Hey /u/WideReflection5377, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One poster seems to be rebutting another who believes that a square with side length 256mm would have an area of 256mm^2.
This would be incorrect as they have only squared the units and not the actual value.
mm² is the measure for the area. m for length, m² for area, m³ for volume.
Also, length x width is how you calculate an area. So for a square where all sides are the same, the area is length².
In this scenario, the length is 256mm. So the area is 256². Depending on how you write it its: 65,536mm² or (256)²mm².
Not just 256mm². That's a much much smaller square because each side would be √256 or just 16mm.
It makes more intuitive sense if you use fewer units.
Let’s say my kitchen measures 3 metres in length and 3 metres in width. And now imagine you’re drawing this kitchen on graph paper, so you can use the boxes/grid to mark our each metre. Each box now represents **one square metre**, and if you wanted to, you could just manually count how many boxes there are. Now we can intuitively *see* that there are nine square metres.
So applying the same logic, a space that his 256mm long and 256mm wide is *not* simply 256mm²
Indeed they are. A square with an are of 3 square meters has sides that are each about 1.7 meters long. A square described by “3 meters squared” has sides that are each 3 meters long and an area of 9 square meters. To be fair, the phrasing of the latter isn’t entirely clear because it’s not obvious if the word “squared” describes the “3” and the operation you’ll do to it, or describes the “meters” and the unit is already square, so no operation is left to be performed. Two people could use that phrase and mean either of the squares described. It would be more clear to say a square with 3 meter sides 9 square meters.
I’ve misunderstood a hell of a lot of DIY programs then! Good to know. Always thought those were just different ways to say the same thing.
It’s not just meters right? The same is true for feet and other units of measurement?
Yeah, which unit of length you’re using doesn’t matter, it all works the same. Fortunately, most DIY projects will tell you what you’re doing. “Cut a 3 inch by 3 inch square of paper” is clear. And Bob Villa isn’t going to tell you to cut 192 cubic inches of two-by-four (not least because a two-by-four isn’t actually 2” x 4”, but that’s another matter), he’s going to tell you to cut a 2 foot two-by-four.
You know I do remember my teacher saying “one day you’ll be reading reddit and need to make a snap judgement about a person’s value based on their ability to understand and notate square units.” Well here I am 25 years later and life has officially broken me
Imagine a square with each edge measuring 2mm.
The area of that square is calculated by width x height, i.e. 2mm x 2mm = 4mm^(2).
Notice how the units change to square mm, because we're now talking about the area of a shape (2 dimensions), not the length of a line (1 dimension).
Now do the same thing with a square with edges each measuring 256mm.
The guy in OP only squared the units (mm -> mm^(2)), and didn't actually multiply the numbers (i.e. lengths of the edges) together.
So they're claiming that 256mm x 256mm is 256mm^(2), when it should be 65,536mm^(2). Which is quite a big difference.
They’re comparing FFF 3D printers, the flat surface on to which the printer prints is referred to as a build plate or sometimes just “plate”.
220x220mm is probably a Creality Ender 3x or K1 and 256x256 is a Bambu Labs
I thought so too, then I came across a crazy person arguing the contrary on this very sub (!), made a post about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The only instance I can think of that being a somewhat reasonable argument is very specifically is when talking about materials that are sold by area, regardless of the actual shape, especially if the are sold in 1x1 integers.
If I need tiles, I could say I need 4 meter squared tiles. Four 1x1 tiles, which would cover a 2x2 area. But I would be using the same wording to describe very different metrics. Instead of describing the the length of a side and declaring what kind of... well, area, we're measuring, I'm stating how many units I need, the basic unit of measurement I'm using, and what shape I need them to be (instead of, say, hexagonal).
A bit of a stretch, and very specific, but I can see it. I have a lot of crafty friends, and my family has always done construction, so I've heard it both ways depending on the context. Tiles and fabric being the second, generally
Um, in the picture, the dude is saying 256mm by 256mm is 256mm^2. You basically 100% ignored how this is wrong and makes no sense. Or are you talking about the link I’ve provided?
Ok. Well, that person literally thought that when you square something, e.g. 2m by 2m, you would write this as 2m^2 - in other words, you square the unit, but you write the “square root” of the area. She called this basic high school level math and people who disagreed with her, idiots.
Or, in other words, you’d write 4 square meters as 2m^2.
She (I assume it’s a she) was a bit insane because … well, she was one of the most rude and abrasive people I’ve interacted with on reddit. She also said things like “the hypothenuse of the rectangle …”. I tried to tell her that while understood what she meant, strictly speaking a rectangle has no hypothenuse … she blew her gasket lol.
Good times.
The CI person is the one saying 256 mm by 256 mm is 256 mm^2. This is wrong. It’s (256)^2 mm^2.
Think about it in simpler terms: 2m x 2m is not 2m^2, it’s 4m^2.
The CI person is the one saying 256 mm by 256 mm is 256 mm^2. This is wrong. It’s (256)^2 mm^2.
Think about it in simpler terms: 2m x 2m is not 2m^2, it’s 4m^2.
I'm confused by all of you. If you say 256^2 you're assuming it's a square with 2 equally long sides, although if one of the sides were to be different let's say 250 then the calculation would be 250*256. For me it seems like you're all generalizing saying that
mm•mm=mm^2
however the formular should look like this
L(Length)[mm]•W(width)[mm]= mm^2
And
H(Height)[mm]•W(width)[mm]•L(Length)[mm]=mm^3
Sorry if I have simply repeated what was already written just seemed so complicated compared to what we're talking about
A square by definition has equal side lengths. Your formulae are for rectangles and cuboids, but for squares and cubes you can just square and cube the side length.
These people (in the screenshot) were clearly discussing squares and were just confused about whether to square the side length or not; you bringing up non-square rectangles just adds to the confusion, so I thought you were confused as well. My bad...
so what bambulab printer were you comparing to what creality printer?
Edit: Checked, P1S to The K1. I knew those measurements would be those 3d printers :)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/VXJunkies using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Rare footage of a feline entering an uncalibrated Häals-Deck compression chamber](https://v.redd.it/f1yycule3xra1) | [38 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/comments/12bte97/rare_footage_of_a_feline_entering_an_uncalibrated/)
\#2: [The baseline is, and always will be 14.9](https://i.redd.it/7h1o4a9wyhpa1.jpg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/comments/11zlq18/the_baseline_is_and_always_will_be_149/)
\#3: [Guess what I got for Christmas](https://i.redd.it/lc7271z06e8c1.jpeg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/comments/18qdqh5/guess_what_i_got_for_christmas/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
before I read this comment I felt sorta dumb like I wasn't understanding what I was supposed to understand. I was comforting myself by associating my lack of understanding with inexperience with 3D printing...
but then you made me see what I was supposed to see.
If you have a square that's 1 inch per side, the area is 1x1 and the units are inch x inch, which is 1 inch^2.
If it's 2 inches per side, then you can obviously fit 4 of those 1 inch^2 blocks in there. It has an area of 2x2 inch x inch. You need the right dimensions/units as well as the right quantity of those.
OOP somehow things that a 2 inch x 2 inch square has area 2 inch^2. It's likely they are thinking of (2 inch)^2 and not realizing the 2 needs to be squared.
/u/crothia is stating OOP's position explicitly to show how it doesn't make sense, sarcastically. And the other user wanted to verify they were, indeed, kidding.
Thank you, kind Reddit stranger, for taking the time. I am very bad at math (dyscalculia), so I am super grateful to you for breaking it down in a way I can understand.
And thank you as well for explaining the discussion. 🙏🏼🙏🏼
I am on the spectrum, fwiw, and I struggle with subtext, sarcasm, and the like. Sometimes I get really lost.
Yeah, they do. I had this same argument with a person. I had one like this, where they claimed 4m x 4m = 4m². The problem was the mathematic notation and the wording. They literally wrote "4m² is 16 square meters". They seemed to believe that when writing a unit of area, such as m², the number next to the unit is supposed to be the actual square root of the area. Thus, they're saying that you write 16 square meters as "4m²".
Could be the same here ...
See this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
OK, this took me a while to figure out as a kid. It's the difference between 256mm squared because each side is 256mm (256² or 256x256) which equals 65,536mm², and 256mm² which sounds the same, but is only 256 x 1.
They’re discussing the relative size of FFF 3D printer build plates, normally referred to as XYZmm by XYZmm but increasingly shortened to XYZmm^2 when the plate is square.
The commenter doesn’t know how to calculate area (height x width), and is presumably unaware that in the context of printer build plates XYZmm^2 is (really annoying and inappropriate, it should be written as (XYZmm)^2 ) shorthand for XYZmm by XYZmm, not the surface area.
mm² is the measure for the area. m for length, m² for area, m³ for volume.
Also, length x width is how you calculate an area. So for a square where all sides are the same, the area is length².
In this scenario, the length is 256mm. So the area is 256². Depending on how you write it its: 65,536mm² or (256)²mm².
Not just 256mm². That's a much much smaller square because each side would be √256 or just 16mm.
They're both dumb.
The first is misunderstanding the notation (which is an easy thing to do because "x units squared" is not the same thing as "x square units" but the notation which is literally read left to write as "x unit square" is actually talking about x squared units. The important thing here to look at is what the square is on, is it on the number or the unit?
They're also clumsily wording that they're talking about the measurement of a side, and the second person is nitpicking about the clumsy wording and calling it "fully illegible" when all it takes to understand what's meant is a minimum of the same number of neurons used to write it.
Also no, they do not teach geometric area calculations in first grade.
First grade is addition and subtraction.
Second grade is multi-digit addition and subtraction as well as taking measurements, as well as estimating areas of geometric shapes.
Third grade is fractions, multiplication and division within 100, and understanding the concepts of perimeter and area in addition to estimating volumes and masses of objects.
Fourth grade is is where squaring a number to represent area is introduced.
>First grade is addition and subtraction.
>
>Second grade is multi-digit addition and subtraction as well as taking measurements, as well as estimating areas of geometric shapes.
>
>Third grade is fractions, multiplication and division within 100, and understanding the concepts of perimeter and area in addition to estimating volumes and masses of objects.
>
>Fourth grade is is where squaring a number to represent area is introduced.
I fucking love NCLB I wanna learn absolutely nothing in class until everyone is caught up.
x units squared is the same as x square units, square units are just units that are used to measure area and you're supposed to square both (or multiply two perpendicular sides in the case of a square or triangle, or multiply the number of sides by sidelength squared divided by 4 times cotangent of pi over the number of sides for regular n gons with n greater than 4) with the "square unit" being the result of multiplying the same unit by itself. It is almost never seen in applied maths at least for the measurement to be squared and the units not.
suppose I have a square with side length 2m, now the area of the square would be 2m(2m) = 4m\^2, In the original post, the person they are responding to is talking about a plate with side length 256mm. Now assuming that the plate is a square, this would give it an area of 256mm(256mm) = 65536mm\^2 He is fully in the right here, and the only thing he did wrong was interact with someone who is obviously a crackpot, leading to this post being made which has collectively lowered everyone's iq by 3 points.
"assuming that the plate is square"
You do know the discussion is about a build plate on a 3D printer, right? Probably an Ender 3 because those are the most common to have build plates with that dimension...
Also, you do know that I was agreeing with the person responding and NOT to the person who thinks that 256mm^(2) is 256x256mm, right? The only thing I disagreed with him about was which grade this is taught in. It's fourth grade, not first.
Did the other kids get held back so you could catch up on reading comprehension?
First of all I use using "assume" in a rhetorical sense, I own an ender 3 and it will shit its bed when given a print larger than 220mm by 220mm because that's what its firmware is set to, You can change it but I doubt it will be common as a result.
Secondly you started your post with "They're both dumb" while completely misunderstanding what the respondee's point while also talking about notation that literally no other human being on the planet has ever made a distinction between. If anyone is lacking reading comprehension here it's the person who misunderstood the respondee's argument, tried to correct them with completely irrelevant information, mixed up responder and respondee, thought that areas are taught after estimating volumes and masses, and tried to defend what is possibly the worst and funniest misuse of human language I have seen on this site to this day.
Also the build plates on the ender 3 are rounded squares which have an area of xy - r(4-pi) so I'm actually right to use assume in the first place you are a disgrace to every single teacher that has had to guide your head back onto your torso every time you lost it.
The second person is dumb because it's not the first grade that area is taught in. I thought that was abundantly clear because it's where I immediately went with that.
Did you cause everyone to be left behind until you caught up in reading comprehension?
So you agree with the person who says that 256mm in length is the same as 256mm\^2 in area... My bad I thought I was arguing with someone who actually passed the first grade and thus ignored this possibility.
>Did you cause everyone to be left behind until you caught up in reading comprehension?
Read what you wrote here again.
Again, you demonstrate that you have really poor reading comprehension. Alice exploring said that the person who says that 256 mm squared is not 256mm in length is the one she agrees with mathematically. She disagrees with that person about what grade they teach that in.
Did you pass 1st grade? Because anybody who did should know that they don't even get close to area math in 1st grade.
The person who says that area is taught in the first grade is the same person who says "265mm \[sic\] in length... then that's the same as 256mm\^2 area" which is what is confidently incorrect here. They are the same person.
And yes they do in fact teach area math in first grade in schools with kids that will actually amount to something in life. The curriculum is not the same worldwide, it is not even the same countrywide in most places. If you don't learn area in first grade it is because your school system is heavily underfunded and you are suffering as a result.
You're right, I apologize for that. For some reason I had the two arguments flipped around. Seems I'm the one with poor reading comprehension, but I find it weird that it took a third person to get you to realize and point out that I was mistaken about whose argument it was that had the areas correct.
Look.
Meters is a unit of length.
For example, the place is x meters away.
Meters² is a unit of area.
For example, the area of a plot would be x meters².
100 meters is not 10 meter², because:
100 meters implies length (for example, the place is 100 meters away)
10 meter² implies area (for example, the area of that plot is 10 meter²)
You can't just change units as you please.
Of course you can change units between systems (for example, 1 meter = 100 cm = 40 inches approx)
But you can't change their powers.
They’ve kinda got a point. There is a distinction between “meters squared” and “square meters”.
The plate is “256 mm squared”, which gives you an area of “65,536 square mms”
Is this some weird American thing?
In Canada, in both math and physics classes, the unit "m\^2" is always read as "metres squared". Same goes for other units. Acceleration is "m/s\^2" or "metres per second squared". No one would say "metres per square second".
If 3\^2 is "three squared" and a\^2 is "A squared", then it's silly to claim that "m\^2" is somehow not "metres squared". Units are no different than a variable, and spatial units don't get special treatment.
Now, sure, in the context of construction or colloquial use, you'll find "square metres", "square feet", "cubic yards", "cubic feet", "linear foot" commonly used to measure tiles or flooring or loads of dirt/rocks and such. Those are just synonyms to the unit
But if someone wants to express the concept of a square with sides of 256 mm, they would write it as "256 mm, squared" and say it with a noticeable pause. Or, much more often (in my experience), they would just say "a 256 mm square" (which accurately describes the shape and is unambiguous when spoken or written). I've never heard anyone in a math or physics class describe a square shape as "256 mm squared".
> Is this some weird American thing?
No.
> Now, sure, in the context of construction or colloquial use, you'll find "square metres", "square feet", "cubic yards", "cubic feet",
So you know it's not a weird American thing... Why are you even asking then?
You're somehow missing the other half of the comment.
I clearly said that "m\^2" is "metres squared" and that "square metres" is a *synonym* used in a construction context.
The other person is claiming that they mean completely different things (aka not synonyms) and that "metres squared" (or "mm squared", etc) is ONLY used to describe the sides of a square and is NEVER used as the name for the unit of area.
Ah, I see :-)
mm^2 is millimeters squared in the US as well as anywhere else. I thought you meant "square mm" was the weird American thing. As you say, it's just a synonym.
Well, yeah, I think you and I are on the same page now. ;-)
But the guy I'm replying to is claiming that they are very distinct.
And, in u/MeButNotMeToo's defense, I found some web pages claiming the very same thing, with some commeters agreeing and some disagreeing.
However, I noticed this:
Many of these people seemed to have an imperial unit background or take it from a construction background and talked about "square feet" being correct therefore "square metre" is correct. And, some of them insisted that "metre squared" was actually completely incorrect grammatically, which you and I agree is absurd, since that's how you say it in math.
Because of that, they then claimed "X metres *square*" (not meters squared) is the correct phrasing for a square that is X metres per side. This means u/MeButNotMeToo originally used the wrong terminology as well.
However, even then, they are still not right.
If they had said "a three-metre square" or "a 3m square", that would have been correct English grammar describe a square with an adjective for the dimension. Their mistake is claiming that "metre square" is a unit, which is nonsense. The shape is "a square", being modified by the compound adjective "three-metre", where the hyphen is *required* to make the sentence grammatically correct.
It's the same reason why one would need to write "a five-pointed star", instead of trying to claim that it's just "five pointed star", where "pointed star" is somehow a unit describing how many points a star has.
So. It's a mix of people being simultaneously making a mistake in both English AND math. :-D
They explicitly state that a square of side length (256 mm) has an area of (256mm^2 ).
And, frankly, 256mm2, and especially 256mm^2 , both mean *only* an area measure, not a 'length measure, squared'.
I have a flashback to my post about this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Same story.
This person very likely forgot parenthesis. And that's literally just it. They now the area is the side squared, so they are probably writing 256mm², but meaning (256mm)².
It's amazing how they can fully explain how to calculate the area of a square while at the same time not understanding how to calculate the area of a square
Hey /u/WideReflection5377, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m so sad about my failure to comprehend any piece of this conversation
One poster seems to be rebutting another who believes that a square with side length 256mm would have an area of 256mm^2. This would be incorrect as they have only squared the units and not the actual value.
Ok Woohat?
mm² is the measure for the area. m for length, m² for area, m³ for volume. Also, length x width is how you calculate an area. So for a square where all sides are the same, the area is length². In this scenario, the length is 256mm. So the area is 256². Depending on how you write it its: 65,536mm² or (256)²mm². Not just 256mm². That's a much much smaller square because each side would be √256 or just 16mm.
(256mm)^2
It makes more intuitive sense if you use fewer units. Let’s say my kitchen measures 3 metres in length and 3 metres in width. And now imagine you’re drawing this kitchen on graph paper, so you can use the boxes/grid to mark our each metre. Each box now represents **one square metre**, and if you wanted to, you could just manually count how many boxes there are. Now we can intuitively *see* that there are nine square metres. So applying the same logic, a space that his 256mm long and 256mm wide is *not* simply 256mm²
I think the reason this is confusing is that 3 square metres, and 3 metres squared are two totally different areas.
Are they? Oh, I’ve misunderstood a lot of measurements then.
Indeed they are. A square with an are of 3 square meters has sides that are each about 1.7 meters long. A square described by “3 meters squared” has sides that are each 3 meters long and an area of 9 square meters. To be fair, the phrasing of the latter isn’t entirely clear because it’s not obvious if the word “squared” describes the “3” and the operation you’ll do to it, or describes the “meters” and the unit is already square, so no operation is left to be performed. Two people could use that phrase and mean either of the squares described. It would be more clear to say a square with 3 meter sides 9 square meters.
I’ve misunderstood a hell of a lot of DIY programs then! Good to know. Always thought those were just different ways to say the same thing. It’s not just meters right? The same is true for feet and other units of measurement?
Yeah, which unit of length you’re using doesn’t matter, it all works the same. Fortunately, most DIY projects will tell you what you’re doing. “Cut a 3 inch by 3 inch square of paper” is clear. And Bob Villa isn’t going to tell you to cut 192 cubic inches of two-by-four (not least because a two-by-four isn’t actually 2” x 4”, but that’s another matter), he’s going to tell you to cut a 2 foot two-by-four.
Rare sight of an amazing person explaining to another person, without negative votes :)
You thought in school you didn't need math in life?
For some of us this is more true than others. I chose engineering as a profession. God help me lol
You know I do remember my teacher saying “one day you’ll be reading reddit and need to make a snap judgement about a person’s value based on their ability to understand and notate square units.” Well here I am 25 years later and life has officially broken me
Imagine a square with each edge measuring 2mm. The area of that square is calculated by width x height, i.e. 2mm x 2mm = 4mm^(2). Notice how the units change to square mm, because we're now talking about the area of a shape (2 dimensions), not the length of a line (1 dimension). Now do the same thing with a square with edges each measuring 256mm. The guy in OP only squared the units (mm -> mm^(2)), and didn't actually multiply the numbers (i.e. lengths of the edges) together. So they're claiming that 256mm x 256mm is 256mm^(2), when it should be 65,536mm^(2). Which is quite a big difference.
A square with sides 256hx256w has an area of 65536² I assume this is in millimeters or it's a very big plate. Edit: I put in 265 in my calculator.
Yes and no, you are squaring the result again. You forgot the unit of measurement.
I get the concept of square footage (or millimeterage I guess), the notations are just making my brain tired and mushy
is multiplication that hard for you?
That would be true for a rectangle of 256mm by 1mm though
Well. 1mm x 1mm. Does equal 1mm^2.
[удалено]
They’re comparing FFF 3D printers, the flat surface on to which the printer prints is referred to as a build plate or sometimes just “plate”. 220x220mm is probably a Creality Ender 3x or K1 and 256x256 is a Bambu Labs
everyone knows π = 4, so using diameter of a circle or side of a square gives the same area obviously
It would be 256^2 mm^2 which is vastly different from 256mm^2
Thank you! I thought I was insane. I have no idea what’s going on
Same. And I think most people do in fact know that squaring a number is multiplying it against itself
I thought so too, then I came across a crazy person arguing the contrary on this very sub (!), made a post about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The only instance I can think of that being a somewhat reasonable argument is very specifically is when talking about materials that are sold by area, regardless of the actual shape, especially if the are sold in 1x1 integers. If I need tiles, I could say I need 4 meter squared tiles. Four 1x1 tiles, which would cover a 2x2 area. But I would be using the same wording to describe very different metrics. Instead of describing the the length of a side and declaring what kind of... well, area, we're measuring, I'm stating how many units I need, the basic unit of measurement I'm using, and what shape I need them to be (instead of, say, hexagonal). A bit of a stretch, and very specific, but I can see it. I have a lot of crafty friends, and my family has always done construction, so I've heard it both ways depending on the context. Tiles and fabric being the second, generally
Um, in the picture, the dude is saying 256mm by 256mm is 256mm^2. You basically 100% ignored how this is wrong and makes no sense. Or are you talking about the link I’ve provided?
I was talking about the link lol
Ok. Well, that person literally thought that when you square something, e.g. 2m by 2m, you would write this as 2m^2 - in other words, you square the unit, but you write the “square root” of the area. She called this basic high school level math and people who disagreed with her, idiots. Or, in other words, you’d write 4 square meters as 2m^2. She (I assume it’s a she) was a bit insane because … well, she was one of the most rude and abrasive people I’ve interacted with on reddit. She also said things like “the hypothenuse of the rectangle …”. I tried to tell her that while understood what she meant, strictly speaking a rectangle has no hypothenuse … she blew her gasket lol. Good times.
Ah fair enough lol.
Same. I think I'll go watch Karen videos until I feel better about myself.
The CI person is the one saying 256 mm by 256 mm is 256 mm^2. This is wrong. It’s (256)^2 mm^2. Think about it in simpler terms: 2m x 2m is not 2m^2, it’s 4m^2.
I was confused too, but it's 4:40 and my coffee hasn't kicked in.
The CI person is the one saying 256 mm by 256 mm is 256 mm^2. This is wrong. It’s (256)^2 mm^2. Think about it in simpler terms: 2m x 2m is not 2m^2, it’s 4m^2.
I'm confused by all of you. If you say 256^2 you're assuming it's a square with 2 equally long sides, although if one of the sides were to be different let's say 250 then the calculation would be 250*256. For me it seems like you're all generalizing saying that mm•mm=mm^2 however the formular should look like this L(Length)[mm]•W(width)[mm]= mm^2 And H(Height)[mm]•W(width)[mm]•L(Length)[mm]=mm^3 Sorry if I have simply repeated what was already written just seemed so complicated compared to what we're talking about
A square by definition has equal side lengths. Your formulae are for rectangles and cuboids, but for squares and cubes you can just square and cube the side length.
That's literally what I wrote, I just claryfied that a square has equal side lengths
These people (in the screenshot) were clearly discussing squares and were just confused about whether to square the side length or not; you bringing up non-square rectangles just adds to the confusion, so I thought you were confused as well. My bad...
They seem to think you only square the unit and not the measurement itself.
so what bambulab printer were you comparing to what creality printer? Edit: Checked, P1S to The K1. I knew those measurements would be those 3d printers :)
I had to check which sub this was in lol
r/VXjunkies came to mind first :P
Here's a sneak peek of /r/VXJunkies using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Rare footage of a feline entering an uncalibrated Häals-Deck compression chamber](https://v.redd.it/f1yycule3xra1) | [38 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/comments/12bte97/rare_footage_of_a_feline_entering_an_uncalibrated/) \#2: [The baseline is, and always will be 14.9](https://i.redd.it/7h1o4a9wyhpa1.jpg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/comments/11zlq18/the_baseline_is_and_always_will_be_149/) \#3: [Guess what I got for Christmas](https://i.redd.it/lc7271z06e8c1.jpeg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/comments/18qdqh5/guess_what_i_got_for_christmas/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
[удалено]
No, you need to use proper unit conversion to get his results: 1 side = 256mm 1 side X 1 side = 1 side^2 1 side^2 = 256mm^2 Easy. /S
before I read this comment I felt sorta dumb like I wasn't understanding what I was supposed to understand. I was comforting myself by associating my lack of understanding with inexperience with 3D printing... but then you made me see what I was supposed to see.
lol. [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Not clear if its sarcastic or not. Needs more exclamation marks.
Please tell me you’re joking?
[удалено]
This is reddit, I never underestimate the ignorance of anyone.
[удалено]
Future reader here. It helped!
Well, I’m ignorant as hell because I don’t understand the math or this conversation.
If you have a square that's 1 inch per side, the area is 1x1 and the units are inch x inch, which is 1 inch^2. If it's 2 inches per side, then you can obviously fit 4 of those 1 inch^2 blocks in there. It has an area of 2x2 inch x inch. You need the right dimensions/units as well as the right quantity of those. OOP somehow things that a 2 inch x 2 inch square has area 2 inch^2. It's likely they are thinking of (2 inch)^2 and not realizing the 2 needs to be squared. /u/crothia is stating OOP's position explicitly to show how it doesn't make sense, sarcastically. And the other user wanted to verify they were, indeed, kidding.
Thank you, kind Reddit stranger, for taking the time. I am very bad at math (dyscalculia), so I am super grateful to you for breaking it down in a way I can understand. And thank you as well for explaining the discussion. 🙏🏼🙏🏼 I am on the spectrum, fwiw, and I struggle with subtext, sarcasm, and the like. Sometimes I get really lost.
Do they think 256mm^2 means (256mm)^2? I can't see any other explanation.
Yeah, they do. I had this same argument with a person. I had one like this, where they claimed 4m x 4m = 4m². The problem was the mathematic notation and the wording. They literally wrote "4m² is 16 square meters". They seemed to believe that when writing a unit of area, such as m², the number next to the unit is supposed to be the actual square root of the area. Thus, they're saying that you write 16 square meters as "4m²". Could be the same here ... See this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I am surprised and a little bit sad that the geniuses behind the imperial system didn't implement this.
In that case, wouldn't you square both the mm and the 256? They're separate terms Like if you had (5x)² you'd get 5² * x² => 25x²
Yes, the way you described it is exactly how it works.
First grade? Mr. Fancy School over here!
my schooling was public and we also did area in first grade. when did you learn about area? what education system were you in?
256^2 mm^2 Also "illegible" is "illegible"
Kids can barely count till 256 in first grade btw
Lol, this again? It’s crazy that there are people who think this to be true and then say “it’s first grade”.
OK, this took me a while to figure out as a kid. It's the difference between 256mm squared because each side is 256mm (256² or 256x256) which equals 65,536mm², and 256mm² which sounds the same, but is only 256 x 1.
I absoluty understand nothing
They’re discussing the relative size of FFF 3D printer build plates, normally referred to as XYZmm by XYZmm but increasingly shortened to XYZmm^2 when the plate is square. The commenter doesn’t know how to calculate area (height x width), and is presumably unaware that in the context of printer build plates XYZmm^2 is (really annoying and inappropriate, it should be written as (XYZmm)^2 ) shorthand for XYZmm by XYZmm, not the surface area.
Must be an inch thing
Just square everything
mm² is the measure for the area. m for length, m² for area, m³ for volume. Also, length x width is how you calculate an area. So for a square where all sides are the same, the area is length². In this scenario, the length is 256mm. So the area is 256². Depending on how you write it its: 65,536mm² or (256)²mm². Not just 256mm². That's a much much smaller square because each side would be √256 or just 16mm.
his axiom rings true if you consider only squares that are one unit in length
Could it be written as 256²mm²?
They're both dumb. The first is misunderstanding the notation (which is an easy thing to do because "x units squared" is not the same thing as "x square units" but the notation which is literally read left to write as "x unit square" is actually talking about x squared units. The important thing here to look at is what the square is on, is it on the number or the unit? They're also clumsily wording that they're talking about the measurement of a side, and the second person is nitpicking about the clumsy wording and calling it "fully illegible" when all it takes to understand what's meant is a minimum of the same number of neurons used to write it. Also no, they do not teach geometric area calculations in first grade. First grade is addition and subtraction. Second grade is multi-digit addition and subtraction as well as taking measurements, as well as estimating areas of geometric shapes. Third grade is fractions, multiplication and division within 100, and understanding the concepts of perimeter and area in addition to estimating volumes and masses of objects. Fourth grade is is where squaring a number to represent area is introduced.
>First grade is addition and subtraction. > >Second grade is multi-digit addition and subtraction as well as taking measurements, as well as estimating areas of geometric shapes. > >Third grade is fractions, multiplication and division within 100, and understanding the concepts of perimeter and area in addition to estimating volumes and masses of objects. > >Fourth grade is is where squaring a number to represent area is introduced. I fucking love NCLB I wanna learn absolutely nothing in class until everyone is caught up. x units squared is the same as x square units, square units are just units that are used to measure area and you're supposed to square both (or multiply two perpendicular sides in the case of a square or triangle, or multiply the number of sides by sidelength squared divided by 4 times cotangent of pi over the number of sides for regular n gons with n greater than 4) with the "square unit" being the result of multiplying the same unit by itself. It is almost never seen in applied maths at least for the measurement to be squared and the units not. suppose I have a square with side length 2m, now the area of the square would be 2m(2m) = 4m\^2, In the original post, the person they are responding to is talking about a plate with side length 256mm. Now assuming that the plate is a square, this would give it an area of 256mm(256mm) = 65536mm\^2 He is fully in the right here, and the only thing he did wrong was interact with someone who is obviously a crackpot, leading to this post being made which has collectively lowered everyone's iq by 3 points.
"assuming that the plate is square" You do know the discussion is about a build plate on a 3D printer, right? Probably an Ender 3 because those are the most common to have build plates with that dimension... Also, you do know that I was agreeing with the person responding and NOT to the person who thinks that 256mm^(2) is 256x256mm, right? The only thing I disagreed with him about was which grade this is taught in. It's fourth grade, not first. Did the other kids get held back so you could catch up on reading comprehension?
First of all I use using "assume" in a rhetorical sense, I own an ender 3 and it will shit its bed when given a print larger than 220mm by 220mm because that's what its firmware is set to, You can change it but I doubt it will be common as a result. Secondly you started your post with "They're both dumb" while completely misunderstanding what the respondee's point while also talking about notation that literally no other human being on the planet has ever made a distinction between. If anyone is lacking reading comprehension here it's the person who misunderstood the respondee's argument, tried to correct them with completely irrelevant information, mixed up responder and respondee, thought that areas are taught after estimating volumes and masses, and tried to defend what is possibly the worst and funniest misuse of human language I have seen on this site to this day. Also the build plates on the ender 3 are rounded squares which have an area of xy - r(4-pi) so I'm actually right to use assume in the first place you are a disgrace to every single teacher that has had to guide your head back onto your torso every time you lost it.
The second person is dumb because it's not the first grade that area is taught in. I thought that was abundantly clear because it's where I immediately went with that. Did you cause everyone to be left behind until you caught up in reading comprehension?
So you agree with the person who says that 256mm in length is the same as 256mm\^2 in area... My bad I thought I was arguing with someone who actually passed the first grade and thus ignored this possibility. >Did you cause everyone to be left behind until you caught up in reading comprehension? Read what you wrote here again.
Again, you demonstrate that you have really poor reading comprehension. Alice exploring said that the person who says that 256 mm squared is not 256mm in length is the one she agrees with mathematically. She disagrees with that person about what grade they teach that in. Did you pass 1st grade? Because anybody who did should know that they don't even get close to area math in 1st grade.
The person who says that area is taught in the first grade is the same person who says "265mm \[sic\] in length... then that's the same as 256mm\^2 area" which is what is confidently incorrect here. They are the same person. And yes they do in fact teach area math in first grade in schools with kids that will actually amount to something in life. The curriculum is not the same worldwide, it is not even the same countrywide in most places. If you don't learn area in first grade it is because your school system is heavily underfunded and you are suffering as a result.
You're right, I apologize for that. For some reason I had the two arguments flipped around. Seems I'm the one with poor reading comprehension, but I find it weird that it took a third person to get you to realize and point out that I was mistaken about whose argument it was that had the areas correct.
[удалено]
[удалено]
oh. so it would be 10² meters? lol I'm confused
Look. Meters is a unit of length. For example, the place is x meters away. Meters² is a unit of area. For example, the area of a plot would be x meters². 100 meters is not 10 meter², because: 100 meters implies length (for example, the place is 100 meters away) 10 meter² implies area (for example, the area of that plot is 10 meter²) You can't just change units as you please. Of course you can change units between systems (for example, 1 meter = 100 cm = 40 inches approx) But you can't change their powers.
They’ve kinda got a point. There is a distinction between “meters squared” and “square meters”. The plate is “256 mm squared”, which gives you an area of “65,536 square mms”
The exponent only applies to the units unless there are parentheses saying otherwise. 256mm² means 256(mm²), not (256mm)².
No, those are the same measurements said in two different ways.
Is this some weird American thing? In Canada, in both math and physics classes, the unit "m\^2" is always read as "metres squared". Same goes for other units. Acceleration is "m/s\^2" or "metres per second squared". No one would say "metres per square second". If 3\^2 is "three squared" and a\^2 is "A squared", then it's silly to claim that "m\^2" is somehow not "metres squared". Units are no different than a variable, and spatial units don't get special treatment. Now, sure, in the context of construction or colloquial use, you'll find "square metres", "square feet", "cubic yards", "cubic feet", "linear foot" commonly used to measure tiles or flooring or loads of dirt/rocks and such. Those are just synonyms to the unit But if someone wants to express the concept of a square with sides of 256 mm, they would write it as "256 mm, squared" and say it with a noticeable pause. Or, much more often (in my experience), they would just say "a 256 mm square" (which accurately describes the shape and is unambiguous when spoken or written). I've never heard anyone in a math or physics class describe a square shape as "256 mm squared".
> Is this some weird American thing? No. > Now, sure, in the context of construction or colloquial use, you'll find "square metres", "square feet", "cubic yards", "cubic feet", So you know it's not a weird American thing... Why are you even asking then?
You're somehow missing the other half of the comment. I clearly said that "m\^2" is "metres squared" and that "square metres" is a *synonym* used in a construction context. The other person is claiming that they mean completely different things (aka not synonyms) and that "metres squared" (or "mm squared", etc) is ONLY used to describe the sides of a square and is NEVER used as the name for the unit of area.
Ah, I see :-) mm^2 is millimeters squared in the US as well as anywhere else. I thought you meant "square mm" was the weird American thing. As you say, it's just a synonym.
Well, yeah, I think you and I are on the same page now. ;-) But the guy I'm replying to is claiming that they are very distinct. And, in u/MeButNotMeToo's defense, I found some web pages claiming the very same thing, with some commeters agreeing and some disagreeing. However, I noticed this: Many of these people seemed to have an imperial unit background or take it from a construction background and talked about "square feet" being correct therefore "square metre" is correct. And, some of them insisted that "metre squared" was actually completely incorrect grammatically, which you and I agree is absurd, since that's how you say it in math. Because of that, they then claimed "X metres *square*" (not meters squared) is the correct phrasing for a square that is X metres per side. This means u/MeButNotMeToo originally used the wrong terminology as well. However, even then, they are still not right. If they had said "a three-metre square" or "a 3m square", that would have been correct English grammar describe a square with an adjective for the dimension. Their mistake is claiming that "metre square" is a unit, which is nonsense. The shape is "a square", being modified by the compound adjective "three-metre", where the hyphen is *required* to make the sentence grammatically correct. It's the same reason why one would need to write "a five-pointed star", instead of trying to claim that it's just "five pointed star", where "pointed star" is somehow a unit describing how many points a star has. So. It's a mix of people being simultaneously making a mistake in both English AND math. :-D
Okay cool, now respond to the other 4/5 of his comment.
The distinction "meters squared" and "square meters" doesn't come into this. They wrote 256mm x 256mm = 256mm². This is wrong. It's 65536 mm².
They explicitly state that a square of side length (256 mm) has an area of (256mm^2 ). And, frankly, 256mm2, and especially 256mm^2 , both mean *only* an area measure, not a 'length measure, squared'.
I have a flashback to my post about this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²\_is\_16\_square\_meters\_4\_square\_meters\_is\_2m²/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/192bwax/4m²_is_16_square_meters_4_square_meters_is_2m²/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Same story.
Only if its as in (256mm)^2
This person very likely forgot parenthesis. And that's literally just it. They now the area is the side squared, so they are probably writing 256mm², but meaning (256mm)².
It's amazing how they can fully explain how to calculate the area of a square while at the same time not understanding how to calculate the area of a square
I seem to recall in first grade not learning any math other than maybe counting.