Metric vs. other measurement systems - chart

Ten fingers. Metric...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marksbug

and this means what??? nothing at all. the unit could be the width of a wall nut. and that would work just fine as long as it was a std nut size.

---

Except when you try to screw your base wall nut nut to the international space station, it’s not going to fit. They have already tried that, and failed.
For those in doubt, BSW is not British Standard Wall-Nut.

Pity the chart comparison didn’t include imperial gallons/ American gallons, another abomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Alciatore

The English units were made with the NEEDS and CARES of the people in mind.

That picture makes fun of the divisions of various English units. But, to give just a few examples, and please keep in mind that there were NO COMPUTERS or POCKET CACULATORS or CELL PHONES with APPS in the days when BOTH of these systems were invented.

A FOOT is divided into 12 inches. Now 12 can be evenly divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6. A meter is usually divided by 10, 100, or 1000 and the prime factors of those numbers are only 2 and 5. The factors of the foot are much more useful when dividing things in every day life.

The YARD is three feet or 36 inches and it continues the easy division into MORE sizes than the meter does.

The Pound is 16 ounces and that is divisible by 2, 4, and 8. The KiloGram, like the meter, only has factors of 2 and 5. Again, when dividing things up in everyday life, the pound wins hands down.

Etc. for almost every English unit. All of the metric units are divided up or combined upwards by factors of 10 which only has factors of 2 and 5. Division by a number as small as 3 is not easily done. In fact, it yields an infinite decimal. Many will say that the math is easier with metric numbers, but there are many instances where that is true of the English system instead.

While no number is divisible by every smaller number, the multipliers chosen for English units will almost always have a larger number of small numbers that yield EVEN divisions. English units were made to be more useful in every day life and commerce. Metric units were invented by scientists, by intellectuals who saw no problems with using a higher level of elementary arithmetic than the everyday man. The metric system is aligned with our use of numbers of base 10. This itself is due to the accident of nature that produced our bodies with 10 fingers. If we had 8 or 12 fingers, there would be NO metric (based on 10s) system and anyone proposing a system based on number of base 10 would be laughed at just as heartily as someone today who proposed that we change over to a number and measurement systems based on, let me say, numbers of base 7.

Today, with the common availability of the computational aids that I mentioned above, there is stronger support for the metric system than existed in days past.

I, myself am one of those scientist/intellectuals but I am not arguing for either system. I am just pointing out one of the real reasons behind their respective creations, actual HUMAN needs and considerations.

---

I can't argue with your math but do you have any historical references to support your claims? I could find any.

Rick

Vive la difference! How else to occupy our time??? Try this one... Caribbean. GO!

I use them both on a daily basis with no issues. I suppose week minded people may have issue with them.or they think they do. both systems are quite eazy ans work finer than frogs hair. personaly i think we have 2 systems due to the tool company's cumming up with a way to double, tipple&quadruple those prophets.... and more. the more you have the more you can loose and just have to replace....and while im hear...I want that too!!! sneekey tool company's at work. it also seems to work for carbide inserts too:rimshot:

The integerial divisibility of the inferial system may have made sense IN ITS TIME.

But, as the world evolves, there is no need to keep using an awkward, antiquated system just because it's traditional. It's conceivable that the old English money system once made sense but even the English eventually realized that a decimal system made more sense and fewer mistakes and thus, despite protests from the traditionalists, changed over. If the traditionalists were to have their way, we would still be using Roman numerals and Egyptian fractions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Alciatore

The English units were made with the NEEDS and CARES of the people in mind.

That picture makes fun of the divisions of various English units. But, to give just a few examples, and please keep in mind that there were NO COMPUTERS or POCKET CACULATORS or CELL PHONES with APPS in the days when BOTH of these systems were invented.

A FOOT is divided into 12 inches. Now 12 can be evenly divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6. A meter is usually divided by 10, 100, or 1000 and the prime factors of those numbers are only 2 and 5. The factors of the foot are much more useful when dividing things in every day life.

The YARD is three feet or 36 inches and it continues the easy division into MORE sizes than the meter does.

The Pound is 16 ounces and that is divisible by 2, 4, and 8. The KiloGram, like the meter, only has factors of 2 and 5. Again, when dividing things up in everyday life, the pound wins hands down.

Etc. for almost every English unit. All of the metric units are divided up or combined upwards by factors of 10 which only has factors of 2 and 5. Division by a number as small as 3 is not easily done. In fact, it yields an infinite decimal. Many will say that the math is easier with metric numbers, but there are many instances where that is true of the English system instead.

While no number is divisible by every smaller number, the multipliers chosen for English units will almost always have a larger number of small numbers that yield EVEN divisions. English units were made to be more useful in every day life and commerce. Metric units were invented by scientists, by intellectuals who saw no problems with using a higher level of elementary arithmetic than the everyday man. The metric system is aligned with our use of numbers of base 10. This itself is due to the accident of nature that produced our bodies with 10 fingers. If we had 8 or 12 fingers, there would be NO metric (based on 10s) system and anyone proposing a system based on number of base 10 would be laughed at just as heartily as someone today who proposed that we change over to a number and measurement systems based on, let me say, numbers of base 7.

Today, with the common availability of the computational aids that I mentioned above, there is stronger support for the metric system than existed in days past.

I, myself am one of those scientist/intellectuals but I am not arguing for either system. I am just pointing out one of the real reasons behind their respective creations, actual HUMAN needs and considerations.

---

If they wanted lots of integer divisibility, why not use a sexagesimal system? It was good enough for the ancient Sumerians that their Babylonian conquerors adopted it. Hell, it was good enough that WE use it - time and angle.

Incidentally, the abacus dates back to the Babylonians which makes it about 5000 years old. So they did have "pocket calculators". Their lack of cell phones is probably the reason they were so inventive and mathematically sophisticated :-).

like...how long you can keep the angle of the dangle from dangling. so..what if the father of math,metrick math had lost 2 fingers?:headscratch:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marksbug

l...how long you can keep the angle of the dangle from dangling.

---

All depends on the cube of the tube!