On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:40:18 Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: >... Anything that is >DECIMAL necessarily is not 'metric' BUT everything that is METRIC is >'automatically' decimal. This is the principle of SI-metric, if I ever read >correctly - the coherrence!
The first part of your statement above is unfortunately not accurate. Some "decimals" MAY not be metric (as opposed to claiming that decimals are *necessarily* not metric - it's the adjective here that gave it away), but some obviously are. However, if it's in SI it *should* certainly be. So, your second part of the above sentence is precise (with the exceptions I mentioned earlier, of course). The attachment of SI to the decimal principle is indeed what gives it its coherence characteristic. No other counting base would grant it that property, unless we changed our very fabric of counting to another base. >My regards, anyway for your healthy participation. It was at this juncture, >I reverted to make some sacrifices to the cause of The Metric Second! And, >the calendar that I worked *then*... Ok, thanks. But at Don's request I'll no longer make comments concerning the calendar question. Besides, I honestly cannot see how we can improve on the proposals vehicled here. Until some breakthrough happens I suppose we would just have to lobby for one of them and see if we have any chance of success. Swatch people evidently already have a head start on one aspect of that discussion... I'll consider pitching in later on with my percentime proposal when I see appropriate... :-) Nice talking to you, Brij. Cheers, Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
