2000-10-22
Here are some comments I posted to the Yahoo website with my feelings on
selling SI based on ease of math compared to FFU. In summary my point
is/was, that the average American does not do fractional math, limits
his/her use of FFU to a few simple units, and does no or very little
converting between them. The average American knows FFU is difficult, but
also believes SI must be equally difficult. So adopting metric units would
be exchanging one difficult system for another. This notion needs to be
dispelled and proven before the general population agrees to change.
You won't convince the average person who muddles through FFU that metric is
easier to use. Especially if that person doesn't do the complex math in
his/her daily life that we show in examples. I've seen how people measure
rooms for carpet. They measure or round to the nearest foot, then take that
info to the carpet store, and the guy there converts it to the nearest
square yard and that is what they buy. Joe Six-pack never does the math.
So, telling Joe metric would make it easier will go in one ear and out the
other.
#1:
FFU is based on fractions because it was set up for and by illiterate and
innumerate people in times when education was for the rich only. Fractions
were used because people didn't know how to divide. In fact, only a few
fractions were ever used, and those were 1/2, 1/4 and 1/8.
Today, despite the intensive education on how to manipulate fractions,
nobody really knows how. Ask any average American how to add, multiply,
subtract and divide even the simplest of fractions and they won't know.
When it comes to FFU, the average person's knowledge is limited to a few
basic units, such as inch, foot, yard, and mile, for length. ounce, quart
and gallon for volume. Pint is falling into disuse. Most Americans are
familiar only with the names and have a vague notion as to the size of the
units, and almost no idea how they relate to each other.
A month ago, two announcers on the radio station I was listening to were
stumped as to how many feet were in a mile. They spent about 5 min asking
others in the studio and everyone had a different guess. People just guess
when it comes to FFU.
Resistance to SI comes from the fact that people are confused about the
present units so much they falsely believe metric is the same way. Going
metric would mean learning a new system that is just as goofy as the one
they can't work with. They have never really had the opportunity to measure
and work with SI long enough to see the ease of calculations; reading a
millimetre scale, buying and selling in grams, kilograms and litres.
That is why metrication is so important. It brings the ease of metric right
into daily life. And if people like Jake want to do it the hard way, let
him. But, don't expect me to follow suit. Jake can speak FFU to me all he
wants, but he will be wasting his breath, as it will go in one ear and out
he other. I will not understand a thing he was saying.
#2:
Divisibility in FFU is very limited. Fractions other than those that are in
the format of 1/2n, where n can be 1, 2, 4, 16 and 32, do not exist.
Fractions of sevenths and thirds are unknown in FFU. Also, the dram, grain,
minim, chain, rod and others not listed here are either obsolete, or very
rarely used, to the point where most Americans have never heard of them and
would be surprised to find out they are part of FFU.
Americans are stuck to a limited library of units and a limited range for
those units. Mostly they are the inch, foot, yard and mile for length; the
ounce, quart and gallon for volume (pint is seldom seen anymore and is
falling into disuse), and the ounce, pound and ton for weight.
Most have a vague notion of their size, and almost no one knows the
relationship between each unit.
Once outside the useful range of these units, metric units are now used.
Grams and its sub-multiples are very common now as FFU does not have an
active equivalent unit, not is there a scale that can be found to measure in
FFU less than an ounce.
Electrical and magnetic units are metric because no FFU exists to measure
these quantities. The limits placed on measurement and the half adoption of
SI to fill the void is reason enough to go completely to SI.
#3:
Having decimal parts of a number is not a problem in SI. Because of the
cumbersome nature of fractions, it is desired to use whole numbers whenever
possible in FFU. To divide 10 by 4 and get 2.5 is fine for metric units. To
divide 10 by 4 in FFU to get 2-1/2 is not seen as rational. It is no doubt
that FFU fans find a problem when going to a system like metric that allows
for decimal parts that FFU finds strange.
Even though you show vulgar fractions in 32-nds and 64-ths, these are not in
common use. Most people can only comprehend fractions to 8-ths. Only a
limited number can work with 16-ths. Despite the fractional nature of FFU,
most Americans despite intensive training in school, do not know how to add,
subtract, multiply or divide them. And you will see most Americans don't
know how to divide 1 into 8 to get 0.125.
These are factors that limit FFU and gives metric more possibilities.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Ma Be
Sent: Sunday, 2000-10-22 13:21
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:8701] Re: Impact of mathmatics education on total
education
Dear Norm,
I apologize for my earlier comments below. I didn't realize you
were comparing mm dimensions with their inch-equivalents, my
mistake (but then again, this wasn't that clear from your
message...). However, *even* if you included the extra digit as
in, for instance, 1/8 and 3.2, the metric side would still come
out as a winner (as far as ease of calc is concerned).
Careful though about the propagation of calculation errors here!
If the original scenario was like hard ifp the more calcs one does
with the metric equivalents, the more errors can propagate, as
these values in metric would always be rounded.
Marcus
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:00:24 Ma Be wrote:
>One other "problem" I saw with this exercise was the considerable
"skewness" between them. In order for it to be "fairer" you would
have to use a similar # of digits for both of them, e.g. if you
say 1/16, you should counter with, say, 243 (or 14, whatever), or
something to that effect.
>
>Marcus
>
>On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:55:48 James R. Frysinger wrote:
>>I don't know who was addressed in your original message, Norm, but I
>>presume it was some official in DeKalb County's school administration.
>>
>>You inadvertently (perhaps) provided a very simple exercise in the first
>>step. The sum is 63/64 because the series is
>>1/64+2/64+4/64+8/64+16/64+32/64 which is (2^7-1)/64. Another way of
>>looking at it is that by adding an additional 1/64 to the stack and then
>>accumulating upwards, one has 64/64 from which the temporary 1/64 must
>>now be subtracted, leaving 63/64.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>Norman Werling wrote:
>>>
>>> Gentlemen:
>>>
>>> I am an age 64 registered voter living in Georgia House
District 64. I am
>>> vitally interested in the education of DeKalb's children as
well as that of
>>> my grandchildren who all live elsewhere but mostly in Georgia.
>>>
>>> I would ask both of you to humor me and complete the following
exercise.
>>> Then do me the honor of replying with total honesty and without any
>>> preconceived notions. Agreed?
>>>
>>> Step one is to add the following:
>>> 1/64
>>> 1/32
>>> 1/16
>>> 1/8
>>> 1/4
>>> 1/2
>>> -------
>>>
>>> -------
>>>
>>> How long did it take you to add them.? ___minutes and___seconds.
>>>
>>> Do not scroll down further until you have done the problem and
answered the
>>> question with your best recollection of the time needed to
answer. Be fair
>>> now!
>>>
>>> Now add the following:
>>> 1
>>> 2
>>> 4
>>> 5
>>> 6
>>> 7
>>> -----
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> How long did it take you to add them? _____minutes and _____seconds.
>>> Do not scroll down until you have done the problem and
answered the question
>>> with your best recollection about the time needed to answer.
Be fair now!
>>>
>>> After you have done both and filled in the blanks, just hit
"reply" and send
>>> it back to me. Then we can talk about it via email or
telephone, whichever
>>> you prefer.
>>>
>>> Thank you for participating,
>>>
>>> Norman V. Werling
>>> 1240 Hunters Drive
>>> Stone Mountain, GA 30083-2545
>>> 404-292-9328
>>
>>--
>>Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
>>James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
>>10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
>>
>>
>
>
>Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
>
>
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
