Dear Han,
Your expression 'lineal km' strikes me as being redundant (if not
tautological).
Since length, in SI, has only one unit � the metre � and the metre is the
only dimension for length, then you don't need to note that km measures
length by adding ^1 to km to form the symbol km^1.
If you use the expression km^1 you are saying that the one dimensional unit
of the quantity length � the km � is one dimensional.
As I said, either the first of these is redundant (or tautological) or the
second of these is tautological (or redundant). Sorry for the confused way
that I've written this, but I never fully understood the difference between
tautological and redundant � if any.
By the way, I once posted a notice on my office door that said:
Department of
Tautological Redundancies
Department
Apply Without
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
LCAMS - Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
--
on 12/10/03 7:06 AM, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Yes, that was a nice example you gave and that kind of thing gave rise to
> people who wanted change, like Simon Stevin and John Napier, who stood up a
> few hundred years before decimal money and the metric system made their
> debut.
>
> I got a remark from another list member about the 16 km^1. Although the
> length of our storaged archives looks like hidden ifp trash, it is not. Of
> course, the BWMA would love it if the archives in continental Europe and
> other metric countries used yards and miles as standard units. Too bad for
> them, no way. These 16 km^1 are purely co-incidental. Soon we will take over
> the archives of Dutch Roman Catholicism, 9 linear km, that will increase our
> storage to 25 linear km.
>
> As I cannot use superscript in Outlook Express I have written the symbol of
> linear km as km^1.
>
> The cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen are planning to build a very large storage
> room for public records and archives on a location between both cities.
>
> Best greetings,
>
> Han
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, 2003-10-09 10:27
> Subject: [USMA:27143] Re: Curiosity from the archives
>
>
> on 2003-10-09 03.15, Han Maenen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Many financial calculations were made in Roman numerals and the money was
> not decimal as well. Present day archivists and researchers get in trouble
> with this stuff and have to master Roman numerals and non-decimal
>> calculations.
>
> Dear Han,
>
> It makes you realise the genius of Simon Stevin, when you consider his
> physical and intellectual surroundings.
>
> I can remember one of his papers bemoaning the severity of calculating
> something like, 'What is the result of investing 324 pounds, 12 shillings,
> and 4 pence ha'penny for 17 years 8 months and a week at 3 7/8 per cent?',
> when all calculations were done in Roman numerals. As I remember it the
> answer had a whole number with a 13 numeral numerator above a 17 numeral
> denominator.
>
> I didn't check his calculations for accuracy � I took Simon's word for it!
>
> However, I did think at the time that many hundreds of intellectually gifted
> people must have been employed on these terribly pointless tasks. It's no
> wonder that Simon Stevin was so delighted when he developed decimal numbers
> and decimal calculations in 1585.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
> Geelong, Australia
>
> Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication
> matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words
> subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
>
