I was rounding 12.959 so technically I was correct... even though I answered the wrong question 😂

I'm afraid even the best mathematicians get marked down for silly errors, but as you'd 'showed your working' the reason for your wrong answer was clear.

I can't even get my left and right correct, so I clearly know nothing!

Thanks for putting me straight, logically of course you can't start at the furthest right digit. So only the digit to the right of the required decimal place is of note. In my defence I did say it had been a long time since I was in a maths class!

Well I’ve just learnt something new, I absolutely would have said 13!
(Having read the explanations, I see now why that makes no sense)

riotlady that’s great 😊💐. I love it when these homework threads give adults an opportunity to learn something they either weren’t taught or have forgotten.

I discovered that the techniques had changed when I did stuff why my kids. Even addition was done differently, so me trying to teach them 'my' way was a bad idea, as it just contradicted how they were being taught at school.

Was fun learning the new ways and then going through it with them.

Back when I was a kid, you tended to be shown one technique only and if you mastered it, great, but otherwise - tough luck.
Nowadays I think a few techniques are taught, and some work better for different children.

When you see someone use an abacus at high speed, it's like 'wow, how on earth did they calculate that' - the fascination being in the different techniques available, and with practice some have proven themselves to be much more efficient.

I don't think I've seen him here yet, so I'm going to tag @DadDadDad just for the lols.

@TeenTimesTwo - looks like I've missed a great party.

I'm just relieved it didn't get into a discussion of whether 0.9999999.... (that's 9 recurring) is equal to 1.

(It is).

We're doing rounding homeowork again tonight if anyone is interested