Which of these sockets are in the right place? (If any)

[SUNRAY]

But it is a legitimate term of measurement.

Not a unit, a term. Units are kg, m, s etc.

Just like "2m long" is a legitimate term of measurement.

"10kg in weight" is a legitimate term of measurement.

This shape is 4cm square(d).

View attachment 385897

This is getting out of hand now:

This shape is 4 squared, cm. OR 4² cm.
which is also 16, cm squared. OR 16 cm². Also known as 16, square cm.

 

[JohnW2]

Also don't forget that in maths we use "squared" when there's no suggestion of or relation to an area of a 2D shape.

We do - but we're talking here about real-world measurement units, not maths.

As far as maths is concerned, any power of a linear unit of measurement (inch, mm or whatever) is theoretically acceptable, but powers above 3 have no useful physical meaning.

 

[JohnW2]

"I'm out"

 

[SUNRAY]

WTF are you lot on OMG

I take it you don't understand basic mathematics

 

[morqthana]

We do - but we're talking here about real-world measurement units, not maths.

Is gravitational acceleration not a real-world measurement unit?

 

[SUNRAY]

.

 

[morqthana]

Square ≡ squared

No.

(Square cm) ≡ (cm squared)

No.

(Square ft) ≡ (ft squared)

No.

100, square ft ≡ 100, ft squared ≡ 100, ft² which could be and this is where it does get confusing:

10², square ft ≡ 10², ft squared ≡ 10², ft² -- or just as valid: 5x20, square ft ≡ 5x20, ft squared ≡ 5x20, ft²

It only gets confusing because you have deliberately chosen to insert commas where none would be in either normal speech or normal writing in order to make it confusing.

 

[SUNRAY]

No.

No.


No.


It only gets confusing because you have deliberately chosen to insert commas where none would be in either normal speech or normal writing in order to make it confusing.

Sorry I've momentarily withdrawn that post as I created errors in my editing.

 

[morqthana]

This is getting out of hand now:

Why are you choosing to make it so?

This shape is 4 squared, cm. OR 4² cm.

NO.

Firstly, nobody would pause when speaking at the point you've inserted that comma.

Secondly, "square(d)" refers to the shape of the object.

Saying "it is (a) 4cm square" means you are saying it is a square, 4cm per side.

which is also 16, cm squared.

Firstly, nobody would pause when speaking at the point you've inserted that comma.

Secondly, what is 16²?

16 cm squared is 265 square centimetres. Written as 256cm².

OR 16 cm².

No. 16 centimetres squared is 256cm².

Also known as 16, square cm.

Firstly, nobody would pause when speaking at the point you've inserted that comma.

Secondly, 16 centimetres squared is not 16 square centimetres. 4 centimetres squared is. As, for example, the area of a 4cm square.

 

[SUNRAY]

No.


No.


No.


It only gets confusing because you have deliberately chosen to insert commas where none would be in either normal speech or normal writing in order to make it confusing.

when did a square of side of 1cm stop being 1 square cm or 1 squared cm or 1 cm squared

 

[ebee]

We had it drilled into us at junior school about square inches and inches square being two vastly different things.
1 & 2 & 3 squares were drawn out on the blackboard and it all went from that.
Millimetres and metres and Litres etc did not exist back then.
It was a different world back then.

Mind you , one of my Grandads "Old Chestnuts" was to ask
"Which is greater, six dozen dozen or half a dozen dozen?" and a lot of people got it wrong.
The question was asked verbally not written down and we were all very accustomed with dozens and half dozens back then, it probably would not work as well these days.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

"Which is greater, six dozen dozen or half a dozen dozen?" and a lot of people got it wrong.

The same, aren't they? Both 72..

 

[SUNRAY]

Why are you choosing to make it so?


NO.

Firstly, nobody would pause when speaking at the point you've inserted that comma.

Secondly, "square(d)" refers to the shape of the object.

Saying "it is (a) 4cm square" means you are saying it is a square, 4cm per side.



Firstly, nobody would pause when speaking at the point you've inserted that comma.

Secondly, what is 16²?

16 cm squared is 265 square centimetres. Written as 256cm².


No. 16 centimetres squared is 256cm².



Firstly, nobody would pause when speaking at the point you've inserted that comma.

Secondly, 16 centimetres squared is not 16 square centimetres. 4 centimetres squared is. As, for example, the area of a 4cm square.

So you don't understand basic mathematics then

When I was at school half a century ago we learnt the very significant difference between square inches and inches squared, some of our desks even had a 12x12 inch grid marked on them to assist our times table tuition, some were not numbered, others were, rather like this one except the numbers lined up properly and went to 144:

Thank you morqthana for supplying the inspiration for drawing it.

I very much hope we can all understand the shape marked "1" (or for that matter any of the other numbered shapes) is a square of sides 1cm making it a 1cm square.
As 1x1 = 1 (apologies to those who did learn their times table) it can only be 1 square cm or 1cmx1cm which according to all the rules of mathematics I am aware of equates to 1cm squared or 1cm².


EDIT: I see ebee has a fairly similar education to mine.

 

[morqthana]

when did a square of side of 1cm stop being 1 square cm or 1 squared cm or 1 cm squared

A square of sides of 1cm does indeed have an area of 1 square cm, because 1x1=1.

But a square with sides of 2cm has an area of 4 square cm. And 2cm squared is 4 square cm.

I don't think there is such a term as "a squared centimeter". Square, yes, but not squared.

Let's try this.

Someone tells you he's dug a circular pond in his garden. "It's 5m round", he says.

IMO the likeliest meaning of that is that the circumference is 5m. Maybe, but very unlikely, he means the diameter or the radius.

I don't think that anybody would begin to imagine that "5m" had anything to do with a measurement of its area.

 

[morqthana]

The same, aren't they? Both 72..

No.

864 and 72.