On Sep 22 , at 12:44 PM, Teran McKinney wrote:
Metric is so beautiful in comparision:
200ml -> 0.2l
200l -> 0.2kl
200mg -> 0.2g
200g -> 0.2kg
It's even more beautiful if you follow the rule that there should
always be a space between the number and the unit. Your list should
read:
200 ml -> 0.2 l
200 l -> 0.2 kl
200 mg -> 0.2 g
200 g -> 0.2 kg
The value of such a practice is very clearly seen in the value of two
tenths of a litre; you have written it as "0.2l" which can easily be
misread as "twenty-one hundredths" because the el (l) looks an awful
lot like a one (1). In some fonts they are identical. Writing it as
"0.2 l" makes it clear (or at least a little clearer) the the "l" is
an el for litre not a one.
Similarly, your 200l looks suspiciously like "two thousand one".
Writing "200 l" instead helps to make it clear that it represents 200
of something and the "l" will then be interpreted as the litre symbol.
(One can also use the capital "L" for litre to reduce the ambiguity
further. Currently both "l" and "L" are correct but CGPM promotes the
idea that eventually one or the other should be universally adopted
and the other deprecated.)
In an admitted minor point, I wonder why you used the cute little
arrow ( -> ) instead of just using an equals sign.
I interpreted the arrow this way (for example):
"200 mg -> 0.2 g" means "200 mg converts to 0.2 mg". That leaves me
with the subtle concern that maybe the reverse is NOT true! Of course,
it should be understood to mean that the conversion works either way.
But, since it works both ways, then shouldn't the arrow point both
ways; wouldn't it then be more appropriate to write it as "200 mg <-->
0.2 g"?
Then again, why not just use an equals sign which is readily
interpreted to mean the two are EQUAL so that it can be used to
convert either way.
