Measurement homework in a math textbook… horribly out of scale.
You must log in or # to comment.
That’s why they took centimeter cubes.
This would appear to be testing the concept of length from position 1 to position 2, helping students to understand that measuring from zero is not a necessity. I don’t think they intended proper ruler measurement.
I don’t like the use of the word ‘cubes’ when ‘squares’ would have been just fine though.
I don’t like the use of the word ‘cubes’ when ‘squares’ would have been just fine though.
I don’t like either because they are actual units of measurements for volume and surface, respectively.
We used centimeter cubes when I was a kid. Actual plastic cubes. We could use it to add length, we could use it to add volume.
For an illustration of using them for adding lengths, a 2D certainly is fine. They know what the cubes looks like, and a 3D version would just add lines they would have to ignore. Unnecessary complexity.
As an adult who knows how basic addition and basic length measurement works, I would agree with you. The cubes are simplified to squares, that’s the correct name.
But for these kids that doesn’t know the difference of the terms and don’t need it yet, it’s another simplification to avoid unnecessary complexity.
Those are squares, not cubes
The kids work with actual physical cubes in class. The consistency is way more important than pedantry
How would using physical cubes make learning measuring less confusing?
It starts by using cubes for counting
Does it really matter if you write down a length in squares or in cubes? 😂
Cubes implies you’re working in 3 dimensions as in 10 cm³
Maybe someone hit the 110% size on a copy machine?
It’s a bound textbook!
Eh, could also just be ‘assume each box is 1 cm’ without intending to be accurate.
Now if they said use a ruler to figure it out and they claimed it’s 10 then there’s an issue where someone needs a new tool
That’d be my guess. Lot of potential scaling issues in print.
One of my exes was really into making clothing. I learnt second hand (via venting) how difficult it is to get a printer to print
1cm=1cmaccurately when you buy a “pattern” (basically a tracing you follow to chop up the fabric).They would check every printout, and half the time they had to print the same thing multiple times because the printer decided to be stupid and add a half centimetre here or there or subtly stretch it; which matters a lot for a good fit. It was a whole big thing, apparently. At least for cheap printers.
Usually it’s not the printer head that is the problem. Fabric that moves or stretches or shrinks is however a problem. (yes the printer should be tracking that. Good luck with that.)
They printed on paper to later re-trace the shape on fabric manually
But the squares that are supposed to be a cm and the ruler below it are printed on the same page, they scale together.
At least it looks like a printed ruler to me.
I just hope you had a good ruler, and not a printed ruler from your home printer. If this is aprinted ruler, I am not sure which print made the mistake, as in home printers it is very difficult to get things at exact measurements.
It’s not “very difficult”. You just cognizant of the scale your ruler is drawn on and scale you are printing it, i.e. not have printer auto scale it for example.
I wondered the same thing.
Is that a lightsaber hilt?
No need, the math question already killed the youngling.
I dont see anything wrong with it. The unit is defined as a “centimeter cube” which is a non-standard unit so while it is not really a great unit definition, it would still be correct.
I could just randomly divide the scale in equal length sections, say one section is a “squelchon ” and the marker would be 17 squelchons long.
That’s how measurements based upon human appendages came to be ;)
EDIT: of course I mean squelchons and not squenchons (completely different unit) ;)
See, inconsistent scale has you confusing squenchons and squelchons. The difference should jump out at you.
