> I think this touches on my point. Oddly enough, in every day life, they > rarely interact in such a way as to highlight those incompatibilities. > If that were the case, they never would have lasted. Inch, yard, food, > mile, etc. in Imperial are surprisingly close to the Roman versions from > 1000 years or more before the "thumb to nose standard". > > >>> The meter > >> > >> Metre. A meter is what I have on the wall to measure my electricity > >> usage :-) > > It's meter south of the 54th parallel. Can't help it if you Canadians > don't know how to spell. ;-)
I'm English and we invented the language so by definition I must be right :-) > Unless I'm very mistaken, and it's been years, the very first extensive > mathematics users, the Sumerians, used base 12, hence the 360 degree > circle, and 24 hour day. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the commoners > used base 10 for everyday counting, fingers and all. Ok let's change fully to base 12 but then you need symbols for 10 and 11 with a single place value to fit the number system to the measurement system. Like Hex uses A, B etc. You would have to teach everyone this number system and embed it and I think that is a rather more difficult task that aligning measures with the decimal number system that is universally adopted. > >> > >>> Why I should discard a system of measure that divides into fractional > >>> parts far more evenly than SI for my everyday usage is still not very > >>> clear to me. > >> > >> Dividing it fractional parts is only one part of the equation. It would > >> be cut and dried if the number system was duodecimal but it isn't so > >> there is as much argument that its easier to use decimals to represent > >> fractional parts as it is fractions. Its just a matter of when I say 1/4 > >> you visualise what that looks like easier than if I say 25% or 0.25. > > 1/4 is easier to visualize than 0.25 & 25%. Only if you are used to it. To me there is no difference between any of those representation in terms of ease of visualisation. 1/4 is simply 25/100 so what difference does it make? > Very few people actually > think in percentages. You think? I would say that 16.3% is easier for most people than 7/43 On simple fractions like a half or a quarter I think there is no real difference but with more obscure fractions scaling things to 100 parts makes it *easier* to visualise. Otherwise why bother with percentages at all. It's the whole reason for using them. Decimals are slightly different. The big advantage of fractions is that you don't get awkward recurring and numbers like 1/3 being 3.3333333 etc. Fractions are also useful in algebra ad making general computation formulae because you don't generate rounding errors part way through calculations that can then compound and compromise precision. > Though my data is purely anecdotal based on the > group I observe. It may be very different in a different culture. Mathematical and scientific cultures use fractions, decimals and percentages in different circumstances because each has different strengths. One is not better, they are complementary ways of representing numbers and their relationships. > Exactly my point. The SI system is just as unscientifically and > arbitrarily based as the Imperial. SI is designed to make interoperability of different measurements simpler. We still get some inconvenient physical constants but they are quirks of nature. We could design a system of units to make some constants integer but then others would not be. SI rationalises the measurement system to the base 10 number system that is universally adopted. Changig the number system would be practically much more difficult than changing the measurement system. So when the number system is base 10 SI is much more rational than Imperial. If the number system was base 12 you might have a case but it isn't > The disadvantage SI has is that it > was designed by a group that was quite biased against any existing > system. Not at all. he Imperial diehards are simple averse to change. > It was a top down arbitrarily imposed standard forced on people > who were given no choice. Not true here in the UK, when I go to powerlifting meetings the weights were nearly always in lbs now they are nearly always in Kgs. In the interim I got very good at converting lbs to kgs in my head so I could select the right weight to win a competition. Gradually people here have adopted metric measures but not yet in everything. A lot is down to what is taught in schools. It is far easier to teach concepts in physics without distracting the students with a lot of complex arithmetic surrounding units of measure. Science teachers like SI units because it makes learning easier. Young people in England to-day think in terms of metric because it is what they are brought up on. It's an open standard that is generally agreed and doesn't benefit any particular commercial interests. Such standards are important and sensible. > I had far less trouble learning "inch, feet, yards" than I did trying to > make the metric system work outside of the lab. I can't imagine why. 10mm= 1cm, 100 cm = 1 m, 1000m = 1 km sixteenth of an inch x 16 = 1 inch, 12ins = 1 foot, 3ft = 1 yard, 1760 yds = 1 mile. How can anyone say that is more intuitive? > It's hard to imagine a > better system for manipulating measurement data than SI, but that > doesn't make it a good system for measuring things. ????? > >> Computers use hexadecimal because it relates well to the natural binary > >> number system used in digital electronics but getting the public to > >> think in binary or hexadecimal is rather more tricky than changing to a > >> system of units that naturally works with decimal. > > It's rather more tricky to get the public to change from a very > convenient, workable system to a more difficult one. Especially when one > is not any more accurate than the other. Accuracy is a red herring, it has nothing to do with it, it's about compatibility with the number system and factors. There is an argument for imperial in terms of factorisation but there is no argument in terms of compatibility with the universal decimal number system. I think the latter is more important for most people that the former except for people so heavily entrenched in imperial that change is difficult. > Since the advent of the > "International Inch", the very reason for the SI in the first place, > replacing all the regional measuring systems in France, is removed. > Oddly, it seems that you may be moving toward my position that the SI is > not better than Imperial, just different. My position hasn't changed, it's that the *number system* we use is base 10 so it makes sense to make the measurement system compatible with it and to make units of measure as interoperable as possible within the constraints of physical constants determined by nature. > It's just as open and > accessible. Needs reform in places, but that's a lot simpler than > chucking one system for another that's completely incompatible, and > designed to be that way. SI is not designed to be incompatible with anything. Any set of units can be converted to any other using relatively simple arithmetic operators. In that sense the choice of units is arbitrary and never absolutely ideal when things can scale from a quark to a quasar and fundamental natural constants are not specifically related in neat numeric ways. However it does make sense to make units compatible with the number system and that is 0 - 9. > It's all moot, of course. This is some 50 years too late. But this is > very fascinating. And I'm learning lots. Thanks for your patience. > > -Greg Ian -- New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications www.theINGOTs.org You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
