Re: Re: Unit Conversion
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg38070] Re: [mg38000] Re: [mg37973] Unit Conversion
- From: "Y.A.Tesiram" <yas at pcomm.hfi.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:09:51 -0500 (EST)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Err, yes, my mistake. My book doesn't have Are :) But Mathematica DOES give the correct answer whether its Are or Acre (Vers. 4.2). Convert[2 Hectare, Are] // N 200. Are Yas On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Tomas Garza wrote: > Perhaps you are interpreting "are" as a misprint for "acre". It is actually > a surface unit: one are is a piece of land measuring 100 square meters, i.e. > one one-hundredth of a hectare (= 10,000 square meters). So, it doesn't give > the correct answer. > > Tomas Garza > Mexico City > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Y.A.Tesiram" <yas at pcomm.hfi.unimelb.edu.au> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net > To: <mathgroup at smc.vnet.net> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:56 AM > Subject: [mg38070] [mg38000] Re: [mg37973] Unit Conversion > > > > No, it gives the correct answer. > > > > In[2]:= Convert[Hectare, Acre]//N > > > > Out[2]= 2.47105 Acre > > > > 1 hectare = 2.471 acre (Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd > > Ed.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all. > > > I always thought that 1 hectare = 100 are = 100 * 100 meter. > > > Yet Mathematica says > > > IN Convert[Hectare, Are] > > > OUT 98.8422 Are > > > What is the explanation of this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >