|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 29, 2013 1:39:40 GMT
maybe lindsey is American? Or the pool design came from the US exchange program. [I HELPED DESIGN YOUR DORMS]Plausible. Also many (possibly relevant) fields are using the metric system it seems. I'd like to see a metric America.
|
|
chaosvii
Junior Member
I absolutely did not expect this!
Posts: 84
|
Post by chaosvii on Nov 29, 2013 2:20:21 GMT
I'd like to see a metric America. You and me both.
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Nov 29, 2013 3:30:22 GMT
I'd like to see a metric America. You and me both. [metric.jpg] Obligatory. And yeah, a system that actually makes sense would be nice to have and use
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 29, 2013 3:43:02 GMT
Call me crazy, but I think there are some advantages to Imperial measures.
The first is that they are somewhat intuitive. An inch is about the width of a finger, a foot is very close to an anatomical foot and so on, plus 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 whereas metric measurement is divisible by 1, 5 and 10 only. An imperial foot lets you cut the unit in half 4 times over before having to deal with a decimal point.
Then of course there is the story of how metric was born. It was based on a measurement of the distance between the North Pole and Paris, moving directly through the earth. This measurement would be cut up into X many pieces to establish the length of a meter. Trouble was, they assumed in the course of their calculations that the earth was a perfect sphere, when in fact it bulges out significantly at the equator. They developed a second relation to real life values later to correct this, i.e. the distance traveled by light in an absolute vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.
It also seems easier to me to eyeball. 15 inches is much easier for me to grasp mentally than 38 centimeters. Similarly, it feels much more natural to use cups than "deciliters". What you will find is that many people still use measurements other than metric, even in countries that have supposedly converted. For example many Brits still think in pounds, stone, feet and miles. Panama is listed as being metric since the 20s, but if you go to the meat counter in the super market and order “medio kilo de carne molida” you will receive blank stares (and possibly a “gringo loco” under the breath). They use pounds, inches etc just like the US.
Metric is better for science since the whole "powers of ten" thing cuts down on scratchwork. Imperial is better for everyday use since it has evolved organically over 1000's of years.
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Nov 29, 2013 4:01:17 GMT
Yeah, I guess each system has its own application where it makes more sense compared to the other.. Personally I think in imperial measurements, but then again 'murica. That's a wide finger did you mean about the length of one segment? Kinda relevant - this vid of someone explaining how the imperial system works front-paged on reddit a couple days ago . It's "helpful"
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 29, 2013 4:39:21 GMT
See? Barley corn. Perfectly logical.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 29, 2013 6:03:27 GMT
Call me crazy, but I think there are some advantages to Imperial measures. The first is that they are somewhat intuitive. An inch is about the width of a finger, a foot is very close to an anatomical foot and so on, plus 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 whereas metric measurement is divisible by 1, 5 and 10 only. An imperial foot lets you cut the unit in half 4 times over before having to deal with a decimal point. Then of course there is the story of how metric was born. It was based on a measurement of the distance between the North Pole and Paris, moving directly through the earth. This measurement would be cut up into X many pieces to establish the length of a meter. Trouble was, they assumed in the course of their calculations that the earth was a perfect sphere, when in fact it bulges out significantly at the equator. They developed a second relation to real life values later to correct this, i.e. the distance traveled by light in an absolute vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second. It also seems easier to me to eyeball. 15 inches is much easier for me to grasp mentally than 38 centimeters. Similarly, it feels much more natural to use cups than "deciliters". What you will find is that many people still use measurements other than metric, even in countries that have supposedly converted. For example many Brits still think in pounds, stone, feet and miles. Panama is listed as being metric since the 20s, but if you go to the meat counter in the super market and order “medio kilo de carne molida” you will receive blank stares (and possibly a “gringo loco” under the breath). They use pounds, inches etc just like the US. Metric is better for science since the whole "powers of ten" thing cuts down on scratchwork. Imperial is better for everyday use since it has evolved organically over 1000's of years. Admittedly, each is fine within their niche. But when you need to move from one to the other it's a challenge. Everyone knows that there's 39 inches in a meter and 2.2 pounds in a kilogram, but how many horsepower in a watt? How many foot-pounds to the joule, how many miles per hour in a meter per second? It'd make a lot more sense to use one system over another. Some units you use in everyday life tie into metric units. Did you know that a volt is the potential strength of an electric field holding one joule per coulomb? Both of those are metric units, and calculations involving them can be super easy. And I suppose it's not just about learning to use the system, it's about understanding it, thinking in it. A lot of people around the world never really learned the Imperial units or Customary, and can really only think in the Metric system. For them, all of that is easy because it's what they learned. The only problem I have with the metric system is that is uses base 10 instead of base 12, but that's an issue I'm willing to put aside.
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Nov 29, 2013 6:08:23 GMT
The only problem I have with the metric system is that is uses base 10 instead of base 12, but that's an issue I'm willing to put aside. I would love it if we used base 12 for everything.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 29, 2013 6:10:27 GMT
The only problem I have with the metric system is that is uses base 10 instead of base 12, but that's an issue I'm willing to put aside. I would love it if we used base 12 for everything.Could not agree more.
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Nov 29, 2013 6:12:17 GMT
Aren't we supposed to be discussing the update?
Anyway, I agree that the metric/SI units are far superior. I've been converting myself mentally to use them.
Base 12 doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Nov 29, 2013 6:16:56 GMT
It's divisible by 1.5x as many numbers as 10! 10 isn't a rational choice. Who's going to divide by 5? The only reason we use 5 so much is because we use base 10. 10 may have developed because we have ten fingers, but it's not like anyone counts on their fingers anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 29, 2013 6:28:10 GMT
Aren't we supposed to be discussing the update? Anyway, I agree that the metric/SI units are far superior. I've been converting myself mentally to use them. Base 12 doesn't make any sense to me. The number 10 has two 'real' factors (not counting one and itself): 2 and 5. Twelve, is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. This doesn't seem like much, but working with quantities of 12 is a hell of a lot easier than quantities of 10. Ever need to divide some money among three people? With 100 cents to a dollar, everyone gets 33 cents, with a penny left over. With 144 cents per dollar (They'll probably call it something else), everyone gets an easy 48 cents. Fractions are better too. 1/2 becomes 0.6, 1/4 becomes 0.3, 1/12 becomes 0.1, but that's not all, because you can write 1/3 as 0.4, 2/3 as 0.8, 1/6 as 0.2, and so on. There are few fractions that spiral off into repeating decimals. Obviously you'd need two more digits. Most Dozenal advocates agree that 10 should be represented by an X, and 11 will be represented by a backwards 3, or an E. Since X won't display very well on a seven-segment display, it might be replaced with an H in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by arf on Nov 29, 2013 6:37:20 GMT
Actually, if we counted on our *fingers*, we would use a base 8 (octal) number system, and we'd be right on board with this binary logic stuff.
|
|
|
Post by arf on Nov 29, 2013 6:37:51 GMT
I think it must be nearly time for a new update.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 29, 2013 6:41:18 GMT
I think it must be nearly time for a new update. Not for another hour and twenty minutes!
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 29, 2013 7:43:18 GMT
Call me crazy, but I think there are some advantages to Imperial measures. The first is that they are somewhat intuitive. An inch is about the width of a finger, a foot is very close to an anatomical foot and so on, plus 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 whereas metric measurement is divisible by 1, 5 and 10 only. An imperial foot lets you cut the unit in half 4 times over before having to deal with a decimal point. Then of course there is the story of how metric was born. It was based on a measurement of the distance between the North Pole and Paris, moving directly through the earth. This measurement would be cut up into X many pieces to establish the length of a meter. Trouble was, they assumed in the course of their calculations that the earth was a perfect sphere, when in fact it bulges out significantly at the equator. They developed a second relation to real life values later to correct this, i.e. the distance traveled by light in an absolute vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second. It also seems easier to me to eyeball. 15 inches is much easier for me to grasp mentally than 38 centimeters. Similarly, it feels much more natural to use cups than "deciliters". What you will find is that many people still use measurements other than metric, even in countries that have supposedly converted. For example many Brits still think in pounds, stone, feet and miles. Panama is listed as being metric since the 20s, but if you go to the meat counter in the super market and order “medio kilo de carne molida” you will receive blank stares (and possibly a “gringo loco” under the breath). They use pounds, inches etc just like the US. Metric is better for science since the whole "powers of ten" thing cuts down on scratchwork. Imperial is better for everyday use since it has evolved organically over 1000's of years. Call me crazy, but I find nothing intuitively easy in imperial system that is just gibberish to me with its "stones" and "cups" that have absolutely zero intuitive measurable meaning to me due to being utterly ambiguous terms. And this even though I actually know how to translate much of it to metrics, which again is the scientific and thus the easy measure for me to use. The best example must be "cups" that in actual world we live in come in many sizes - so much so, that in countries that do not use the imperial measure, it is just about impossible to find a cup size of "one cup". Where I live, if you say "5 cups" of sugar, then you better have translated the whole recipe to "cups" because otherwise you will have completely random amount of sugar relative to other ingredients, all depending on what kind of cup the person happens to have at hand (usually probably of size between 2 and 4 imperial cups). As someone who has practiced a profession in a part of food industry where you use recipes, I have witnessed the absolute practicality of the metric system - however, you usually do not measure litres but grams, regardless of the ingredient. The stupid measure of "cup" always reminds me of one place where the old chef had used measures such as "pinch", "cup", "fistful" and "hat". When he retired, every single object he had originally used to measuring had to be searched for and translated into metrics so that any new worker could continue with the same recipes. They had to measure how much sugar fits to his fist. The intuition of knowing how much is "one cup" is because you have always used that. Believe me, I know by eye how much is one decilitre, or one litre; I know by eye how much is 23cm; I know by hand how much is 100 grams, or even just 20 grams. That's all just your body being habituated to whatever measure you use. If the people at Panama were educated to use metrics in their everyday life, after just one or two generations they would find imperial measures incomprehensible. Also, the width of a finger depends heavily on where you measure it from and whose fingers are in question. However, usually the practically useful measure is the width of the tip of your index finger - because you can measure, for example, width of a piece of paper, or of another object, in fingers by pressing your finger tips against it and the one you easiest use to this action is the index finger - and at least in my case it measures much closer to one centimetre than to one inch, and I do not recall having ever met a person whose fingers would have looked twice as fat as mine. My hands actually are quite big compared to the hands of other people I have met in my life. Of course, if you measure the root of the finger it gets closer to one inch, and the middle of your thumb might measure quite close to inch, but these are intuitively extremely useless measures to me.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 29, 2013 7:52:28 GMT
I think it must be nearly time for a new update. If they used the logic of imperial measures in measuring time, I think it would come in terms like this: "a time for a new update". That's just the logic of imperial measures. You have some random, arbitrary thing like "stone" or "cup" or "foot" (which used to be the local lords or kings foot that was actually measured). That is really comparable to, for example, frequency of Tom's updates. An utterly arbitrary contingent fact about some part of world at the moment. So then, you measure time in updates. And then you'd say "earth revolves around its axis in half-update". Which means nothing to you if you are not familiar with GKC. And even if people would soon grasp that, the moment you go to the world of science it becomes useless.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 29, 2013 7:53:07 GMT
She's still wearing a thong (presumably with blinker attached) around her neck at the end of the last chapter. She also wears that "Antimony" amulet and the giggleknife. How do you discern their thongs? It's not something that's easy to lose. ...as long as one can access it safely.
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 29, 2013 8:25:30 GMT
It also seems easier to me to eyeball. 15 inches is much easier for me to grasp mentally than 38 centimeters. Similarly, it feels much more natural to use cups than "deciliters". What you will find is that many people still use measurements other than metric, even in countries that have supposedly converted. For example many Brits still think in pounds, stone, feet and miles. Panama is listed as being metric since the 20s, but if you go to the meat counter in the super market and order “medio kilo de carne molida” you will receive blank stares (and possibly a “gringo loco” under the breath). They use pounds, inches etc just like the US. I think you're over-estimating how much imperial units are still used in UK! People over the age of 40-50 possibly still think in imperial units, my grandparents certainly do, but we mostly switched to metric in the 70s. The only things we consistently measure in imperial is distance, in miles, and measurements of human body (height in feet and weight in stone). Everything else is metric, I couldn't tell you how much an ounce is. And the old money system we had here? terrible. And your first point here is just based on education, 15 inches and a 'cup' is easier to eyeball for you simply because that's how you were educated, in europe you'd just round to 40cm, and whatever a cup is. (seriously, when searching for recipes online, working out how to measure a 'cup' of something is incredibly annoying, I don't know if we ever used that one!) I Appreciate the points about being able to divide things up more with imperial, but it's not as important anymore, we have calculators in our pockets! and in business everyone just rounds anyway. And what's the problem with the things being based on the distance from Paris? The imperial units being based on human measurements is a bit dodgy anyway (whose foot is really a foot long?! seems rather large to me!)
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 29, 2013 8:41:08 GMT
All good points.
Overall the pros for metric probably outweigh the cons, but as Zims said, we tend to like what we've familiar with.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 29, 2013 9:39:20 GMT
Aren't we supposed to be discussing the update? Anyway, I agree that the metric/SI units are far superior. I've been converting myself mentally to use them. Base 12 doesn't make any sense to me. The number 10 has two 'real' factors (not counting one and itself): 2 and 5. Twelve, is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. This doesn't seem like much, but working with quantities of 12 is a hell of a lot easier than quantities of 10. Ever need to divide some money among three people? With 100 cents to a dollar, everyone gets 33 cents, with a penny left over. With 144 cents per dollar (They'll probably call it something else), everyone gets an easy 48 cents. Fractions are better too. 1/2 becomes 0.6, 1/4 becomes 0.3, 1/12 becomes 0.1, but that's not all, because you can write 1/3 as 0.4, 2/3 as 0.8, 1/6 as 0.2, and so on. There are few fractions that spiral off into repeating decimals. Obviously you'd need two more digits. Most Dozenal advocates agree that 10 should be represented by an X, and 11 will be represented by a backwards 3, or an E. Since X won't display very well on a seven-segment display, it might be replaced with an H in that situation. This is all very true, but I think the reason why we have a system based on 10 has little to do with fingers as fwip suggested, since people have always in all parts of world regularly had 10 fingers, yet the ancient systems were often based on 12 or 20. I might be wrong, but I think the predominance of the 10-based systems probably has much more to do with invention of 0. That would be because with 0, all 10-based counting becomes extremely easy. For example, 174*10 = 1740. Even a kid gets that one fast. Then try 174*12. You will probably start with 174*10 + 174*2 = 1740 + 174*2. Since 174*2 is relatively easy thanks to multiplying by 2 being relatively simple task, you fast get 1740 + 348 = 2088. Now, it's easy to check that this is right because it is easy to see that since 12*10 = 120, then 12*100 = 1200 and 12*70 = 120*7 = 840, which together make 1200 + 840 = 2040, and 2088-2040 = 48, which then is easy to divide by 12 to get 4. However, the whole point is that you probably will do this by 10 first. Maybe it's because we are used to it, and if we had 12-based system we would calculate faster and more directly with 12. But I think that since invention of 0 we have naturally found it easiest to comprehend big numbers, and particularly changes in large quantities, by tens. And thus we have ended up choosing 10-based system as the easiest one. Without 0 that is in centre of the whole metric system, I do not see what would be the benefit of basing counting on X instead of whatever was the symbol for twelve. But as said, this may all be utterly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Toloc on Nov 29, 2013 10:46:57 GMT
The number 10 has two 'real' factors (not counting one and itself): 2 and 5. Twelve, is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. This doesn't seem like much, but working with quantities of 12 is a hell of a lot easier than quantities of 10. Ever need to divide some money among three people? With 100 cents to a dollar, everyone gets 33 cents, with a penny left over. With 144 cents per dollar (They'll probably call it something else), everyone gets an easy 48 cents. Fractions are better too. 1/2 becomes 0.6, 1/4 becomes 0.3, 1/12 becomes 0.1, but that's not all, because you can write 1/3 as 0.4, 2/3 as 0.8, 1/6 as 0.2, and so on. There are few fractions that spiral off into repeating decimals. Obviously you'd need two more digits. Most Dozenal advocates agree that 10 should be represented by an X, and 11 will be represented by a backwards 3, or an E. Since X won't display very well on a seven-segment display, it might be replaced with an H in that situation. This is all very true, but I think the reason why we have a system based on 10 has little to do with fingers as fwip suggested, since people have always in all parts of world regularly had 10 fingers, yet the ancient systems were often based on 12 or 20. I might be wrong, but I think the predominance of the 10-based systems probably has much more to do with invention of 0. That would be because with 0, all 10-based counting becomes extremely easy. For example, 174*10 = 1740. Even a kid gets that one fast. Then try 174*12. You will probably start with 174*10 + 174*2 = 1740 + 174*2. Since 174*2 is relatively easy thanks to multiplying by 2 being relatively simple task, you fast get 1740 + 348 = 2088. Now, it's easy to check that this is right because it is easy to see that since 12*10 = 120, then 12*100 = 1200 and 12*70 = 120*7 = 840, which together make 1200 + 840 = 2040, and 2088-2040 = 48, which then is easy to divide by 12 to get 4. However, the whole point is that you probably will do this by 10 first. Maybe it's because we are used to it, and if we had 12-based system we would calculate faster and more directly with 12. But I think that since invention of 0 we have naturally found it easiest to comprehend big numbers, and particularly changes in large quantities, by tens. And thus we have ended up choosing 10-based system as the easiest one. Without 0 that is in centre of the whole metric system, I do not see what would be the benefit of basing counting on X instead of whatever was the symbol for twelve. But as said, this may all be utterly wrong. 174 12*10 12=1740 121740 12 is obviouly not the same as 1740 10, but the same rules apply.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 29, 2013 10:57:30 GMT
This is all very true, but I think the reason why we have a system based on 10 has little to do with fingers as fwip suggested, since people have always in all parts of world regularly had 10 fingers, yet the ancient systems were often based on 12 or 20. I might be wrong, but I think the predominance of the 10-based systems probably has much more to do with invention of 0. That would be because with 0, all 10-based counting becomes extremely easy. For example, 174*10 = 1740. Even a kid gets that one fast. Then try 174*12. You will probably start with 174*10 + 174*2 = 1740 + 174*2. Since 174*2 is relatively easy thanks to multiplying by 2 being relatively simple task, you fast get 1740 + 348 = 2088. Now, it's easy to check that this is right because it is easy to see that since 12*10 = 120, then 12*100 = 1200 and 12*70 = 120*7 = 840, which together make 1200 + 840 = 2040, and 2088-2040 = 48, which then is easy to divide by 12 to get 4. However, the whole point is that you probably will do this by 10 first. Maybe it's because we are used to it, and if we had 12-based system we would calculate faster and more directly with 12. But I think that since invention of 0 we have naturally found it easiest to comprehend big numbers, and particularly changes in large quantities, by tens. And thus we have ended up choosing 10-based system as the easiest one. Without 0 that is in centre of the whole metric system, I do not see what would be the benefit of basing counting on X instead of whatever was the symbol for twelve. But as said, this may all be utterly wrong. 174 12*10 12=1740 121740 12 is obviouly not the same as 1740 10, but the same rules apply. But you do realize that you still, when multiplying so easily 174 12 with 10 12 to get 1740 12, use that same easy 10-based mechanism of adding zero's, as you basically just do 174*10=1740. And that was the point, the reason why I assume we most probably use 10-based system. Not because it was somehow intentionally or otherwise better.
|
|
|
Post by Toloc on Nov 29, 2013 11:10:00 GMT
174 12*10 12=1740 121740 12 is obviouly not the same as 1740 10, but the same rules apply. But you do realize that you still, when multiplying so easily 174 12 with 10 12 to get 1740 12, use that same easy 10-based mechanism of adding zero's, as you basically just do 174*10=1740. And that was the point, the reason why I assume we most probably use 10-based system. Not because it was somehow intentionally or otherwise better. Adding a zero has not much to do with the decimal system. If your numeric system goes 0123456789AB, then you next number is still 10. 10 12 that is, which would equal 12 10
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 29, 2013 11:21:27 GMT
"There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't"? I enjoyed the math-trolling, but there are some sociologists in the next thread, and all that.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 29, 2013 12:05:10 GMT
"There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't"? I enjoyed the math-trolling, but there are some sociologists in the next thread, and all that. So, it's time for... socio-trolling?
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 29, 2013 13:54:16 GMT
174 12*10 12=1740 121740 12 is obviouly not the same as 1740 10, but the same rules apply. But you do realize that you still, when multiplying so easily 174 12 with 10 12 to get 1740 12, use that same easy 10-based mechanism of adding zero's, as you basically just do 174*10=1740. And that was the point, the reason why I assume we most probably use 10-based system. Not because it was somehow intentionally or otherwise better. Perhaps, but look at the feats of engineering the Romans managed to create with their incredibly inefficient counting system, before even the invention of zero. I still think base 10 is only considered 'easy' because that's how we have all learned to do it. If we counted in base 12, or base 8, or whatever, then that would be 'easy'. the other major advantage of the metric system is that it is logical... all the standard units are in multiples of 1000 or whatever. In imperial you have 12 inches in a foot, then 3 feet to a yard, then 1760 yards in a mile... The numbers each time seem random, as opposed to the regular steps you see in the metric system, from 10mm in cm, 100cm in m to 1000m in km.
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 29, 2013 14:12:15 GMT
But you do realize that you still, when multiplying so easily 174 12 with 10 12 to get 1740 12, use that same easy 10-based mechanism of adding zero's, as you basically just do 174*10=1740. And that was the point, the reason why I assume we most probably use 10-based system. Not because it was somehow intentionally or otherwise better. Perhaps, but look at the feats of engineering the Romans managed to create with their incredibly inefficient counting system, before even the invention of zero. I'm not sure of this point. A lot good has been done with remarkably inefficient maths, but the point was just that it is faster and easier to calculate with tens. And the question is why. You offer an answer: I still think base 10 is only considered 'easy' because that's how we have all learned to do it. If we counted in base 12, or base 8, or whatever, then that would be 'easy'. And I am well aware of that possibility and thought I also pointed it out. But why did we start to think it is the easiest, that is the question. It has not always been used by the people who now take it for the easiest - the French themselves a great example. the other major advantage of the metric system is that it is logical... all the standard units are in multiples of 1000 or whatever. In imperial you have 12 inches in a foot, then 3 feet to a yard, then 1760 yards in a mile... The numbers each time seem random, as opposed to the regular steps you see in the metric system, from 10mm in cm, 100cm in m to 1000m in km. while this is one of its obvious advantages as more scientific system, when we discuss the only flaw, that is, 10 instead of 12, would it be practically the same whatever was the basis of the system? And it may really be that it is just because we are used to decimal system that the results of 12-based system seem so bad, but come on: 174 12 is the nice round number of 2088. Maybe we would call it otherwise then, but still the units would seem to work a bit difficulty. Maybe that's just because I'm used to that system. Maybe. Maybe it was just the bloody Romans who got us to this, really. Who knows? That was not rhetorical, I bet someone does.
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Nov 29, 2013 14:14:32 GMT
But you do realize that you still, when multiplying so easily 174 12 with 10 12 to get 1740 12, use that same easy 10-based mechanism of adding zero's, as you basically just do 174*10=1740. And that was the point, the reason why I assume we most probably use 10-based system. Not because it was somehow intentionally or otherwise better. Adding a zero has not much to do with the decimal system. If your numeric system goes 0123456789AB, then you next number is still 10. 10 12 that is, which would equal 12 10Indeed. In a 12 based system, what we call '12' would be '10'. What we call '144' would be '100'. The zero is just a placeholder that denotes a lack of multiples of a particular power of the base.
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 29, 2013 15:06:17 GMT
the other major advantage of the metric system is that it is logical... all the standard units are in multiples of 1000 or whatever. In imperial you have 12 inches in a foot, then 3 feet to a yard, then 1760 yards in a mile... The numbers each time seem random, as opposed to the regular steps you see in the metric system, from 10mm in cm, 100cm in m to 1000m in km. while this is one of its obvious advantages as more scientific system, when we discuss the only flaw, that is, 10 instead of 12, would it be practically the same whatever was the basis of the system? And it may really be that it is just because we are used to decimal system that the results of 12-based system seem so bad, but come on: 174 12 is the nice round number of 2088. Maybe we would call it otherwise then, but still the units would seem to work a bit difficulty. Maybe that's just because I'm used to that system. Maybe. Maybe it was just the bloody Romans who got us to this, really. Who knows? That was not rhetorical, I bet someone does. I think you misunderstood what I was saying... I agree that we only find metric easier because that's how we were brought up and educated (or imperial easier if you were brought up in the US). But given the industrial revolution started and was continued for a century or more by people using the imperial system, and the roman empire was built by engineers using the roman numerals, I don't think the system of units matters to a great extent when you have the education for it. We have used base 10 since most of the world adopted the arabic numeral system, which has 10 digits following the invention of 0: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 0. All our numbering systems, metric and imperial, are both base 10. Metric system makes the most sense given our numeral system. If we had adopted a numeral system with 12 digits then 12 would be written as 10, and we would probably find a metric system of base 12 as the most convenient. I don't know if the arabic system adopted 10 because of the finger counting, but it wouldn't surprise me. Other cultures use other digits, but with our numeral system, metric makes the most sense. EDIT: I also think I've gone round in circles a little bit so not sure how much I'm making sense...
|
|