why cant 22/7 be rounded up to 22/8?
488092
22/8 isn't any more round than 22/7 if you're talking about rounding to the nearest whole number. They're just different numbers.\n\nAlso, 22/7 is bigger so it's not being rounded up.
411123
I'm not sure what you mean by "front end" rounding but if you mean to the nearest whole number, the first answer would be 29.  The second answer is 17.  Third one is 8.  The ratio is 360:4
559572
First of all, if you round off, you loose the last significant digit. 1.5 rounds up to 2, not 2.0. \nWhen you write that a measurement is 2.0, you are saying that it lies between 1.95 and 2.05 and it was rounded to 2 significant places.\n\nHere is the convention for rounding:\nWhen round to a whole number, \nn.0 is already rounded.\nn.1, n.2, n.3, n.4 round down to n\nn.6, n.7, n.8, n.9 round up (n+1)\n\nTo avoid an upwards or downwards bias in your rounding, n.5 rounds up half the time, and down half the time, depending on whether n is even or odd. Always round so that n.5 in the direction that gives you an even number.\n\nSo 1.5 rounds to 2 and 2.5 rounds to 2.\n\nSimilarly -.5 rounds to 0, -1.5 and -2.5 round to -2.\n\nThe same rule applys whenever you round down to any number of significant digits.
602072
You figured it out - the distributive property is your key:\n\nThink of what you're saying when you write (7/8) = (1/8)*7\n\nyou're saying (1/8)+(1/8)+(1/8)+(1/8)+(1/8)+(1/8)+(1/8)=7/8\n\nBut let's work with 10th; you'll see it faster:\n\nLet's say 3/10 to make it easy and keep my fingers from falling off...\n\nSo, if you buy the first thing, we're saying that:\n\n(3/10) = 3*(1/10) = (1/10)+(1/10)+(1/10)\n\nNow think decimals.  This one is easy, right?  Since our number system is based on ten, this is a nice round number -\n\n(3/10) = 0.3  or three pieces, that are each one tenth of a whole item (a dollar, a chocolate bar - whatever helps).  Really, what you are asking is how many pieces of the whole thing you have - broken down by tens, because that's what our number system is based on.\n\nSo (bare with me, but I think you'll get it after this), instead, let's say we have 1/4 of something, we have two tenths of it, plus another half of one-tenth:\n\n(1/4) = (1/10)+(1/10)+[(1/2)*(1/10)] = 0.25\n\nor [2*(1/10)] + [(1/2)*(1/10)] = 0.25\n\nAnd, it works for any multiple - if we made the denominator 60, we would have to multiply by 15:\n\n(1/4) = (15/60) = 0.25\n\nA twenty-five cent piece and fifteen minutes after the hour con't share the name "quater" by accident...\n\nAnd believe me, this works for any fraction under the sun.\n\nHope that helps.
344805
I'm not sure what front end rounding is?\n21.7 is close to 22\n3.98 is close to 4\n22-4 = 18\n53.9 is close to 54\n2.56 is close to 3\n11.8 is close to 12\n54+3+12 = 69
704101
If you mean 14/7, then this is just 2 with no need to do any further conversion.  Cheers!
825309
7/8 divided by .25 is the same as multiplying by 4. \n7/8 X 4 = 28/8 = 3 4/8 = 3 1/2
529333
Hi\n\nYou start by trying to divide 13 by 60 (i.e. how many times does 60 go into 13?) The answer of course is - it doesn't. So you know your answer must be a decimal number. Next add a zero to the 13 making it 130. Now try again. How many times does 60 go into 130. The answer is two with 10 left over. So the start of your answer is 0.2; Next add a zero to your leftover 10 making 100. How many times does 60 go into 100? Answer is 1 with 40 left over. So your answer is now at 0.21; next add a zero to your leftover 40 making 400. How many times does 60 go into 400. Answer is 6 with 40 leftover. So your answer has now moved on to 0.216; next add a zero to your leftover 40........ Can you see the pattern?? You just keep doing this until you want to stop :-) In this particular case the 6 will keep re-occurring and so your answer will never end; it will become 0.2166666666666 going on forever. Rounded this makes 0.22. Finally, add on the 34 degrees to the decimal and you get 34.22.\n\nNow you see why Clive Sinclair invented the modern calculator.
941693
it's easy of means multiply something the .7  is in precent and u have to convert it into a decimal by moving the decimal point 2 spaces to the left. the answer to the problem is.9093. I think u are missing some infor u probably want a fraction like is/for = %/whole I can't do that because u have not provide me with details.
127322
I don't know why people use 22/7 as an approximation for pi when another, easily remembered, ratio gives a much better approximation:\n\nWrite each of the first three odd numbers twice:\n113355\nUse the first three digits as the denominator and the last three as the numerator:\n355/113\nThis gives an approximation of pi that is accurate to 6 digits. 22/7 is only accurate to 2 digits:\n\n3.14159265 = pi\n3.14159292 = 355/113\n3.14285714 = 22/7
110772
0.58 (with a horizontal bar right above the 58)
510570
Because the exponet of both is an even number which is 2\n\nIf you divide by 8 you might get a .5 result.
504982
Pi is not 22/7. The fraction 22/7 is just an approximation to pi. A better one is 355/113, but both are just approximations. Pi itself cannot be written as a fraction involving two whole numbers. It is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of that circle. This ratio was approximated by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. The Greek Archimedes showed that pi is between 3+10/71 and 3+1/7.\n\nIt has been shown that pi cannot be the solution of any polynomial equation involving intefers as coefficients. In other words, it is transcendental.
259553
yup 22 would be the answerrrrr
364224
multiply the numerators (top numbers) together put that number on top, multiply the denomonators (bottom) together, put that number on the bottom---   5/8 times 4/7 is 20/56
327555
115 to 42 \nor 2.738 to 1
302292
There's no solution.\n\nIf you're evil, you could argue that 102 - 78 is an answer ;)\n\nEDIT : Confirmed no solution with Telraam (http://members.chello.nl/g.de.blaauw/telraam.html). Allowing square roots gives (8*(2+.10))/.7 as a potential answer.