On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:02:07 Pat Naughtin wrote: ... >> Don't mention it, Pat. I'd have no quablles with your approach. However, I >> think that one point to consider is that the unit grade *already* exist. I >> know it'd be two words and I know it didn't... "catch on" and all, but it >> would be easier to try to gather momentum for something that already IS there >> than for something "completely" new, even in concept (i.e. like the use of >> milli attached to it). > >In a funny way, I think that it would be more appropriate to introduce the >'new' unit quad rather than re-adopting the grade, grad, or gon. We should >recognise that these have all failed and as the riddle goes: > >Q What would you be doing if you were a sadist, a masochist, and a >necrophile all at the same time? >A You'd be flogging a dead horse. > Pat, I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps though we should, first of all, understand why the gon failed (if it really failed... from an educational point-of-view it actually didn't as we continue to teach the grade/gon(?) *everywhere* in this planet... We just didn't select to use it in most places, unfortunately...).
Secondly, I continue to believe that the "quad" has some nagging difficulties like the ones I highlighted in my last post. It's just unfortunate that there are 40 Mm in the circumference of the earth, instead of 4 Mm, or 4 Gm, etc. ... >But the quadrant is taught in all schools - constantly, and in my view quite >effectively, already. The only problem is that it is not called the quadrant >or a quad, it is called a right angle. Children draw angles of a quad in >every square and rectangle they use, they cut angles of a quad out of paper >and fabric. Apprentices in all trades are totally trained in the uses of >angles of a quad on every job that they do. There is a vast difference >between having 'already been exposed to it at one point in their lives' and >the constant and necessary understanding that comes with constant daily >contact in everything you do. Even every classroom the student sits in was >designed and built using quads between all the walls, floors, and ceilings. > I see... True, we do that, but I doubt it that people tie this to the fact that they have been drawing, cutting, etc, a (one) "quad". The right angle is being treated as an... *object*, not as a potential *measuring device* that has a unit value. When they draw any other angle they'd never associate it with its being some 1.4, 1.6, whatever, of the quad, but rather 90, 110, 180 degrees and so forth. Also, true, one could "introduce" the quad as actually being a unit, but then we could run into all sorts of difficulties like the fact that most angles are less than 1 hence generating decimal points which people appear to be naturally averse to. Sure, "use the milliquad", as you proposed, but then there is the meter question, the lack of an appropriate power of 10 for certain applications, etc... So... Wouldn't it perhaps be more prudent to revisit the grade/gon question, "for the first time"? The infrastructure is ALREADY in place! It's still taught all over the world. So the cost of having people learn it is practically zero! Suffice it for them to just refresh their memories and start using it! This could be an irresistible argument in its favor. ... >Thanks for pointing out this flaw. I recognize this difficulty. When I first >considered this I was thinking of aircraft navigating (on their own) to >within 10 kilometres of an airfield and then being navigated by the air >traffic controller. > >Recognizing this flaw, I still consider it to be minor when compared to the >overall benefits that the quad would bring. Currently, the SI is >fundamentally flawed in that it does not have a base unit of plane angle. >That is a far more significant flaw. > Agreed, Pat. But this is also adequately addressed by the grade/gon, isn't it? In other words, the quad and the gon are actually the same thing but with a different face (quad = 1, gon = 100). If we consider this issue from technical, economical, practical, etc points-of-view I believe there would be more pros in favor of the gon than the quad (despite the "smell" of failure attached to the gon). However, if you disagree (and perhaps you do), let's please then consider what these are one by one and in the end let's see whether pros outweigh the cons in favor of any of these options. So far as I can tell this is a brief summary of the main *differences* and advantages of the gon over the quad: gon: - no "flaws" concerning the powers of 10 issue I outlined above - more adequate for the aviation, nautical and cartographic industries (for instance, up to 3 digits, centigon = 1 km, % association) - infrastructure for education already in place - already enjoys public awareness - does not require decimal points or prefix for most applications There could be others, but the above is what I could quickly come up with. Should you have a similar list of those in favor of the quad, please share it with us for our analysis, Pat. Thanks. >> On the other hand we'd have a very interesting "problem" with the grade in the >> fact that the km accuracy would mean the use of "centigrade", a natural >> confusion with the Celsius scale... ;-) > >You're absolutely right. And thanks, I hadn't thought of that one. >... No problem, Pat. Joe, however, pointed out later on that there was another name for the grade, the gon, which would adequately address that problem. I, personally, must confess, I didn't know about it. On the other hand, if I, being an academic, didn't know about it, it may be fair to say that probably there would be many others out there who probably wouldn't either. Therefore, just this... "name" change from grade to gon could possibly invalidate one or two of my arguments in my list above... :-S (But, still, probably not enough yet to sway me from my preference in favor of the gon/grade. The... "breakers" to me are still the power of 10 issue, the use of decimal points with the added fact that we would be condemning one to use a prefixed unit, milliquad, most of the time, just like we do with the kilogram, this may ultimately lead people to argue about why not eliminating this by renaming the milliquad with some other name, just like we, here, do with the kilogram qu! ! ! estion... ;-) ) Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
