I end it once the wads of paper I'm tearing get too thick to tear (grin). No, seriously, I was just using tearing things into fractional sizes as an example of how fractions have been useful to people in some circumstances. I assure you that I favor decimal measure. I certainly could have done without learning how to measure eighths and quarters of an inch in grade school. The millimeter is a far more workable unit of length.
Quoting Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > But where do you end it? Do you cut things into eights? sixteenths? > thirds, fifths, ninety-ninths? > > I made the point sometime ago that halves and quarters are common in speech > and are also quite easily expressed as a decimal. But fractions and or > ratios beyond this are more difficult to use and conceptualize and are not > used or understood by the "common people". > > Dan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Trusten, R.Ph." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, 2005-10-16 11:48 > Subject: [USMA:34906] Re: Approximations (was fractions) > > > >I hasten to add to my comments this morning that I recognize the importance > > of ratios, but, gee, gosh, and golly, I prefer to MEASURE DECIMALLY! So, > > on > > that point, Philip, I agree with you. But, I just don't think that ratios > > should be demoted to the rank that we metricationists have been assigning > > lately. Somewhere, even in the metric literature, I read the remark, > > "People will always cut things in half." I, too, am guilty of cutting > > things > > in half (grin). > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Philip S Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 09:59 > > Subject: [USMA:34904] Re: Approximations (was fractions) > > > > > >> > You choose the number of useful digits by knowledge of the situation. > >> > A > >> > person who is properly taught how to apply the rules of significant > > digits > >> > knows how many digits apply. A number left in fractional form is not > >> > an > >> > answer. If I have a number like 2/3, what does that mean if I'm trying > > to > >> > build something with it? > >> > >> 2/3 is no less an anwer than 0.67 > >> > >> Admittedly the problem presented is purely numerical with no context. > >> > >> > Even if you have a number such as 2/3, you still have to assign a level > > of > >> > accuracy to it. There is no way you can make something exactly 2/3 of > >> > something. You are always going to have to state a plus/minus > >> > something > >> > else. > >> > >> Alright, but it may not be an end result. It could be an intermediate > >> step > >> involving a fractional coeifficient. Take as an example the formulae for > > the > >> volume of a sphere - 4/3 * pi * r^3 > >> > >> In any case, if the figure of 2/3 was an approximation for something, > >> with > > a > >> known error bound, then by substituting a decimal approximation you > >> introduce a further error. > >> > >> Phil Hall > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.1/136 - Release Date: 2005-10-15 > > > > > > Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Editor, "Metric Today" U.S. Metric Association, Inc. www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apartment 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There are two cardinal sins, from which all the others spring: impatience and laziness." ---Franz Kafka
