on 1/10/03 2:47 PM, Bill Potts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pat Naughtin wrote: >> But accuracy is essential. It makes all the difference between whether a >> horse can compete against other horses or whether it is (measured and) >> defined as a pony, in which case it can compete against other ponies. The >> actual difference between one class and another ultimately will be >> less than a few millimetres, and it doesn't matter whether the horse is > growing or >> not. The horse is re-measured (and therefore) re-defined for each meeting. > > It all depends on the context. Your last sentence, above, provides the > context in which accuracy is essential. > > However, in an informal discussion about horses (e.g., between two people > looking at horses in a pasture), the 1 hand = 4 inch = 10 cm approximation > is more than good enough. After all, most of us don't buy, sell, breed or > ride horses in competition. Would you (or John) insist on such accuracy if > you were simply renting a horse from the local stables for a little trail > riding?
Dear Bill, You're probably right. It is unlikely that we can judge the height of a horse at a distance to a precision better than 0.1 metres. My suggestion in an earlier posting suggesting 0.05 metres is probably too optimistic. It's probably also true that we cannot judge human height, at a glance and from a distance, better than 0.1 metres. I think that if I was involved in training police again, I would train them to guess to a precision of 0.1 metres (1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 etc) before I tried them on finer guessing. By the way, let me assure you that I will not be hiring a horse, especially a big one, anytime soon. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
