Since I feel very strongly that this is the kind of answer that needs to be properly addressed, I'd really appreciate someone here share my views on this post below with that newsgroup. Thanks. Please, feel free to edit it if you feel it is necessary to better clarify what I said. Thanks. On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:11:18 kilopascal wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jakeb61 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, 2000-10-12 17:12 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: to y'all [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric America] > >when I said it's more efficient than metric in a lot of ways i meant exactly >that. How is it efficient? Well the metric system is based on number 10, >which leaves a very limited way of calculations since it can be divided by >only a few numbers - 1,2,5 and 10 without giving a decimal/fraction result. >Half of 10 is 5. Beyond that the wonderful metric system gets messy. Half of >5 is 2.5, half of that is 1.25 and so on. First of all, we do not consider "fractions" like 1.25 and other "half" submultiples to be messy at all. When one deals with measuring devices, provided their resolution allows you to "read" such numbers, these values can simply and easily be read therein just like any other amount. This is only limited by the resolution of the instrument in use (and on that score metric tapes are superior to their ifp counterparts as their resolution is 1 mm, as opposed to the overwhelming majority of the equivalent ifp tapes, whose resolution is 1/16 at best!). Second of all, *one* of the real sources of the problem is the fact that *EVEN* the ifp "system" is operated in the decimal system (yes, that's right, one does not write like 3.B ft in - as opposed to 3 ft 11 in, I'm borrowing how the hexadecimal system would define the number eleven here). Therefore your point below is actually irrelevant! One other aspect that is important to show is that the ifp system is actually inefficient because it *ALWAYS* requires the presence of dual units (at a minimum!), for example, ft AND in (only in very rare occasions one would see one or the other), which forces people to convert from one to the other all the time! 12 (base for a foot) is better. It >can be divided neatly by 1,2,3,4,6 and 12. And where is the advantage of this, especially considering that ifp measuring tapes *ONLY* come in factors of 2?!!! Unless one "compartimentalizes" operations there is really no advantage in this. And BTW this is another real problem with the ifp "system", it requires applications to be *compartimentalized/discrete* for it to *work* with any degree of "efficiency", otherwise, its cumbersome nature becomes extremely apparent. This rigidity of the ifp system is a very serious detriment to its usage. Unlike ifp, the SI system falls under the category of a "continuum" system. There are no requirements for compartimentalization for it to work! However, if such "module" approach is required the SI system would work just as well (example, just choose modules of 1200 mm, or similar!!! There is your divisibility by all factors of 12!...). It can be mathematically proven that continuum systems can be "discretized", but *NOT* the other way around!!! Number 16 found as a base in >weight & volume is also mighty divisible. Prime factors are 1,2,4,8 and 16. >16 divided by 2 is 8, that in half is 4 and so on. >Nice an' neat. > "Prime factors"??? 4, 8, 16 are not prime numbers, sir!!! And again, people are being "held hostage" to this fallacy of divisibility, not realizing that our world operates in a **continuum**! It can be statistically proven that one sees much more often than not *very unfriendly* sizes out there, except when you *force* them to be round rational values by compartimentalization, in which case one limits oneself tremendously in scope! >This gives us ADVANTAGES OF MANIPULATION while using the standard units >since when we work with amounts or measurements we often have to manipulate >in terms of HALVES QUARTERS and THIRDS no matter what we do (carpentry, >building industry, packaging, food market..etc.) And how would one would better "manipulate amounts" if such amount is, say, 5' 3 7/8", that may be required to be divided by 3, for instance??? And, BTW, good luck in finding the response to that division by 3 in your measuring device!!! >Our system is MORE PRACTICAL than metric. > So far you haven't proven the above assertion by any stretch of imagination! Practicality is a subjective concept, what is practical for one may not be for others. I, for instance, am very familiar with metric measurements. To me, they are a lot more practical than any ifp unit which I have no feel or familiarity with whatsoever. Whenever I see values in ifp I automatically and instinctly "translate" to metric (despite the hassle of conversion) so that I tread in more... "familiar" territory. Also, I don't need to resort to flimsy "body" parts references to relate to the world around me, besides I *always* use measuring instruments when I need to measure things precisely, and on this score evidently what system is used is irrelevant. And if precision is not required I can mentality estimate **anything** in my head with meters, centimeters, millimeters, etc, and by sticking to a *universal* meter I am much less prone to error than if I used my particular body parts to "size things up with"! (BTW, I happen to know the nearly exact size of some of my body parts that I usually may use to actually go and measure things with - and I find my palm to be more "convenient" for that than my "thumb"..., so that in the end I may come very close to the real size of things - evidently such values are given in metric to the mm precision! ;-) ) >Just name how many times in their lifetime the average Joe has to answer a >question like: >"What net force (in pounds) is required for a 5-pound object to accelerate >at 16ft/s2?" Yas that may be easier to solve with the metric units but just >how often do you have to solve this kinda problem? And why should entire industries, which are the players that need to have access to such ease of use the most, be held hostage due to the convenience / ignorance/ whatever of some? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply educate the public to "follow suit" instead? Besides they are the ones that would ultimately benefit the most *in case* that necessity (of doing calcs) ever emerges, as it's proven that over 70-75% of people are mathematically... "challenged". >...I just oppose the movement to wipe out ifp from our daily lives. Can y'all >respect that? > Nobody is denying your right to use ifp. However, don't expect society to pay for someone's "bad choices"!!! Alas, if you insist on using ifp, fine, go ahead, but the burden of usage should fall squarely on the user's shoulders, fair? >You know how y'all always point out that "the whole world is metric why >shouldn't we!" well apart from the fact that the whole world ISN'T metric >(unlike the metric propaganda would like everyone to believe) EVERY SINGLE >country uses NON-METRIC units every DAY, more frequently than they use >metric. I'm taking about TIME. Somehow nobody has trouble remembering 60 sec >in a min, 60 min in an hour, 24 hrs in a day and so on and don. The world >somehow manages to live on these ancient, NON-METRIC units and conduct daily >calulations with them!!! > ? The second IS metric, and the use of min, h and day are recognized by BIPM and universally accepted. Nonetheless, I, personally, would change *in a second* if a "decimal" option were offered me! As I still find it very cumbersome having to do "conversions" all the time from one form to the other. It's undeniable that, while we have "no trouble remembering" such relations, it would make our lives a lot easier if we didn't have to deal with them! >So stop your false propaganda of metric superiority. Unfortunately for you, it's not false "propaganda", but an assertion of the truth! ;-) If you're truly >tolerant you will agree with freedom to choose, Freedom to choose should also be applicable to metric proponents, should it not? It's a two-way street, sir. And metric defenders are also fighting to have their right to NOT see ifp units invade their territory, just the same! However, what does the US do? It keeps flooding their markets with this thing, something which Europeans, for instance, have been trying to make crystal clear to Americans they do not want!!! and if we wanted the metric >in everyday situations we, as majority of Americans, would have switched and >gone with the 1975 Metric Act. Have we? No. So drop it whydontya! > Well... It's true that the US hasn't followed through with its metrication attempt, but it doesn't mean the movement is dead in that country. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this "movement" is growing stronger. While in the beginning one could say that only "purists" were after metrication of the US, it seems it's slowly but surely creeping into "grassroot movement" territory. Hopefully one day such movement will be strong enough to finally get this over with. Regards, Marcus Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
