
This mistake was printed almost a year ago, but it’s still relevant, and math mistakes never go out of style. This was posted by Richard Fuhr, who I believe is the original author.
The author was looking at an article about the Gobi desert in China, which read in part: “Temperatures may vary up to 95°F (35°C) in one day in the Gobi.” It also indicated that the average temperature in winter was -40°F (-40°C) and in the summer could be 122°F (50°C)
The -40°F being equal to -40°C is correct – it’s the only place the two temps have equal numerical designation, and I am a little sad that I’ve never gotten to experience it except in windchill form. The 122°F being equal to 50°C is also correct, and something I have exactly no desire to experience, although it’s still lower than the 129.2°F (54°C) recorded in Kuwait last month. Both of those conversations can be found by using one of the formulas
- Temp in °C = (5/9) (Temp in °F – 32)
- Temp in °F = (9/5) (Temp in °C) + 32.
The issue is that these are temperature readings, not changes in temperature. For a change in temperature, the 32 in either formula will disappear, leaving
- Δ°C = (5/9) (Δ°F )
- Δ°F = (9/5) (Δ°C)
This means that a variation of temperature of 95°F would actually correspond to a change of about 52.8°C, not 35°C. And a variation of 35°C would be a change of “only” 63°F, not 95°F. It’s not possible to tell mathematically whether the correct variation was 95°F (53°C) or 63°F (35°C), but looking through The Internet at temperature variations, it appears to me that although either one is possible, the printed variation was likely intended to be 35°C, not 95°F.
The photo above is by Doron, with a Creative Commons license. Thanks to YG for bringing the original article to my attention!

Decimal points are small, and so easy to lose. And it appears that many of them were lost on FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) forms, which is NOT a place that you would want incorrect data. According to 






Probably more than a few, really.
We’ve been luggage shopping recently in honor of an upcoming sabbatical (and in recognition of the fact that pretty much every piece of luggage we own is ripped: turns out that the combination of buying the cheapest possible suitcases and cramming them as full as possible is maybe not the best for their long-term health.) I was looking up different kinds of suitcases, and after staring at too many numbers for too long, I suddenly noticed something weird. The error as near as I can tell is systemmatic — it was in in the stats for every piece I looked at for this company. Here’s an example (chosen deliberately from the newest model line, since I initially wondered if it had been fixed).





