I Don't Like the Metric System

[dorsetUK]

You lot all deserve a rap on the knuckles.

But then, you may have difficulty counting.

Base 60 seems to where it all began – nothing to do with ten fingers – it was all to do with four fingers, three knuckles, your thumb and that we have two hands.

And tax.

4*3*5=60.

Simple.

A herd of cows are being moved and you need to know how many there are so you can apply all the relevant taxes.

The first cow goes by, you put your thumb on the first knuckle of your index finger. The second cow goes by and you move your thumb to the second knuckle. Third cow, third knuckle. Fourth cow, first knuckle of your ring finger, and so on.

When you reach the third knuckle of your ‘little’ finger, that’s twelve, and you ‘transfer’ those twelve to the thumb of the other hand.

Repeat four more times, so all five fingers on the other hand are full and you have sixty. Make a line on the ground, and begin again. When all the cows have gone by, count up the lines on the ground and remember the number of knuckles used on the first hand.

Find someone who can do maths and can write and tell them that there were four lines and five knuckles. They can then write down that 245 cows were taxed at whatever had value per cow.

Then start to measure time and as we like sixty, let’s have sixty seconds in a minute and sixty minutes in an hour.

Start to look at the skies and lets divide our all round view into segments. Slight problem as sixty is not accurate enough. 120 – nope. 180 – nope. I know – 360 divisions – and we’ll call them degrees.

As act pointed out – factorisation.

60 divides by 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 6, 5, 3 and 2 – and as an ex-maths teacher, division is what causes most, English, people most difficulty, which is why base 10 is so weak.

But, in order to have the vast majority of people able to count, 10 fingers seems to have taken over.

Ultimately it really does not matter what system we use as long as we become adept in its use. There is no more need for every nation to use the same system of measurement as there is to use the same language providing we can readily convert from one to another.

[Hoser Rob]

If you can grasp factoring/counting/combinatorics I don't think it matters what system you use.

For everyday use I use both imperial and metric, I find one or the other more intuitive depending on the scale involved.

[rene]

60 divides by 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 6, 5, 3 and 2 – and as an ex-maths teacher, division is what causes most, English, people most difficulty, which is why base 10 is so weak.

Having 111.11 (you can have that decimal point rather than comma...) mean 10^2+10^1+10^0+10^{-1}+10^{-2} is a thing though; certainly I wouldn't want to switch base at the point, and were you to agree that means the factorisation argument is relevant only if you'd consider it realistic to switch humanity over to a different number base entirely. Yah, well, ...

[dorsetUK]

... if you'd consider it realistic to switch humanity over to a different number base entirely. Yah, well, ...

Hi rene.

I wasn't suggesting a change. I was just pointing out that there was an alternative and, quoting myself;

"But, in order to have the vast majority of people able to count, 10 fingers seems to have taken over."

I'm just accepting a flawed system.

[MikeNovember]

Hi,

Metric system is the simplest and the best to avoid errors. Its true name is "International System of Units".

It is based on six units: meter m, kilogram kg, second s, Ampere A, mole mol, candela cd.
It includes also three pseudo units: Kelvin degree K, radian rad and steradian sr (they are pseudo-units because they are not vectorial ones: you can't add K and rad / srad have no dimension).

Its true name is "International System of Units".

All the others unit derive from this reduced set, with factor 1:
- Newton: 1N = (1kg x 1m /1s²)
- Volt: 1V=(1kg x 1m²/ 1A x 1s³)

This avoids to use non-dimensional correction factors in formulas.

Regards,

MN

PS: this metric system has been invented by France as a weapon against England!

[rene]

I wasn't suggesting a change.

Fair enough. I really do wish we would unify a bit more though.

I.e., Americans go metric, Germanics change from the stupid "one-hundred-four-and-twenty" to "one-hundred-twenty-four" in the same way that Imperials change from the stupid 12-31-2020 to the Asian 2020-12-31, with the rest of world begrudgingly following suit even if just to avoid the confusion, we agree on decimal points vs. thousand-separators, on what millions, milliards, billions and billiards are, adopt thirteen four-week months to the year, decide on which side of the road to drive, ...

Something tells me I might not be around long enough to see all that happen. Or any.

[dorsetUK]

I really do wish we would unify a bit more though.

I couldn't agree more.

As an aside the, translated, Germanic "one-hundred-four-and-twenty" and the French "vignt et un" and "quatre vignt" actually make it easier to teach maths to certain groups who struggle with the conventional.

Small numbers make much more sense than large ones to some people.

But as you say - "Something tells me I might not be around long enough to see all that happen. Or any."

Ce la vie - or la mort.

Happy thoughts.

[rene]

The French get it right though; vingt-et-un is literally twenty-and-one rather than the Germanic one-and-twenty.

Otherwise, sure, below 100 I'm fine-ish with small-large rather than large-small but what I'm not okay with is largest-small-large rather than largest-large-small above 100.

[iliketrains]

A liter (litre) is 1000 cc.
How many cubic inches in a quart ? Well that depends whether it's imperial or American.

Suggested topic for our multilingual friends, how stupid is the English language ?

[JerryF]

Metric is great. No wondering how many ounces in a <whatever>, etc.

Also, ounces can be weight or volume which adds to the confusion.

[JerryF]

...

Suggested topic for our multilingual friends, how stupid is the English language ?

Unfortunately, English is based on several other languages (Greek, German, Latin) so the innate problem of confusion.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...

Suggested topic for our multilingual friends, how stupid is the English language ?

Unfortunately, English is based on several other languages (Greek, German, Latin) so the innate problem of confusion.

You only scratched the surface on what a mongrel language English is. Added to those three stolen languages are various Celtic languages, the Nordic languages, and a few others I don't recall at the moment (I claim Senioritis).

One delightful feature of English is that exceptions to rules far exceed adherence.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...Also, ounces can be weight or volume which adds to the confusion.

Didn't someone already mention that? I wonder who...

[dorsetUK]

PS: this metric system has been invented by France as a weapon against England!

Hi Mike.

It might be more accurate to say that the metric system was invented in England, but implemented by France.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5O6 ... 07&f=false

You may need to click on 'page 65' to get the full page - and in my case, put your glasses on.

[MikeNovember]

PS: this metric system has been invented by France as a weapon against England!

Hi Mike.

It might be more accurate to say that the metric system was invented in England, but implemented by France.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5O6 ... 07&f=false

You may need to click on 'page 65' to get the full page - and in my case, put your glasses on.

Hi,

John Wilkins proposed to take as length unit "38 inches of Prussia". The French revolution proposed to take 1/40 000 000 of Earth circumference at Equator (that's why this circumference is worth 40 000 km). It was based on a natural characteristic, rather than on a Prussian inch, and it is much more classy!

Then, the more difficult thing was to measure this value of 1/40 000 000 of the circumference. This took 7 years to two scientists to measure the distance between Paris and Barcelone, and then extrapolate to define the meter... Its definition has changed several times since.

Regards,

MN

NB: I am also much trained to use the Pifometric system, and it is, for sure, the one I prefer!

[dorsetUK]

Thanks for the detail, but it doesn't change the fact that metric was first proposed - I shouldn't have said "invented" - in England, in an attempt to make communication between people and communities easier.

[MikeNovember]

Thanks for the detail, but it doesn't change the fact that metric was first proposed - I shouldn't have said "invented" - in England, in an attempt to make communication between people and communities easier.

Not metric, 99,37% metric.

Wilkins in 1668 proposed a length unit based on 38 Prussian inches, close to the length of a pendulum whose half-period is one second: he arrived to 993,7 mm; in 1670 French Mouton proposed a unit of length based on Earth circumference; in 1675 Italian Burattini proposed to name Wilkins unit a meter, and to redefine it exactly as the length of a pendulum whose half-period is one second: he arrived at a length of 993,9 mm.

The French Convention finally chose the idea of Mouton, because Wilkins / Burattini pendulum idea was dependent on gravity, and gravity is not uniform on Earth, so the unit value would have changed depending on the location on Earth, a very bad thing for an unit! This would not have helped communication between communities...

So, the 1st draft was English (and Prussian?); the 2nd draft was French; the 3rd draft and the name were Italian; the French draft became the final issue!

MN

[dorsetUK]

OK

[act]

I wish Jimmy carter had succeeded in getting the SSA to convert to the metric system. So far, the "reasons" for not supporting the metric system I've seen here are just silly. One of the major advantages of the metric system is being base 10; instead of fooling around with fractions, use simpler decimals. So what if the Celsius scale has more space between divisions; just use decimals. Units of volume, mass, and distance are based on single units that then are expanded and reduced in multiples of ten.

See, that's the thing. I don't know how, but you just don't get it. Like why would you need to even use decimals in the first place when the units themselves can be easily divided into whole numbers? And even if we use fractions, I still believe that they're superior to decimals. Fractions permit an easier conceptualization of what you're exactly dealing with. If you see, for example, 1/16th of an inch, then you can imagine that by splitting an inch up into half multiple times until you get it split into 16 equal pieces, which from there you can imagine one of those pieces, and there you go; 1/6th of an inch. Compare this to 0.0625. What? It's a bit ridiculous if you take away the decade or so of education behind it.

Having a cup that is 8 fl oz., a pint being two cups (16 fl oz.), a quart being two pints (32 fl oz.) but a gallon being four quarts? Fluid ounces are almost always shown as just oz., which is actually a unit of weight; no confusion there (said Jeannie sarcastically). Then there are other units of measure that are more complicated multiples. A teaspoon is 6 fl oz, a tablespoon is three teaspoons, and a cup is 0.0625 teaspoons. No confusion there (more sarcasm).

A teaspoon is actually 1/6th of a fluid ounce. Don't tell me "it's hard to learn", because that's like saying it was 9:00 on an analog clock because you thought it was the opposite of the hour hand. A teaspoon is used to create standards for a thirds, because it's 1/3rd of a tablespoon. Then 16 tablespoons make a cup you can drink out of, and 2 of those cups is a big cup. And then 4 of those smaller cups makes a quart, and 4 quarts (like quarter) make a gallon, a really big amount.

Then you have pecks, bushels, barrels, hogsheads, tuns, butt (yes, a butt load is actually a thing, not just an obscenity), etc. The volume of barrels will vary by the substance being stored in them. Some are defined by volume and some by weight.

And here is the eventual argument focusing on the linguists of the Imperial/US Customary System. Just because the British Imperial has a measurement called a "gill" doesn't mean it's exactly the volume of a fish's gills. If in an alternate universe, the word "meter" in English meant "thumb", but nothing else was different, would Metric be a "silly inconsistent system" because the words used, not developed on their own but created out of necessity to standardize amounts being sold and traded, just so happened to align with words in our current lexicon? No. Arguing that the names of the units make the thing worse is ridiculous because that has nothing to do with the actual merits of the system of measurement.

Then there are units of distance. Inches are divided into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty seconds, etc. but a foot is twelve inches and a mile is 5,280 feet, unless it's a nautical mile; that is 6076.1155 feet. Then there are rods, links, chains, furlongs, leagues, fathoms, etc. Again, no confusion there.

Now I've already discussed why I like inches, but on the case of miles, do you when you hear "We're 2 kilometers away" think of 2000 whole meter sticks side by side from your location to your destination? I'm willing to bet you don't, and - like most people - you approximate the distance using what you're pretty sure is the distance of a mile as a scale. Human minds - as I've said before - don't work well with really really large complicated numbers. You're likely to chunk up the 1000m into 1Km when you're estimating the distance. And as such, is it really necessary to see the mile as something bad?

[Portreve]

I stand 453p tall.