On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:04:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hooper, Bill
and or Barbara) wrote:
>Many of you have countered my argument in favor of voluntarily phasing out
>the use of the special prefixes centi, deci, hecto and deka. The arguments
>always seem to center on the centimetre.
>
>But let me draw a comparison between length and mass:
>
>LENGTH
>If we wish to express the length of 152 cm without using the centi (or deci)
>prefixes, we could use either 1.52 m or 1520 mm. Several of you have argued
>that 1520 mm is too long and furthermore implies a precision of 1 mm which
>may not be warranted.
>
>But you miss the point when you assume I am arguing in favor of using 1520
>mm. I am not. I am arguing that one may use either metres OR millimetres,
>WHICHEVER IS MORE SUITABLE. If 1520 mm is not suitable (as noted above),
>then use 1.52 m. Where's the problem?
Bill:
The problem is that you are selective in the example you give above.
If we are talking about the dimensions of everyday objects (e.g. a
radio, a piece of timber) we are talking about dimensions smaller than
a metre. In many cases a high degree of precision is
unnecessary/unwarranted, so centimetres is the ideal 'unit'. So the
radio might ne 44 x 27 x 10 cm. Even if we are talking about, say, a
shelf, do you want to say it's 1.52 m x 229 mm x 19 mm, or would you
convert the metres to millimetres? Unfortunately, the latter is how
it's shown in the UK, even if we're looking at a piece 2.4 metres
long.
--
Chris KEENAN
UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/
UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
