America and the metric system

[Renata]

Originally posted by nihilistic


I fail to see how the metric system can be inferior in terms of fractions.

10 can only be divided evenly into 2 and 5. 12 (the number of inches in a foot) can be divided into 2, 3, 4, and 6. 36 (the number of inches in a yard) can be divided into 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 18. Inches are conventionally further divided into sixteenths (divisors of 2,4 and 8). It does come in handy in construction, manufacturing, etc.

Base-10 is just rather inefficient when it comes to even divisions.

Renata

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by nihilistic


A liter is defined as a cubic centimeter. A cubic meter would be 10^6 liters.

Ouch, those are big centimeters. I think you mean milliliter.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Pillager
As with watering cans, there would be gallon marks running up the side.

All right, I admit it. That is not the point. The point is that you most likely won't remember the bizzare conversion factors of the imperial system even if you once knew them very well. They are way too easy to forget. the metric system, however, is designed with unity in mind. A cubic cm is a liter, which is also exactly the volume of one gram of pure water at STP. These units are easy in the beginning, but once you have to calculate some abstract physical property like, say, viscosity; even if you are in the imperial system, you will find yourself converting your units to metric, do the math, then convert back.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Renata


10 can only be divided evenly into 2 and 5. 12 (the number of inches in a foot) can be divided into 2, 3, 4, and 6. 36 (the number of inches in a yard) can be divided into 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 18. Inches are conventionally further divided into sixteenths (divisors of 2,4 and 8). It does come in handy in construction, manufacturing, etc.

Base-10 is just rather inefficient when it comes to even divisions.

Renata

I would counter that fractions are imprecise compared to decimals, but that is not specific to metric vs US measurements. The US just seems to have a love affair with fractions.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Dralix
Ouch, those are big centimeters. I think you mean milliliter.

Doh! Yep.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Dralix


I would counter that fractions are imprecise compared to decimals,

But they are just a different way of expressing the same thing 6 1/2" is the same as 6.5" The advantage of the imperial system is that it's fractions of 12 not decimals, and that 6 1/4" is as simple as 6 1/2", where as 6.25 is more complicated.

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Anyway, a gallon of milk is the perfect size.

No it's not, I drink 3-4 liters a day.

 

[Renata]

Originally posted by Dralix


I would counter that fractions are imprecise compared to decimals, but that is not specific to metric vs US measurements. The US just seems to have a love affair with fractions.

What Pillager said. There is a reason computer programmers prefer octal/hexadecimal numbers, after all, and it has nothing to do with US-provincialism and everything to do with simpler division.

I read a science-fiction book once (I guess you would call it science fiction) where an engineer went back in time to 12th century poland or some such, and taught every one to use base-12 or base-16 math. Made the point rather tediously that such bases were easier to learn to use than base-10.

The metric system's internal consistency does overcome this disadvantage for most applications, though, I'll agree. And as a chemist and a long-distance runner (5 kilometers = 3.1 miles etc), I'm reasonably comfortable with it for most things.

Renata

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Pillager


But they are just a different way of expressing the same thing 6 1/2" is the same as 6.5" The advantage of the imperial system is that it's fractions of 12 not decimals, and that 6 1/4" is as simple as 6 1/2", where as 6.25 is more complicated.

First, I don't see how 6.25 is more complicated that than 6 1/2 or 6 1/4. Second, how precise are 1/12, 1/3, 7/12, etc?

Give me decimals over fractions any day.

 

[Renata]

Originally posted by Dralix


First, I don't see how 6.25 is more complicated that than 6 1/2 or 6 1/4. Second, how precise are 1/12, 1/3, 7/12, etc?

Give me decimals over fractions any day.

1/3 is infinately more precise than 0.33333333333333333 etc. (Bad example, Dralix. )

Renata

 

[col]

Ok Pillager . l

You add 1/4 + 1/5

and I'll add 0.25 + 0.2

Which is easier / faster ?

No - the answer isnt 2/9

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Renata


1/3 is infinately more precise than 0.33333333333333333 etc. (Bad example, Dralix. )

Renata

Yes, you're right. I kind of forgot the point I was trying to make

The point I was trying to make is that by using decimals to represent portions of a unit, like a millimeter, you have in my opinion, more flexibility and more room for precision, in practice.

For instance, given the appropriate tool, you can measure something to be 0.12365323 millimeters. How would you express that in a fractional system?

Bah, this is too off topic anyway. I prefer decimals to fractions. I am happy that I no longer have to purchase stocks in 64ths of a dollar. The rest can come in due course.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by col
Ok Pillager . l

You add 1/4 + 1/5

and I'll add 0.25 + 0.2

Which is easier / faster ?

No - the answer isnt 2/9

True, but equally:

I have something I need to share between two people( 1/2). Two more people then arrive and want a fair share (1/4), then their friends arrive and I find I need 16 portions of the original so I divde each 1/4 into 4, giving me sixteen sixteenths.

Easier than 1 --> 0.5 --> 0.25 --> 0.0625

Just look at an imperial and metric ruler, and which side would be easier to use?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by nihilistic
A liter is defined as a cubic millimeter. A cubic meter would be 10^9 liters.

No.
A litre is a cubic dm, and a kilogram is (was supposed to be) the weight of a liter of pure water.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
It's weird how often that happens to me!

It's weird how it happen very often to me to have to put smaller things into bigger things when I'm about to pack them. Good that I don't have to bring up a calculator to do the job.

Well, I don't know how many litres are in a cubic meter either. 100?

A litre is a cubic decimeter, so 10x10x10 cm.
A cubic meter is 1x1x1 m (and so 100x100x100 cm).
If you take more than four seconds to calculate it, the problem is more with you math abilities than the metric system

Originally posted by Renata
What Pillager said. There is a reason computer programmers prefer octal/hexadecimal numbers, after all, and it has nothing to do with US-provincialism and everything to do with simpler division.

It has nothing to do with simpler division, and everything to do with 8 and 16 being power of 2, binary being the basis of computers...

Base-10 is just rather inefficient when it comes to even divisions.

Yes, but it's not the point.
The point is that we ALL work with the arab numbers, which are based on a base 10. We did it since centuries, and we have 10 finghers, so it's easier for us to learn it.
As base 10 is "natural" for us, then it only makes sense to use a base 10-based system for any measures, and that's what the metric system is about.

The arguments about the imperial systems are just emotionnal, they completely fall apart as soon as any logic enters in the way.

Simpler divisions ? Well, as long as you use 3 or 6. For the rest, no advantage (and even a disadvantage for 5). And I hardly see how much time you gain from one over the other. Perhaps a tenth of second.
And as soon as you enter in more complex divisions, then HERE you lose a hell of time to translate it in base 10 then retranslate it back in base 12. Stupid.
We have a mathematical system based on base 10. How could you find a logical way to make a measurement system based on anything but a base 10 ?

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Akka

Simpler divisions ? Well, as long as you use 3 or 6. For the rest, no advantage (and even a disadvantage for 5). And I hardly see how much time you gain from one over the other. Perhaps a tenth of second.
And as soon as you enter in more complex divisions, then HERE you lose a hell of time to translate it in base 10 then retranslate it back in base 12. Stupid.
We have a mathematical system based on base 10. How could you find a logical way to make a measurement system based on anything but a base 10 ?

See my previous post. For dividing something into halves, imperial is easier, just as for moving up and down units, metric is easier.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Pillager


See my previous post. For dividing something into halves, imperial is easier, just as for moving up and down units, metric is easier.

Your previous post is about fractions and decimals, which are both part of mathematics, it has NOTHING to do with imperial and metrics.
0,05 or 1/20 are both the same number, both written in base 10.

 

[Renata]

My previous post got eaten by a slow server, but I saved it in time. Since the discussion hasn't moved on very far, I'll repost it as is.

I knew someone was going to bring up the binary thing as soon as posted that. The fact still remains that 2^3=8 and 2^4=16, but 2^nothing=10. Base-8 and base-16 each provide multiple binary options (divisions); base 10 provides just one. Same point, if stated in a different fashion - for computers, base 10 just doesn't work.

Other than that, though, you may be misunderstanding my point. I am not arguing against the metric system per se, or indeed at all, in practice. I'd certainly hate to be forced into Imperial unit conversions in my own job. I am simply stating that numerical/arithmetic applications (anywhere where divisions by 3 or 4 are common) do exist which are not best served by a base-10 numbering system, and that for these cases, portions of the imperial system could well work better. Why do you think people came up with 12 inches to the foot in the first place? It wasn't out of emotional reliance on the imperial system, because the imperial system wasn't invented yet. It had to do with convenient division, pure and simple.

If anything, I'm arguing for retirement of the inefficient and inelegant base-10 (which developed purely out of an emotional attachment to our accidental 10 fingers -- if we'd retained the seven digits per limb of some of our ancient quadruped ancestors should we be using base 14?) in favor of base-12, where we could have our easy divisions, our nice 'deci'mals, and, if we wished, our linearly scaled metric system all together.

But that's not gonna happen.


Renata

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Renata
My previous post got eaten by a slow server, but I saved it in time. Since the discussion hasn't moved on very far, I'll repost it as is.

Use Mozilla. It does not go to the next page unless there is an answer from the server, so you never lose a message

I knew someone was going to bring up the binary thing as soon as posted that. The fact still remains that 2^3=8 and 2^4=16, but 2^nothing=10. Base-8 and base-16 each provide multiple binary options (divisions); base 10 provides just one.

I think you mix causes and effects here.

ame point, if stated in a different fashion - for computers, base 10 just doesn't work.

Well, of course not, because computers are based on "current does pass" (1) or "current doesn't pass'" (0).If they had a way to make current pass with ten different ways, and it was widely used from the start, then today, computers would work on base 10.

Other than that, though, you may be [...] scaled metric system all together.

But that's not gonna happen.

Agree on this one

 

[Quokka]

Length:
Inch [2.54 cm]
Link = 7.92 inches (see Chain for explanation)
Foot = 12 inches [30.48 cm]
Yard = 3 feet [91.44 cm]
Rod, Pole or Perch = 25 links = 5½ yards [about 5 metres]
Chain = 22 yards = 66 feet = 100 Links [length of a cricket wicket, about 20 metres]
Furlong = 10 chains = 220 yards [length of a furrow, about 200 metres]
Mile = 8 furlongs = 1760 yards = 5280 feet [a thousand Roman paces? – about 1600 metres]

Area:
Sq foot = 144 sq inches
Sq yard = 9 sq feet = 1296 sq inches [0.836 sq metre]
Sq Pole = 30¼ sq yards [often simply referred to as a Pole or Perch in land measurement]
Rood = ¼ acre = 1,210 sq yards = 40 sq poles
Acre = 4 roods = 10 sq chains = 4840 sq yards = Statute acre [0.40 hectare] [eg. a good-sized football pitch – but note that a Customary (or Saxon) acre was different, and that Scottish and Irish acres were different again]
Virgate = 30 acres [but varied in different districts - also called yardland]
Hide = 4 virgates [but really denoted the amount of land sufficient to support a family, and varied according to the locality or quality of the land]
Sq mile = 640 acres [259 hectares = 2.59 Sq Km]

Capacity [note, litre equivalents are for British Imperial measures]:
1 pint = 4 gills [0.568 litre]
1 quart = 2 pints [1.136 litre]
1 gallon = 4 quarts = 8 pints [4.546 litre]
1 peck = 2 gallons
1 bushel = 4 pecks = 8 gallons

Weight:
1 ounce (oz) = 16 drams
1 pound (lb) = 16 oz [0.454 kg]
1 stone = 14 lb
1 quarter = 28 lb
1 hundredweight (cwt) = 4 quarters = 112 lb
1 ton = 20 cwt = 2240 lb [1.016 tonne]

How can anyone say that this convoluted mess is easier than the metric system?

The nice clean division arguments might work for the foot and yard, but what about 1/3 of a mile, or a 1/3 of a pint, or a 1/3 of a pound?
Not everything is in base-12 either, there is also base-16 and base-14, which is much worse than base-10.

Why on earth would a hundredweight not weigh 100lbs at least?

 

[thestonesfan]

You guys make it seem like rocket science. Believe me, we get along fine.