Originally posted by FabianFnasYou could also assume that the depth of the square meter of water surface goes all the way to the bottom, in which case it depends how deep the water is.
Yes there is. But perhaps we should think outside the box.
But it's not a joke problem. It is a very serious question.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour answer stated that since m x m = m^2, then m^2 is m more than m. This is not correct.
Q2: "How much more is 6 compared with 2?"
Let's set up the equation (2) * (?) = (6).
The ? is the answer of how much 6 is compared to 2.
If we turn ? to 3 at the left, we see that (2) * (3) = (2 * 3) = (6), right?
So we see that six is three times two. Simple mathematics.
Now:
Q1: "How much more is a qubic meter of water volume, compared with ...[text shortened]... able method to that shows that E=mc2 and not E=mc3. It's called dimensionanalysis.
6 is not 3 more than 2, and 6 is not 3 times more than 2.
Arithmetically, 6 is 4 more than 2.
Geometrically, 6 is 3 times AS MUCH AS 2, or 6 is 2 times MORE THAN 2.
So, geometrically, m^2 is m times as much as m, or m^2 is (m-1) times more than m.
Arithmetically, m^2 is (m^2 - m) more than m.
Length, Area, and Volume are 3 distinct measurements, looking at very different things. There is no direct comparison between them, although if one had a normal ratio between two of them, that can be used.
It has been pointed out that while Great Britain has a finite area, for instance, one could argue it has an infinitely long coastline (length).