Re: Metric system (was: Re: SPF)
At 08:17 AM 7/5/2007 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>actually, it was you who first brought up the metric issue, and as you
>admitted you did it deliberately to provoke a response.
I was trying to come up with an example related to pushing through a new
Internet mail system. Nothing more. My only fault is allowing myself to be
goaded into this debate.
>and 12 and 14 and 16 and .... (any other number you care to pick)
12 -> 2^2 3^1
16 -> 2^4 (nybble anyone? evil!!)
>> As I stated earlier, the human mind does not work on groups of 10.
>> It's 2 and 3
>do you always make up "facts" to support your opinions? or is it just in
>this instance?
Look it up if u don't believe me.
>all, they're an accumulation of dross and random crap that evolved over
>hundreds and hundreds of years (and some were adopted/inherited from
>usages a thousand or more years old).
An accumulation of units that were convenient for human use in the context
in which they were used. And the thousands year old thing... please don't
tell me u want metric time.
>and then you get into even more annoying crap, like when talking about
>"gallons" are you talking Imperial gallons or US gallons? with metric, a
>litre is a litre no matter where you are in the world.
A US gallon is a US gallon no matter where u are in the world and an Imp
gallon is an Imp gallon no matter where u are in the world. I'm sure people
in Africa have local units that are convenient and traditional for them.
These units are not "evil".
>metric, on the other hand, was *designed* to be a system. that's why
>it makes sense. it's easy to learn, easy to remember, and (most of
>all), easy to use. and it was designed to clean up the chaotic mess of
>previous weights and measures.
Oh? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/12/02/alder.measure/index.html
>> All the units *serve the natural operation of the human mind*.
>no, they don't. they were mostly established by decree at various times
>over many centuries to encode existing practice to stop unscrupulous
Codification of units that serve human needs in the context in which they
were used. Don't conflate standardization with usability.
>metric serves everyone because you only have to remember how to count in
>tens, you don't have to remember how many ounces in a pound, how many
Only in tens? Then what is a third of a meter? Nevermind, the value can't
be represented in the decimal number system. Do u know what a third of a
foot is? U have to remember just as much information to convert metric
units as English units. Knowing the base factor is not enough, u have to
know the actual multiplier. The sole difference is are u simply moving the
decimal right or left.
>pounds in a stone, how many rods in a furlong, and hundreds of other
>arbitrary conversion rules.
Hyperbole.
>in metric, it's all base 10....and base 10
>is the arithmetic that everyone has learnt ever since europeans learnt
>it from the arabs....and we adopted it wholesale BECAUSE it made so much
>more sense than roman numerals and tallies.
Ur conflating number systems and measurements systems.
>the arithmetic isn't difficult. it's the remembering of hundreds of
>stupid and arbitrary conversions.
That's laziness. Chinese have an advantage over us English speakers because
their writing systems with its *thousands* of stupid and arbitrary symbols
requires them to exercise their brains to an extent that we do not.
Confronted with that we go on long whinges about how impossibly hard things
are and how things should be "easier" (read: we have to use our brains less).
Slightly back on topic, this is a computer list. We're all over the binary
system. It's simple and great. Several English units are binary.
ounce 2^0
cup 2^3
pint 2^4
quart 2^5
gallon 2^7
inch 2^0
1/2" 2^-1
1/4" 2^-2
1/8" 2^-3
1/16" 2^-4
Written Arabic style each binary place represents one of the fractions. 1/16
= 0.0001. pint = 1000 oz. The "move the decimal point" trick now applies.
That's not unique to base 10 math. The advantage of the Arabic number
representation system comes from its orthographic layout and the use of a
dot (or something) to seperate the negative and non-negative powers of the
base. It has nothing to do with it being base 10. The advantages remain if
ur in base 2, base 8, or base 127 for that matter. Prior systems were
difficult to use because the number of numerals was different from the base,
which is to say they were variable or multiple base systems (if they even
had a base). Not to mention dubious orthographics.
We've both made our positions and arguments clear and edified many lurking
netizens. Let's not continue.
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede malis"
00000100
Reply to: