2001-11-27 I worked it backwards and it does come out close.
42.195/1.609344 = 26.218 757 5 miles. The miles were truncated after 1 decimal place. So, I guess in order to get it closer to the 42.195 figure, you need to round it to 26.219, which is 42.195 3 km, or 300 mm too far. But, I'm sure that "error" is tolerable. Since the number of digits to the right of the decimal point is 3 when stated in kilometres, it must also be 3 in miles to have the same degree of accuracy. You know, significant digits. Or you can just forget the miles all together. I'm sure no matter what the distance may be stated in miles in the press and other English writings, the IOC and other International Organisations only know it as 42.195 km and that is what they go by. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara and/or Bill Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2001-11-27 17:41 Subject: [USMA:16444] Re: Depressing... > > to be exact: > > > > marathon is 42.195 km > > How did they ever come up with such a number? > > It's not a conversion of 26.2 miles (and why should it be) because that > would be 42.1648128 kilometeres not 42.195. > > But 42.195 km does give 26.2 miles when converted and properly rounded > (unrounded value is 26.218757456). That suggests that the "official" > definition of the marathon is metric and that the mile version is simply an > approximate conversion from the metric version (and not the other way > around). > > Regards, > Bill Hooper > > ============ > Keep It Simple! > Make It Metric! > ============ > > ). >
