2002-08-11 Actually, SI is divisible by any number you want it to be. It is just that the result is not always whole numbers. But, so what! Why does it have to be? Soda pop in most of the world is in 330 or 333 mL cans (1/3 litre), and presents no problem. In engineering calculations, rarely does a resultant number come out whole.
The only time where I would be appalled by too many digits past the decimal point is in package sizing. There is no reason that packagers can't sure sensible numbers. even the cans noted above don't go to the extreme of 333.3333333 ad nauseum, but round it to something simple. This has been the practice in SI countries for a long time. There is no reason it can't be done if FFU countries. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "M R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-08-11 10:01 Subject: [USMA:21659] Re: Proposal For World Calendar > I fully agree with what Han said. > > SI is based only on multiples and division of 10 and > not the division of 2 as used by earlier systems. > > We use the 24 hours / day system just because it is > already accepted and not that 24 hours is a better > way. > > The '.beat' system (dividing a day into 1000 units) > devised by Swatch is a flop because they sell their > wrist watch for US$ 60 / unit which is very expensive > for an average person. Ask them to sell it for US$ > 20, then we can see the difference. > > Madan > > > --- Han Maenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brij, > > > > I simply do not see where I ridiculed you. I have > > never personally attacked > > you (ad hominem). I just disagree with you as the > > changes you propose in SI > > go much too far to me. SI would probably collapse if > > we undertook such > > changes at present and ifp would emerge as the > > winner. > > The founders of the metric system deliberately > > abandoned the principle of > > divisibility as they wanted to build a coherent > > system of units, based on a > > number system, 10 in this case. > > It IS true that the opposition's main objection to > > the metric system is that > > is not based on divisibility. > > If you object to the terms of 'illiterary' or > > 'innumeracy' I used in that > > message, this was NOT targeted at you, but it was > > about the fact that most > > people in the 19th century and the era before that > > were innumerate and > > illiterate. They were not able to use a number > > system and therefore had to > > divide everything, in most cases by 2 and powers of > > 2 and also by 3 and 12 > > now and then. > > > > Regards, > > > > Han > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, 2002-08-10 21:18 > > Subject: [USMA:21650] Re: Proposal For World > > Calendar > > > > > > > Is the proposal sent to USMA not good enough or my > > published documents in > > sufficient to display what I have been saying (or > > some may say HARPING) all > > these THIRTY years. Well, I may be considered NO > > BODY but I mean things and > > challenging too. Please examine: WHERE excatlt I > > have erred, so I can try > > and improvise. Just rediculing me does not make me > > deter or refrain from > > expressing *What I feel is right*! > > Regards, > > Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > >From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Subject: [USMA:21646] Re: Proposal For World > > Calendar > > > >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:14:17 +0200 > > > > > > > >This is the same accusation our ifp friends make > > time after time against > > the metric system. Just go to their websites and > > see. This concept of > > divisibility is outdated, it belongs to the Middle > > Ages and the Ancien > > Regime when most people were illiterate and > > innumerate and had to divide by > > two etc. But it is still possible to divide a meter, > > a kilogram and a liter > > by 2 and 4 and get rational numbers. > > > > > > > >Han > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Sent: Friday, 2002-08-09 23:46 > > > >Subject: [USMA:21612] Re: Proposal For World > > Calendar > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:27:48 > > > > > Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > > > > > >Hi All: > > > > > > Unfortunately the metric system suffers > > from the disadvantage that > > it > > > >is not rationally divible by most numbers - a > > mandatory requirement of > > the > > > >human mind (for ease) in knowing the excat > > position of planetary bodies > > > >*for > > > >astronomy and mathematics*. > > > > > > > > > > ? First of all, why would this be such a > > strong requirement? I beg > > to > > > >disagree! The base system for counting is *the > > foundation* of our > > > >civilization! Changing that would require much > > more than a monumental > > > >task. > > > >It would mean changing the very fabric of our > > doing math itself. Please > > > >don't go there! > > > > > > > > > > > This is an area that most fortune tellers > > befool > > > > > >the common humans who are desire to know > > :What lies in store of their > > > >FUTURE! > > > > > > > > > > And to me these folks (astrologers, > > fortune-tellers) are just > > deceptive > > > >people who prey on people's naivete to make money > > on them! I don't want > > to > > > >offend anyone by my comment above, but I have > > absolutely no sympathy for > > > >these kinds of things. If people paid more > > attention to simple > > statistics > > > >(just to name one way of unveiling the truth on > > this!) they would find > > for > > > >themselves what these quacks really are! > > > > > > > > > > > This is where the NUMBER 60 prevailed all > > along (of being its > > > >divisibility > > > > > >by 2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,and 30. This cannot > > be achieved by 10 or 100 > > > >or > > > > > >1000 etc. > > > > > > > > > > ? So what if 100 is not divisible by that > > many factors?!! The > > question > > > >is, is such "advantage" crucial/paramount? My > > answer would be no! This > > > >coupled with more important requirements would > > make me a strong defender > > of > > > >getting rid of it (24-60-60 model). > > > > > > > > > > > Will the deo-decimal proposal some parties > > advocate hold this? > > > > > >But, first the system has to be worked and > > proved *so the status quo > > or > > > >NO > > > > > >CHANGE* attitude! > > > > > > > > > > Change for change, with all due respect, is > > somewhat of an idiocy. > > I'm > > > >always ready to welcome change though, BUT when I > > can clearly see its > > > >benefits, that pros significantly outweighing the > > cons, for starters... > > > > > > > > > > > As far the 24-hour scheme, it has prevailed > > for ages (again because > > > >of > > > >its > > > > > >excat divisiblity by 2,3,4,6,8,12. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps. However, I'd like to believe that it > > survived mostly due to > > > >the > > > >ill-advised desire of the proponents of decimal > > time at the time to > > change > > > >other factors, like the 7-day weekly cycle. I > > still sustain that had > > they > > > >NOT tried to change this specific aspect and > > their quest would have > > > >ultimately been successful. > > > > > > > > > > > Decimalisation of the HOUR *hereon* will > > > > > >not make much impact on humans or > > astologers/astronomers or the > > > > > >mathematicians; especially when the tying is > > linked with the similar > > > > > >division of the DEGREE i.e. the HOUR-ANGLE. > > > > > > > > > > I honestly see no reason why mathematicians > > and astronomers could not > > > >embrace a decimal time construct. The resistance > > appears to come mostly > > > >from cartographers and navigators who apparently > > never > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs > http://www.hotjobs.com > >
