How to Round Numbers (Part 2)

The Math Dude: Quick & Dirty Tips to Make Math Simpler

Scientific American presentsMath Dudeby Quick & Dirty Tips. Scientific American and Quick & Dirty Tips are both Macmillan companies.

In the last Math Dude episode, we learned the ins and outs of rounding numbers. And, hopefully, we learned (or were reminded) that rounding numbers is pretty easy. But as it turns out, that's not exactly true—because there are a few tricky situations when it's not.

What are they? Here's a hint: They have something to do with the number 5. How do you deal with this pesky number 5? And does this ever matter in the real world? Those are exactly the questions we'll be answering today.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

How to Break Rounding Ties
When it comes to rounding numbers, the only real question is which way to round the number 5. In other words, how should we break a tie? For example, if we want to round π = 3.14159 to the thousandths place (that's the second 1 in 3.14159), do we round up to get 3.142? Or do we round down to get 3.141? As we found out last time, the rule of thumb is to round up.

But why exactly do we do this? Well, I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the truth is that there really isn't a deep reason for all of the rounding up we do. The simple truth is that 5 is right smack-dab in the middle, which means that there isn't one and only one correct way to do it. However, since we do ultimately have to go one way or the other, we need to make a choice—and rounding up is the convention that has been adopted most broadly.

> Continue reading on QuickAndDirtyTips.com

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American