Uploaded by Udacity on 25.06.2012

Transcript:

I think that this is the best answer.

The problem with this answer, even though it may seem appealing initially,

is that without knowing the true circumference, this number--34,000 km--

is sort of meaningless.

What if the earth had a circumference of 10 bajillion km?

Well, then an error of 34,000 km would be nothing in comparison to that.

So, I really have to reference point for what this number means.

This is actually a pretty good description of Plato's error--

that the true circumference is about half.

But this one's a little better, because it gives me a little more precision.

I have an actual number. Plato's guess was 85% larger than the true circumference.

This is the best statement of error.

The problem with this answer, even though it may seem appealing initially,

is that without knowing the true circumference, this number--34,000 km--

is sort of meaningless.

What if the earth had a circumference of 10 bajillion km?

Well, then an error of 34,000 km would be nothing in comparison to that.

So, I really have to reference point for what this number means.

This is actually a pretty good description of Plato's error--

that the true circumference is about half.

But this one's a little better, because it gives me a little more precision.

I have an actual number. Plato's guess was 85% larger than the true circumference.

This is the best statement of error.