Metric paper (sizes A4…B3…etc. on your printer options) are supposed to work out to an even number of square metric area units, I know. But why weren’t either the long or short sides made easy to figure?
No other metric measure makes life harder instead of easier.
Who did the “golden” ratio ever profit?
Certainly not printers, who use all sorts of sizes in Europe as in the US.
Shouldn’t there be a size “N4” or something for the day to day stuff, which would be a whole number of centimeters on a side?
Every other measure was pushed by someone, like the military, who wanted interchangable parts and easy to calculate lengths and widths.
Why was paper the one thing decided on old Greek concepts of perfection, all of which were disproven long ago?
You have a few misconceptions about A paper. I’ll try to sum up.
A paper sizes have nothing to do with the golden ratio. The ratio of length/width = the square root of two. The reason for this is so a piece of A0 paper can be cut in half from midpoint to midpoint of the longer side and form two sheets of A1 paper. A1 paper can be split into two sheets of A2. A2 into two A3’s and so on. A sheet of A0 paper is also exactly one square meter in area.
The result is that A4 paper is exactly one sixteenth of one square meter in area, and has a long side of 2[sup]-7/4[/sup] meters and a short side of 2[sup]-9/4[/sup] meters. So the length and width aren’t even integers or rational numbers, but are still easy to determine.
American paper does indeed have a B size, 11 x 17, which is 2 sheets of A-size, 8-1/2 x 11. C-size is 17 x 22, 2 sheets of B, and D-size is 22 x 34, or 2 sheets of C. So A-size is 1/8 of D-size. These sizes are used extensively in my line of work, design and drafting (engineering). Since the onset of computers, B-size printers are the norm.
We do have some internationally-sized paper in stock for those pesky European documents that we must deal with.
(Just kidding!)
