I wouldn't complain about this, because in practice it's an excellent way to teach millimeters! It's also an excellent way to *think* in millimeters, while ignoring those around you still using inches. With the analogy:
cemt -> 1 mm dollar -> 100 mm module quarter -> 25 mm module "Do you mind 5 quarters change?" -> "Do you mind 125 cents ($1.25) change" "Is this 5 inches long?" -> "Is this 125 mm long?" It becomes simple. Only when you really the "25.4" correction do you run for the calculator. Nat > Depending on the subtleties of definition, the US currency is not truly > decimal. It has two base units, cent and dollar, just like many > currencies. It would be better for currencies to have just one base unit > (and some effectively do). > > There are 100 cents in a dollar. The ratio of 100 to 1 between two base > units is common in currencies. These concepts are why people call it > 'decimal'. However, there are a couple of defects in implementing the > concept: > > 1. Non-decimal coin - the 'quarter'. > The label has no reference to either of the base units. More > importantly, fractions have no place in a decimal system. The Canadian > 'quarter' is marked in terms of one of the base units and it therefore > looks more decimal. But the value chosen is still fractional. >
