some links with the histroy of imperial or Roman (not British!) measurements, and why and when the world switched over to “arabic” (actually Hindu) numbers.
Romans never used the number 0. Hindus came up with that one.
Last link explains all.
I, personally, prefer the metric system.
It’s easier to use. and not based on human body parts.
I have added emphasis to indicate that I have addressed this concern as part of a larger class of issues, mostly question-begging standards. I refer to you the argument I had with Gorsnak for many of them. My specific argument was laid down in bullet points quite clearly on page two.
Don’t hold your breath. I do not consider “answering a story problem” to be “an argument”. Clearly we have many differences between us.
OK, understood: You mean that there are as many people who can’t change from nanoamperes to microampers as there are people who can’t switch from miles to inches.
And you don’t see that the conversion problem between different units of the same system is harder in the “imperial system” then in SI.
You also think that this problem is a story board problem which never occurs in real life.
I agree, clearly we have many differences between us.
Not necessarily. I don’t know. I think it is dubious to claim either way.
It is different. For people used to doing such things, converting from feet to inches is second nature. My boss can convert between inches and centimeters with an accuracy that astounds me. I think the issue of “ease of conversion” is a red herring. I think customary use is the strongest selective agent, followed secondly by the often beneficial qualities that broad standardization grants. These are the driving forces behind things like measurement systems, languages, communication protocols (like TCP/IP or RS-232 versus RS-485), and so on. Efficiency in calculation is only an issue when tasks are highly time sensative, as you might find in crucial programming applications. On a day-to-day level, no, I don’t think it is the biggest issue. I admit I only have personal experience guiding this opinion; in my personal experience, different measuring systems have not been a significant roadblock to social progress.
The issue to me isn’t whether it ever occurs, it is that the frequency of occurance, I think, is overestimated in an attempt to solidify what is otherwise largely a red-herring issue between competing measurement systems.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. It isn’t like I can simply demonstrate it on a message board. I know people who have a hard time doing it in a measurement context, yes. Were we talking interest rates they’d have an easier time of it, or money perhaps. Why people can calculate some things easier than others when the underlying math is absolutely the same is beyond my knowledge. Anyone who can balance their checkbook and plan out a simple budget is doing algebra, but put an algebra book in front of them and you’d never know it. Again, anecdotal, I am not a sociologist or something. I think this is self-evident but I have encountered a fairly substancial resistance to it, so I won’t claim it is self-evident.
I just know first-hand that converting square meters to square centimeters really stumped a lot of people. I know that ferreting out resistor color-coding (all powers of ten) really stumped a lot of people (and not because they had to memorize the colors which was trivial). The people I saw having trouble were in broad ranges of estimated intelligence (based on their grades). I know here at work, masters and higher level people still make factors-of-ten errors all the time that need to be adjusted.
I believe I have admitted from the beginning that it is mostly anecdotal evidence, but I think it is a very real point that the theory of the SI system involves merely multiplying/dividing by ten, but for whatever reason, it isn’t that simple when the human mind gets a hold of it. I offer context and custom as a reason, but it is obviously speculative on my part. There are probably more factors involved than that.
I freely admit no personal problem using the metric system. I prefer centimeters to inches, but I prefer miles to kilometers. My preferences have nothing to do with whether or not I ever need to convert them (which I rarely ever have to).
I expect the world will be nearly completely metric within the century simply because a universal standard is better than two, and I believe most school systems push the metric system (as mine did) which will have a strong influence.
12 is has whole number denominators of 1,2,3,4,6,12.
10 has whole number denominators of 1,2,5,10.
Doing architecutural work, I definitely prefer the English system! More options for dividing dimensions!
BTW, the if anyone wants to see a (IMHO) fummy attempt to force the Metric system on Americans, check out the U.S. Courts Design Guide. All dimensions are required to be done in both Metric and English, yet the Fed’s standards are all tailored to the English system (notice the nice round numbers) while the Metric is just given as a token requirement. It seems to me that architects in America favor the English system.
if you had to lay out marjers along a highway every 10 centimeters for 1000 kilometers, how many markers is that?
Took me about 3 seconds
Whereas this problem
*If you had to lay out markers along a highway every 4 inches for 600 miles, how many markers is that? *
took nearly 5 minutes with a pencil and a calculator and I’m still not sure I’ve got it right. Being English gives me some small advantage here since I’ve been equally exposed to both systems throughout my education.
That problem in inches and miles, ben, took me about thirty seconds, including the time it took me to calculate and type out the equation:
600 mi x 5280 ft/mi x 3 markers/ft = 9504000.
Admittedly, if I did this eight hours a day, five days a week, then my ease with the metric system might make it worth the switch. Might. But if it was my job to have correct calculations, you can be pretty sure I wouldn’t trust my head calculations anyway as I’ve already indicated. And knowing me anyway, I’d probably rig up some programmable calculator to do it all for me. I’m a nerd like that.
erislover, I have no idea why you just won’t budge from such an indefensible position. I remember some years ago a friend of mine needed to get some blinds and I went with him to the store to have them cut to size. So the question was something like: The window is 3’ 9+7/8" and I want to leave 3/4" clearance on each side. What is the net width of the blind? The guy at the store scratched his head for a while and was not sure he could get it right. My friend was not sure either and I had to settle it for them. I have had similar incidents buying fabric and other things. Fabric is priced by the yard and God help you if you’re not buying an integer number of yards.
So, I ask you: suppose you go into 100 stored in America and ask the problem above: The window is 3’ 9+7/8" and I want to leave 3/4" clearance on each side. What is the net width of the blind?
Now suppose you go into 100 Stores in France and ask the equivalent problem: The window is 116.5 cm and I want to leave 2 cm clearance on each side. What is the width of the blind.
The people of what country will solve the problem faster? And, more importantly: the people of what country will make fewer mistakes?
You are telling me they would be comparable? You really would put money on that answer? Come on!
Could you elaborate on this point? Because I’m not sure I understand. What measurements are you dividing? Suppose, for the sake of sticking to a topic of which I’m not ignorant, we’re discussing the architecture of a wood-framed bungalow. It’s 28’x40’, say, with a usual sort of layout where the bedrooms and bathroom are off a hall down the centre of the house on one side, with the living room and kitchen/dining area on the other end, in a more or less open area without walls between all the rooms. What are the architectural advantages here compared to a comparably sized house in metric dimensions (say, 9m x 12m)?
If you’re talking about slicing the overall measurements into rooms, the base 10/12 thing is a wash, no? And if you’re talking about making life easy for the construction crew, then you want base 16 (to conform to the house’s being framed on 16" centres), not base 12. And, if you’re talking about how you divide up individual feet, this will always be complicated by the fact that you’re subtracting the width of walls, etc (3 1/2 inches for the stud, plus 3/8" for the sheeting on each side, etc, which is always going to leave you working with odd numbers…so I guess I just don’t see where the supposed advantage is supposed to come in. But then, I’m not an architect, either, hence my request for elaboration.
(Yes, I know I vowed never to post in this thread again. What can I say - I’m a bad boy. :D)
The people of what country will solve the problem faster?
I’m not telling you anything. I’m suggesting that I’ve never noticed time-sensative applications of answering most measurement problems, sailor.
And, more importantly: the people of what country will make fewer mistakes?
I don’t know, who are we asking? People that manipulate fractions often? I don’t have a problem with manipulating most fractions where the denominators are even and less than 16. So for me, it doesn’t really matter. Decimal inches would be just as easy to manipulate as decimal centimeters, I’m sure. Why people stick to using fractional inches so often is, I’ll wager, a matter of convention. Of course, this convention is also what is in the way in switching measurement systems. As we doubtlessly all admit.
In those myriad circumstances when I am constantly converting miles to sixteenths of an inch I think everyone here has a compelling and interesting point that would knock my socks off. In those myriad circumstances where a bomb is about to explode if I can’t convert feet to inches in ten seconds or less without the aid of a calculator I’ll give in. Otherwise, I just don’t see the issue.
erislover, I have no idea why you just won’t budge from such an indefensible position.
That measurement systems common in the world today are no big deal and the world functions fine with them? Yeah, that’s a hard one to budge from seeing as, you know, they are common, and the world functions.
It is not just a matter of ease in subtracting fractions, it is about more convenient ways of slicing up a foot. I like that I can slice up a foot into 3 or 4 inch increments without much stress. Sure, I could slice up a meter into .25 meters, but how would I express 1/3 without a fraction (and not round)?
Basically, at the architectural scale, breaking up a basic measurement is more convenient in English system.
I tend to think that different systems should use whatever systmen works best. I agree that scientists that work with precision in decimals would have no end to frustration if they had to use fractions. (BTW, just as meters are sometimes expressed in fraction, feet are also sometimes expressed as decimals, when a fraction just won’t do. I would want to work with 54 445909/29994949" x 23 2300499929/3999288883772".)
Why isn’t anyone on this post recommending a 10-hour cycle instead of 12? Why can’t there be 100 minues in an hour? Why are there 7 days inthe week instead of 10? (Maybe I should open this can of worms…)
Yeah, yeah, I know that we should want different systems to intgrate well. What would the engineers do if archtects are using the English system and they have plug a house into their metric world?
It is not just a matter of ease in subtracting fractions, it is about more convenient ways of slicing up a foot. I like that I can slice up a foot into 3 or 4 inch increments without much stress. Sure, I could slice up a meter into .25 meters, but how would I express 1/3 without a fraction (and not round)?
Basically, at the architectural scale, breaking up a basic measurement is more convenient in English system.
I tend to think that different systems should use whatever systmen works best. I agree that scientists that work with precision in decimals would have no end to frustration if they had to use fractions. (BTW, just as meters are sometimes expressed in fraction, feet are also sometimes expressed as decimals, when a fraction just won’t do. I would want to work with 54 445909/29994949" x 23 2300499929/3999288883772".)
Why isn’t anyone on this post recommending a 10-hour cycle instead of 12? Why can’t there be 100 minues in an hour? Why are there 7 days inthe week instead of 10? (Maybe I should open this can of worms…)
Yeah, yeah, I know that we should want different systems to intgrate well. What would the engineers do if archtects are using the English system and they have plug a house into their metric world?
Why can’t we all just get along? (Is that yet another canof worms?)
erislover you keep waving your hands and beating around the bush. My question is clear: Go to 100 stores (hardware sotres, fabric stores, department stores, etc) in both countries and ask the sales clerk the same equivalent question:
In the USA: The window is 3’ 9+7/8" and I want to leave 3/4" clearance on each side. What is the net width of the blind? ( or equivalent question with pipe or fabric or whatever)
In France: The window is 116.5 cm and I want to leave 2 cm clearance on each side. What is the width of the blind.
Quit beating around the bush and waving your hands. Real people. Real Stores.
I am willing to bet: (A) The French will do it quicker, which means higher productivity and/or more time to do other things, and (b) fewer mistakes which means also higher productivity, less wastage, fewer orders which have to be repeated etc.
If you believe anything else I believe you are plain wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of what system is more effective in two real world countries.
Seeing that the USA is already metric in a number of fields (military, science, automotive, etc.) I can’t see why it just doesn’t go the rest of the way. The fact is that the USA is already metric in many fields.
This doesn’t really answer my question, though. As I said above, once you’re down to slicing up individual feet, you’re almost always going to be constrained by materiel dimensions. In my example, the width of walls has to be subtraced from room dimensions, and walls aren’t necessarily an even number of inches wide. So what exactly do you gain by having one unit that’s evenly divisible by 3? Because 9’ 5 3/4" (The interior dimension of a room where the centre of the wall is 10’ from the corner of the house, assuming 1/2" drywall) isn’t.
Could you give me an example of a situation where this divisible by 3 thing would come in handy, and you’d be stuck with an awkward kludgy workaround in metric? Because it seems to me that if I knew what size metric lumber mills cut to, I could set up the 9m x 12m house in much the same way as the 28’ x 40’ house without any difficulty. Sure, the precise measurements would be a little different, but those differences would be well inside the tolerances most people have for acceptable hallway widths or what have you without having to place walls 3.334m apart.
Well, if I was going to ask them equivalent questions, I would choose to express both numbers in fractions or both numbers in decimals, for a start.
It is like I never mentioned real people at all. My anecdotal evidence is all from people I made up in my head to support my indefensible position.
Yes, it has been my experience that many people are bad at manipulating numbers in many different contexts. Hell, some cashiers have a hard time calculating change! Surely the fact that there are 100 cents in a dollar doesn’t remedy that. Would it be better if we only had pennies, dimes, dollars, tens, hundreds…? Does the fact that quarters and nickels and even the horrible fifty cent pieces exist make the act of creating change vastly more difficult?
There is nothing magical about the metric system, and its use is just as governed by convention and custom as any other, which is why we don’t often discuss dekameters or centigrams.
erislover, I guess it is totally unreasonable of me to suggest we ask the problem in the terms commonly used in each country. I guess, to make it even more equal we should ask the problem in the same language in both countries. How about we select French?
