Measurement homework in a math textbook… horribly out of scale.
You must log in or # to comment.
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
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.
Is that a lightsaber hilt?
