The underlying problem is that we have elected to works in multiples of 1000, not 100. Multiples of 1000 work well for cubic measures, multiples of 100 for superficial measures. This is a fact of life with which we must live, just as the non-rational nature of pi is also a fact of life with which we must live.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Pierre Abbat Sent: 17 June 2011 03:47 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:50660] RE: cm vs. mm On Wednesday 15 June 2011 13:51:28 Martin Vlietstra wrote: > I disagree with you regarding the hectare - I would actually like to see > the are being brought into general use as that would make: > > 1 are = 10^2 m^2 > 1 ha = 10^4 m^2 > 1 km^2 = 10^6 m^2 > > This would ensure that no unit need have four digits ahead of the decimal > point. That wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is not that there are too many digits; it's that, if the unit of length is the centimeter, or the unit of area is the are or hectare, many calculations are going to require moving the decimal point. A gram per are is a centigram per square meter, and a gram per hectare, expressed as something per square meter, cannot be expressed with any of the current prefixes. The base unit of area is the square meter. 1000 m² is a decare. 10^6 m² is a square kilometer, and 10^12 m² is a square megameter, but 10^9 m² has no name, nor does 10^-3 m². Pierre -- I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.
