The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

Fifty Years of Math 1957 - 2007 (in the USA, Particularly hilarious to those of us who grew up in the western United States )

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

 

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

 

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

 

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

 

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

 

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok. )

 

6. Teaching Math In 2009

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100.El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho

Haha, so true, and yet they say kids are getting smarter.

I took math in the mid-late 80's, and though I got some 'new math' things like change of base and contingency tables, I got plenty of arithmetic too.

Of course, actually executing a change of base involves a lot of arithmetic.

You know , I usually too try to give as exact sum as possible for as small amount of coins/bills of change as possible , and usually I too get blank stare and need to explain the math , usually checked on a calculator ...

Yeah Death999, me too, and remember them telling us we were moving to the metric system like the rest of the planet by the end of the 80's, early 90's? In fact I was never taught the english system of volumes and weights in public school.

@Sassy

If average IQ is going up as scientific studies have suggested, the standard IQ test may be evolving in a similar manner as well... ;)

Smart != knowledgeable

Your teacher had the right idea. The English system should be disbanded. Maybe your teacher was trying to do his/her part from inside the system? If no one si taught the old system, it'll only be a generation before the new one is in place :)

They just keep making it easier on children and allowing them excuses to make it easier on them. I think that reducing the difficulty is only reducing the intelligence of the kids.

If you are who I think you are this forum will suddenly have a lot more posts :)

EDIT: i love how everyone reading this is suddenly checking out Alen's profile. He posts a lot on the SCDB people, no deeper hidden meaning.

I AM THE ALMIGHTY ALEN BOW TO ME!!!  ;) ya ill post here now too!

Problem is that said hole in a child's knowledge makes it very difficult to do basic tasks in the US, like say cooking. 99% of everyday units in the US are in the English system, and that shows no sign of changing anytime soon.

Personally, I think both systems have their place. Metric is most useful for measuring very large or small quantities, whereas the English system seems to be designed around being useful for everyday tasks. Most people don't have to use measurements smaller than an inch in their everyday lives, and the Fahrenheit scale is much more useful for measuring the temperature outside, as opposed to the temperature of melting iron or absolute zero.

Metric is useful on every scale. Just as we didn't at all regret the change from pence - shillings - snarfblats - scestres - pounds  - yuan - guineas, we wouldn't find metric a problem.

Fahrenheit isn't better for everyday temperatures than Celsius. It is better for that than kelvins, I'll grant.

@original post:

That is extremely exaggerated. The only thing that has become easier in math is arithmetic, because we are used to using calculators. I personally think this is a good thing, because instead of memorizing multiplication problems, students can learn to do more advanced things earlier on.

Also, as Alvarin said, just because you know more or less doesn't mean you are more or less smart, and vice versa. Someone can have an IQ of 150 and know less than me (fact: I am not very knowledgeable) , and at the same time, someone can have an IQ of 80 and know more than Albert Einstein ever did. The only difference is it becomesharder to acquire knowledge if you are less smart, and easier if you are smarter.

Note: I am saying "smart" instead of "intelligent" because I'm not sure if intellect is smartness or possessing knowledge. (I told you I'm not very knowledgeable. ;))

"That is extremely exaggerated." Well yeah.. I didn't think it needed to be said though as it seems pretty obvious to me.

@ Luki

Agreed, the metric system really is superior imo. Base 10, how can you beat that? I think there was legislation lobbied for in the mid 80's for the change but it was defeated in congress. I also believe my teacher may very well have been a forward thinker.

I think Bush's no child left behind act may have helped force lower acedemic scores and higher body qutoas. I live in Nevada , ranking like #3 in the nation for drop-outs.

I find that making school less challenging were taking a step back instead of moving forward.

I don't doubt the flaws of IQ tests, but someone with an IQ of 80 is incredibly unlikely to ever "know more than Albert Einstein ever did", since by saying that you imply that they would know more about his own subject than him, which no one on Earth really has the claim to say, especially no one with an IQ below 100. Maybe a savant will come along some day and prove me wrong, but I'd say that's about 100% unlikely.

Acquiring knowledge is not an unlimited capability. There comes a point where some people simply cannot grasp the thing they're learning about, no matter how hard they try.

True but they will never reach that point if their knowledge isn't tested or strained. The more you work at something the better you become at it, since they aren't really working on it, there not going to get any better.

I get the hesitation to switching to a different system of weights, lengths, volumes, speeds, etc. It is hard to adjust when you're used to associating specific numbers with real-world measurables. The fact that calculations will be much easier after the transition is of little comfort to some people.

But what possible reason can Americans and Canadians have to still use the "letter" paper format?

One question - if we hadn't ever had 'lsd' money (pounds shillings pence etc), what would the penny farthing bicycle have been called? I mean, apart from a health hazard.

I dunno, to be honest that sounds like what people might think if they've never dealt with the metric system. Look at volume for instance. In metrics, you have the cubic meter which is big.  At that stage you use barrels or something I think. But for use at home you have the cubic decimetre (called a litre), which is about a quarter gallon. When you buy fluids, you usually buy a litre or two, or a small bottle which is half a litre. When you cook, you usually use deciliters, i.e a tenth of a litre.That's around 0.4 cups. Just using the one unit . One unit which is easily convertible all the way up, instead of several different one that aren't related.

When it gets to doing something more exact it gets even weirder. I mean, I prefer to be able to tell people my length in cm, since I'd be between 5 foot 10 inches and 5 foot 11 inches, which is kind of inexact. But maybe that depends on what you're used to. But if I want to measure something for cutting or sawing or whatever, then an inch can easily be too big. At work I've seen US blueprints that use fractions, but that means you get stuff like 3 feet 10.37 inches, which just looks even more impractical.

And then you have weight. While coking, you can usually make do with grammes. When weighing yourself it's kilogrammes. Then after that you go to tonnes for big stuff. One unit all the way through.

But as meep said, I can understand the mental reluctance to this. I'll agree with him on papers as well. There is no reason to not use an easily scalable paper instead f those horrible sizes you guys use. That's just wrong.

Yep I personally like metric but that's because I'm Canadian, every country has 'Officially' adopted the metric system except for America.

And yet you put letter paper in your printer...

I deal with it all the time; you've got no choice when you have a career in science. I still find it impractical for plenty of things, though.


For the record, I have never seen anyone use deci-anything to measure something outside of a classroom.

Volume is sort of a bad example, since the liter and quart (for liquids), or the cubic meter and cubic yard (for anything else) are roughly equivalent. Still, the primarily 2:1 conversions in English volumes (cups, pints, quarts) are a lot easier to handle than breaking everything down into ml (at least for me, perhaps because I'm used to it). Besides, I bet you still order pints when you're out at the bar. ;)


Honestly, is your height that important that you need that level of precision? And blueprints are quite another story entirely, and probably should use metric. But for most measurements (of people size, anyway), feet + inches gives me a much better idea of how tall someone is, rather than trying to stack an obscene number of cm to figure it out. Again, probably because that's what I'm used to.

And so on. I think you get the idea by now.


Lord knows where letter / legal / bigger paper sizes came from. Makes no sense to me either. Of course, here in the states, we just call it 8 1/2 by 11, and everyone knows what we're talking about. ;)

As for the main reluctance to change, I have heard that it's primarily a cost issue. The US is a big country, and the expense to change every road sign from miles to km (especially all those speed limit signs) would be immense. Never mind converting all the thermometers, scales, measuring cups, etc. etc. etc... It's not a little thing, because so many common items have some sort of measurement printed on them.

I think this thread shows that both systems are "practical" when you're used to them from early age. It's just that it's hard to learn a second system when you're not a young child. So having one ubiquitous standard would eventually make things simpler for everyone.

Also, typing "Fahrenheit" gets on my nerves.

That's just it though. You deal with it in science, not in everyday life. If you did, you'd know about things like measuring in dl. While I can't speak with certainty about the rest of Europe, at least the Scandinavian countries use it exclusively. All (http://www.alltommat.se/recept/allt-om-mats-sverigebakelse-5075) our recipes (http://www.ciao.se/Recensioner/Recept_pa_Vafflor__807270) use dl (http://www.yhteishyva.fi/ruokamaailma/reseptit/paaruoka_l_m/fi_FI/lihaisa_makaroonilaatikko/). I'll gladly admit that volume is a bit of an odd bird in metric, as we use the 1 l = 1dm3 shorthand. To be really logical, 1 dl ought to be 0,01 dm3 or 10 cm3 I suppose. Out of interest, what units did you think we used for measurment in Europe? Just liters, or the same cups as you do?

As for pints, that's wrong as well I'm afraid. See what I mean about scientific use not equalling every day use? The word pint (stop/tuoppi) is sometimes used, but at least in the Scandinavian countries it mostly refers to 0.5 liters rather than what it actual is. In fact at least in Finland (and mostly Scandinavia) you order a large beer (0.5), or a bottle (0.33). sometimes there is a small beer (0.4). Because the phrasing varies the measurement in liters is always written out.


Height may have been a bad example, even though I'm confused as to how the reasoning "it's too exact" can be used when we use the same amount of numbers. 178 cm contains the same amount of numbers as 5'11", but it's more exact. Why waste time writing a less precise number? And it's not just blueprints where things like these can be easily found. If you ever want to do something around the home, such as building a small cabinet or just putting in new lists (http://www.swedoor.se/golvlist.jpg) (picture link cause I don't know what they are called). 2.5 cm is way more than is needed to ensure that those things simply don't fit. and that's just housework.


Actually, I think it's interesting that you skipped weight, because that's where you see the difference the best. Like I said we can use the same scale and multiply up and down.  Grammes for cooking, kilos for regular weight, tonnes for big stuff and so on. You've got ounces, pounds, but then what? If something is heavier than say 400 pounds, what's the next unit? Is there one? Just asking out of curiosity. The same goes for distance. Is there anything between feet and miles? Seems an awfully big jump to make instead of having handy practical units that can be multiplied without having to take into account the whole 12 in 1 thing.


While I realise it doesn't matter to most people, the lack of scalability really gets to those of us who are used to it.


Oh, I understand why you're reluctant to change. you're so entrenched in the system. Maybe you should just go one measurement at a time. start with volume, then 20 years later weight and then finally length, which is the big one I guess.

I have, when I was in Switzerland I think.

We should adopt the paper size system used in Britain, then. A sheet of A4 paper is exactly twice as large as an A5 sheet and half the size of an A6 sheet, which itself is half an A7 sheet (if that exists) and so on and so forth. (A4 is approximately the same size as letter, perhaps 8 by 12 inches or 8 by 11.5).

...I have no idea what on earth that is...

The next unit would be the short ton, I believe, which is 2000 pounds.

Well, there's yards, but that's about it; and a yard is only three feet. That still makes for a big jump, with a little more than 1700 yards in a mile if I recall correctly.





...Did the UK actually change its road signs to metric? I think they were still in MPH when I was there, but I could be wrong...

1 furlong = 220 yards = 1/8 of a mile

A typical length measures are the football field and the empire state building :)

I pretty much expected everything either in liters or ml, since those are the only units I commonly see and use in the lab. I've never seen deciliters or centiliters used for anything other than conversion exercises in school.


Well, that certainly didn't mitigate the confusion any. :P


What can I say, five-eleven just rolls off the tongue. One-hundred-sevety-eight-centimeters... not so much.

I believe those things are called moldings, if I'm not mistaken.

You also have to realize, that since everything is in English units around here, builders make things like walls accurate to whole inches. ;)

On the subject of precision, where do you draw the line? Sure, I could be measuring things out to mm or even micrometers, but 99% of the time, who cares? Usually within those 2.5 cm is close enough.


As Celtic Minstrel mentioned, 2000 pounds = 1 ton. Not the same thing as a metric ton, mind you. And 3 feet = 1 yard, and almost as frequently (like Alvarin said, and mostly a tongue in cheek thing, not a real measurement), 100 yards = 1 football field. That's American Football to you folks outside the states, of course.

Realistically, length is silly to compare. Just as there are 1700+ yards in a mile, there are 1000 meters in a km. Sure, the metric conversions are easier, but both get the same point across: We have little measurements, and big ones, and few practical uses for anything in between. And once again, I've never seen furlongs used outside of a classroom.

Weight is a similar story. Ounces for small weights, pounds for medium weights, and tons for big stuff. Once you hit 500 pounds, usage generally switches to a quarter-ton. The concept is similar to length: There isn't much need for a unit between pounds and tons, because there are few practical uses for it.


Because a combined Metric-English system totally wouldn't drive people crazy, no sir. ;)

Pressure measurement would be funny - PSCM ... pounds per square centimeter ...

Interesting. I would have said that "One-seventy-eight" rolls nicely off the tongue and "Five feet and eleven inches" doesn't. ;) Most of these "it's just more convenient" arguments boil down to what you and the people around you are used to. Metres and yards are pretty much the same, kilometres and miles are close enough to use the same way, and so on. Fractions are maybe a bit cleaner in US (1/3 ft = 4 in; 1/3 m = 33.3... cm), but that only really applies if you want to divide stuff by 3.

Yep. Or baseboards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseboard).

I'd like to point out that practically everything to do with electricity is done in SI units even in the US: after all, US electrical equipment runs on 110 V power supplies at 60 Hz with e.g. a 20 A fuse allowing a maximum power of 2200 W (1 W = 1 Nm/s). Since the US is using SI units extensively already (I don't see anyone measuring electrical power consumption in horsepower!), why not go all the way? It only takes a kilosecond or two to sort out the definitions of the SI units for commonly used measures and the commonly used prefixes, whereas using US customary units requires memorisation of a (short) ton of more or less arbitrary constants (1 mile=1,760 yd!).

kilosecond... hah! It'll be more than a few gigaseconds before that convention is adopted. Basically, only when we are freed from Earth and its day-length and year-length.

As for the relative convenience of 5'11" vs 178 cm, I notice that in both posts, the 'less convenient' set of units was specified, but the 'more convenient' set of units was left implicit. If you compare them on equal footing, it should be pretty clear that they're equivalent in this regard.

It's interesting how SI takes the historical second (1/86400 day) as its basis rather than something that has a practical meaning such as the day; we could split the day into millidays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time) or, as you suggest, go for a 100 ks "day" (which is pretty close to the 28-hour day (http://xkcd.com/320/)).

My point exactly.

One thing possibly  being overlooked in this "debate", is that inches and eighths of an inch (the precision required by most building trades here in the US) are much easier to read with the human eye on a tape rule .. So hopefully I wont need bi focals any earlier than nessicary. ;)

So 1 point for the english system...  :)

You know Draxas, I kind of get the impression that you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'll attempt to clear things up.

First off, I'm off course not trying to argue that the metric system should inherently make sense to you. You've grown up in a different system, so of course it's going to seem odd and strange at times. This is pretty well reflected in your replies, which are mostly along the line of "I'm more used to this and it makes sense to me". I'm not trying to argue with that, really.

Secondly, I'm not trying to argue that the metric system is inherently better. It is, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Examples of easy scalability and simpler arithmetic can't be trumped by "It makes more sense to me because I grew up with that" in an argument. You like what you're used to and that's fine. But in your case it doesn't make your system better.

The only thing I've been trying to argue against, the thing you said that I think is not only naive but dangerously close to some form of weird anti metric propaganda is this:


That's because this is something you say when you've lived with one set of units and can't imagine how anything else works. My examples of measuring and height are there to give you an insight into that metric is not only used, but pretty useful in every day life, rather than something you use for only "very small or very large quantities". That's absolute hogwash. Keeping that in mind, let's continue. I'll give some more examples of when and where different metric units are used.


Centilitres aren't very common, but they do have their place. Alcohol (http://www.drinkkiklubi.com/drinkkiohje/apple_martini.html) is measured in cl when you make drinks. We also use it for the standard bottle, 33 cl is the size of a coke, beer bottle and many other  small bottles. There are also 25 cl bottles and cans, such as the Red Bull cans. And of course bigger ones are then usually in litres. This can vary from country to country though, in France the coke bottle is 330 ml. Still, whichever way you write it it's instantly recognizable. I don't have to worry about possible differences between different national ounces, and whether they are dry or wet. At home I think we have 3 or 4 dl measurement cups, then a couple of half a dl and a litre cup. and of course a 2/4 cl alcohol measuring cup. and a conversion sheet in case we want to cook somethign from an English recipe, since none of our scales, cups or other kitchen stuff will work with your units.


Like Novus pointed out, that's a bit unfair ;) Anyhow we don't measure everything in cm's either. This summer when we were buying stuff to restore a wall at my grandmothers cottage we needed 12 2,45 meters long planks. then you just tell the guy at the yard that you need 12 times two-forty-five, and he knows you're talking about metres. He'll reply that he has four-seventies and five-tens, and then it's pretty easy to see that you'll get two two-forty-fives and some waste out of a five-ten but just one with more waster out of a four-seventy. And all that without the extra arithmetic of adding up those inches. As with the volume, one of the beauts here is that you can use the best unit suited for the task, without having trouble in case you want to put it into relation with a larger amount.


I don't honestly see why you guys are in a recession. Ever since whenever your oldest houses are built (100 years ago mabe?), you've had the amazing ability to build perfectly straight and with exactly even thickness. And your houses never settle or shift later! Amazing! The house we were restoring was only 85 years old and the walls were pretty uneven in loads of places. I sure wish we had your kind of ultimate construction technology. Although it must be boring to live in houses with no angles that'd throw your precious inches off ;)


Well, I like to ensure that ants can´'t get in too easily and that there isn't a huge draft at the windows that cools down the place in winter. Maybe around a mm or so? Slightly bigger (5 mm) depedning on what kind of stuff you're building? After that it's pretty tight.

Interesting about the length measurements. We do also use the Swedish mile, which is 10 km. That can be pretty handy. Of course it's technically just a myriameter. Under a kilometre we can use dekametre and hektometre as well, but those are admittedly pretty rare. The same goes for weight of course, although hectograms can sometimes be used at old fashioned delicatessens.


Like Novus pointed out, you already have one unless you're using Jiggawatts.


Thank god the British thermal unit is disappearing as well. That was an annoying unit.

Canada uses building measurements with the English system but for about everything else we use metric.

Furlongs are used in horse racing.

Metric is fine, but this... this gets me. It just doesn't make any sense.

Where I am, we use a period ( . ) to mean decimal separator and a comma ( , ) for aligning digits to the thousand, million, etc.
Some other places, they use comma to mean decimal separator and period for aligning digits to the thousand, million, etc.

Everywhere, in sentences, the period is a strong separator; there is, barring acronyms and ellipses, never more than one to the sentence; and there is always one. Commas have none of these properties - weaker separator, any number, could be none even implicitly.

Where I am, these marks fit the same roles in numbers - the period as decimal point pins down the number, representing a major break between the units and the sub-units, and, barring unusual notations such as the ellipsis, there is never more than one. Commas, in both cases, give minor separations and occur none to several times.

Basically, if I see a number like
1.742.894.274,087
If I use the same rules as for sentences, I see
1 <period>
742 <period>
894 <period>
274,087

but if I flip it so:
1,742,894,274.087
I get
1,742,94,274 <period>
087
which really is the more pertinent way of arranging things.

Of course, that's why when writing for potentially international consumption, I try to just use a single space. Everyone ought to be able to figure out that a space is an even weaker separator than either a comma or a period.

1 742 894 274 . 087

of course, some won't... :'(

Mostly just playing devil's advocate, really. I know the argument is silly and that metric is inherently better. That doesn't change the fact that I hate it for most practical purposes, especially the Celsius scale. The difference between 30 and 40 F is cold and a little less cold; the difference between 30 and 40 C is quite warm and deadly heat. Say all you want about precision in the metric scale and easy conversions, but I never want to give up my Fahrenheit thermometer.

Plus, you know as soon as we convert the sped limit signs to km/h, all the already crazy drivers here will use it as an excuse to drive 95 mph. My commute is dangerous enough as it is. :P


I think part of my problem is that you're finding a use for all of the metric measurements I find obscure in your daily life. Just because the math conversions are easy, doesn't mean I want to be doing them ALL THE TIME.


Case in point for my above statement.

Incidentally, whenever American manufacturers bother to print metric measurements on beverages, it's always in ml or liters. And despite our use of the English system, yes, all of our larger soda bottles are either 1, 2, or 3 liters.

Realistically, cups are only a cooking measurement, and pints only for ordering Guiness. Most fluids are expressed in ounces for smaller volumes (8, 12, 16, and 20 are common beverage sizes), or quarts and gallons for larger volumes (milk and juice cartons, etc.). Of course, cooking has all sort of other crazy measurements like teaspoon, tablespoon, etc., which certainly doesn't help matters any (and I'm not even sure how these convert to ounces right offhand).


Of course it's unfair. ;)

My main problem is that this is sort of like expressing 5'11" as 71 inches. It's tough to visualize (at least for me) lots of little units stacked together. I can get a good idea of how tall something is if you say it's 6 feet. If you say it's 72 inches, chances are my guesstimation is going to be further off unless I bother to do some math (and I'm lazy like that).


Oh, snark snark snark. :P

One thing you should realize is that here in the US, an 85 year old house is historic. The country is only just a bit over 200, after all. I imagine that impression is quite different in Europe, where you folks have been building your houses and castles for thousands of years. Most consturction in this country is from the 1950s or later, though, and we have a tendency to tear down things when they get that old (until they hit that magic "historic" number, which I suppose varies by person) and rebuild them. We like our snazzy, modern buildings, I guess.

As mentioned by RType, 1/8 of an inch is common division. So yes, we do get more precise than inches (which considering we are still talking about building, was never really a question), as I mentioned before. Just because we spec things out to whole inches doesn't mean we can't measure stuff smaller than that.


Snark snark snark. I wasn't referring to building, and I said as much before.


More obscure units. I didn't even know what the unit for 10K was until you typed it out there. The others... Well, more conversion excercises as far as I'm concerned. Again, why bother with all that (admittedly easy) math if you don't have to?


1.21 of them, at 88 mph.

Suffice to say, I don't really deal with elecrtical measurements much (read: at all), outside of knowing that I have 120V outlets in my house, I need certain amperages when I change my fuses, and that the smoke detectors take 9V batteries. Is there even an English system for measuring this stuff? I only did so in physics class; suffice to say that metric was the only system allowed.


Thank you for bringing this up. because it's always bothered me as well, I'm used to dealing with this because we see notations from the folks in the German offices often enough. but it's still seriously annoying, I personally take it as proof that Europeans have a bit of trouble with the whole logical notation thing. myself, ;)

Apart from the spaces around the full stop (I'd write "1 742 894 274.087"), this is the SI style for English (the French version has a comma instead of the full stop, naturally). I agree that this is probably the least confusing notation for international use. I also prefer ISO 8601 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) form for dates and times (separated if I have both), slightly modified to make the time zone more obvious: "2009-08-19 13:43 UTC" or, to give examples for specific time zones, "2009-08-19 16:43 Eastern European Summer Time (UTC+3)" or "2009-08-19 16:43 Helsinki time" if my audience is mostly in a specific area. The ISO notation conveniently avoids the "month or day first" problems of the typical Western notations.

Getting back to comparing anecdotes, Celsius is clearly much more useful: if you have a minus sign in the temperature, there will be ice (pretty soon, if not already). If not, there won't be ice. This is critical for driving in the Finnish winter. 100 °C is also a convenient limit; since water boils at that temperature until normal conditions, you know your sauna is too hot at that point. ;)

The speed of light = 1.8026175 × 10¹² furlongs per fortnight. Just thought you'd all like to know.

You learn something new every Evolution of math in the USA post.

I find it helpful to remember that a foot is almost 1.017 light-nanoseconds (or 304.8 mm). In other words, if you forget what a foot looks like, just imagine a beam of light travelling for a nanosecond (in a vacuum).

All well here, nice & easy.

But what does a cubic foot look like? I bet having a cubic foot doesn't feel too good.

Another great fact lol.

You'll have to blame my university for that I'm afraid. We were taught at school to use the comma, and even though I strayed away from it during my Uni years (mostly due to applications like Matlab really disliking commas in the wrong spots) I had to return to it for my Masters. Nothing puts the comma back in you like having to correct 30+ pages because you used a separator your professor doesn't like.


This might just be me being a weak Northener, but 30 C is pretty damned hot already. It's what you're used to I guess. I think it's handy when every 10 degrees denotes a major difference. -30 is deadly cold, -20 is really cold, -10 is cold, 0 is sucky, 10 is chilly, 20 is warm, 30 is hot and so on.


IIRC, back when I lived in Ireland they had speedometers that showed both kpm and mph. Dunno how that works for modern digital displays though.


I think you may be thinking about it in the wrong way. Or maybe I misunderstood you. But I don't do conversions all the time. Look at your system. when you buy a gallon of ice cream, you don't have to convert that to quarts or ounces before you know how much it is, do you? having a 4 cl measurement is handy if you want to figure out how many drinks you get out of a litre bottle, but I don't stop and look at my measuring cup every time and go "hmm yes, that is indeed 0.4 dl or 0.04 l. Just like you know the size of an ounce, a quart and a gallon, I know the size of a cl, dl and l. And I know an ml is pretty small.


Yeah, we have those as well. it usually says how many ml it is on the measuring cup as well, but those are random values that I'm not good at remembering.


But isn't that what you'd have to do any way? You stack up 6 feet and then 7 inches. How is that different from stacking up 2 metres and then 7,8 decimetres? Ys, I know there's a comma (sorry Death) in the dm there, but isn't the principle exactly the same? And if you were buying timber, wouldn't you be doing the same thing?


Actually, I misunderstood you. since I was talking about houses, I assumed your question was about that. As such, I apologize and I'll try to not tangle myeslf into a argument on how your 50 year old houses are all inch perfect. Interesting about the 1/8 inch, doesn't it being a common division indicate that the inch is a bit too big? Your question actually makes much more sense when pertaining to buildings than as a general "How exact do you need to be?". I mean, how exact when? When I cut the grass then a few mm here or there aren't going to matter. But when I trim my hair down to 6mm, a few extra mm's is going to make me look bald. Likewise, when I measure water for baking bread then dl is perfectly fine, but if I'm putting chili powder in something I prefer to be more exact. So your question seems pretty pointless unless you direct it at a specific situation, in which case there si always a counter argument to e made...


Like I said, excepting the Swedish mile they're hardly ever used. and again, i think you're overplaying the conversion part. I don't actually sit down and count out how many meters there are in a km, or how many km's in a mile. It's an automatic unconscious thing. Much like turning 12 inches into a foot I suspect is for you.


Other than the BTU, I haven't encountered any. Thankfully.


I think you should take it as more of an indication that people form larger countries will usually stubbornly stick to their own systems, no matter how inferior or annoying they are. I suppose it's part of the arrogance that comes with having once been (or still being) a world power.  ;)

By "quite warm" I really meant uncomfortably so, though you aren't dying like you would be at 40.

Personally, it sort of bothers me that 1 degree indicates a fairly significant change. It brings in too much precision for something so mundane. On the F scale, you can guesstimate temperatures to the nearest 5 degrees or so and it doesn't matter much (unless you're edging down toward 32, and it's the difference between rain and snow). With C, you really do have to be pretty exact, because 5 degrees is a lot of difference (or at least a noticeable one).


I've seen a few cars with both, but many American cars only measure in mph. Suffice to say, this includes any car with a digital display, unless you can change it between the 2 scales, which is fairly rare. It lends another level of complexity to the idea of converting the system; would drivers need to learn to convert speeds in their heads if they can't afford or don't want a new car? To say nothing of the fact that all police departments would need to get new radar guns; that's a lot of our local tax dollars down the toilet, just so they can do a better job writing more tickets for us.


Well, when I have a bottle of soda and an 8 oz. glass, I suppose it might be useful to know how many times I can get a drink before I have to run to the supermarket again. Of course, since a quart and a liter are quite close, it makes things easier. But then again, I'm not one of those people that obsesses over nutrition labels and serving sizes; there's a group that would be driven completely bonkers (well, moreso than they are already, anyway) by having to convert all of their scales and measuring cups to a new set of units.


That's the point. The foot is a much more useful measurement than inches for that distance. I would express it as 6'7", not as 79". However, that's exactly how metric height / length is measured in my experience (at least for fairly practical distances, not long ones): you don't say 2.78 meters (which is already a bit confusingly precise for the height of our hypothetical basketball player, presumably), or 2 meters and 7.8 decimeters, you say 278 cm. Not only is that level of precision not really necessary for measuring someone's height, it's also a bit abstract until you do some math to convert it, or stack an obscene amount of tiny units on top of one another.


For building, sure. That is one application where you need precision to a greater degree. For other stuff? Not really.


Wait, you actually measure the length of your hair? I just tell the lady that does mine to cut it a bit shorter, but not a buzzcut. Maybe that's why you folks need so much precision. :P


I rather like spicy food, so being exact with chili powder is not too much of an issue with me (to an extent, of course; no need to dump out the whole bottle).

Of course there is a counter argument. As I said before, this is a pretty silly devil's advocate discussion we're having here to begin with.


Well, sure, as long as you know what they're all called. I expect most people are familiar with milli-, centi-, and kilo- here in the US. The computer literate are certainly familiar with mega-, giga-, and tera- by now. More sciencey types are sure to know micro-, nano-, and possibly pico-, and generally deci-, deka-, and hecta- are mentioned in school, at least in passing. Other measurements are much more obscure; I happen to know femto- offhand, but I'm weird like that. All the others are a mystery to me, and I would certainly have to look them up if I saw it printed on something.

Also, it's somewhat ironic that you use an English unit to describe one of the more obscure metric ones. Perhaps you're not as free of the system as you'd like to believe. ;)


Not sure what that has to do with improper use of punctuation in math. but hey, :P

I thought you liked rough units like inches? I really can't see how this is any different...


So the unit is too imprecise because *five* degrees make a noticeable difference? Not a very convincing argument there... :P

Not that I'm arguing for the metric system here. I'm just trying to build on my point: both systems are convenient for day-to-say stuff when you're used to them. You both just argue for what you're used to. It's sort of like arguing what music sounds better.

The only real problem is that having two systems makes things unnecessarily complicated in our "globalized" world, because having to deal with a foreign system is confusing. This is the point behind making a global standard, and they probably chose metric because of its usefulness in engineering and science.

I'm surprised that a lot of digital equipment does not provide for easy change of units, but that does seem to be the case. There aren't that many different speed limits in use, though, so you can easily memorise the most common cases. In the short term, changing the US to metric would lead to a lot of extra mental arithmetic for most citizens (or increased use of pocket calculators).

Note that, right now, US drivers are in the same situation as soon as they cross the border to Canada or Mexico. Just think of US metrication as becoming Lower Saskatchewan or Greater New Mexico. :D

Your hypothetical basketball player should contact the Guinness world record guys. However, you do make an interesting point. A user of metric is probably less likely to think in terms of units stacked on top of each other; it's more a question of knowing from experience that someone that's 2 metres is likely to play basketball while 155-185 cm is normal. Traditional units tend to encourage this sort of intuitive comparison of similarly sized units at the expense of generality and easy comparison between differently sized units. I suspect that part of the reason why each side thinks the other is being silly is that each one expects a measurement system to have the features they usually make use of. I see the attraction of measuring length in terms of things like the width of a thumb, the length of a foot and the length of a pace (note that the metre and yard are both pretty close to this). However, the English mile is kind of arbitrary; the Scandinavian ones are roughly the distance you can walk before taking a break.

I'm with Draxas on this one.

If you're referring to his use of the word "mile", that's because many European cultures have had a measure of travelling distance called something like a "mile" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile#Other_miles), going back to the Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile#Roman_mile). One of the justifications for metric units is that there are too many different miles, feet and so on. After all, an American on land doesn't use the same miles as one at sea. ;)

Exactly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#The_metric.2Fimperial_mix-up) :-X

While I'm used to the English system, I would be all for a change in standard to the metric system. Draxas, the only reason you prefer the Engliish system is because you're so used to it. You would get used to the Metric system after a few years too, and then you would wonder why you thought the English system had any use at all.

To prevent confusion to drivers with a mph speedometer, signs could still state the mph as well as the kph. Change to the metric system would have to be a gradual change rather than a sudden change, because the U.S. is such a huge country. But eventually, the change would be successful and the English system would finally be gone, making things much easier.

Wait, what? I don't think I see your point on this. Measuring someone to be 6'7'' has the precision of measurement in inches, and 278 cm has the precision of centimeters, which really isn't a big difference. I wouldn't go as far to say that the difference between centimeters and inches is too precise for a height measurement, in fact if I was used to it I'd prefer centimeters.
And why don't people use 2.78 meters?

It seems like what you mean is that the foot is an easier reference for measuring something like someone's height, whereas the meter must actually be broken into centimeters on the spot, making it slightly more confusing. I think this may seem true to both of us US guys, but I'm sure when someone who's used to metric sees 2.78 m or 278 cm, they don't think about each individual centimeter and instead divide up the measurement from another reference, like "I know how tall 25 centimeters is, so just stack 11 of those. "  Sure, that's inconvenient for us because we think they're converting to decimeters or something, but we're just talking the ease of on the spot measurement, which to them would probably be easy.

And this is a nice topic, but what's the objective here? Do the metric users want Americans to switch? Why? It's been working fine for America. All international science is done in metric, what's the difference?

Of course! Resistance is futile!

Like was pointed out,how is it that when it comes to length measurement there's no need to be too precise, but temperature needs to pretty exact? Anyhow, most modern digital thermometers give the temperature with one decimal point, i.e 16,7 C or so. Hopefully that might satisfy your craving for exactness on this one point.

Regarding speeds, I'm sure you're right. After all, the Irish and English are much closer to the metric system countries, it makes sense for them to have it. I'd think stuff like that would be pretty common at the Canadian border as well, but perhaps not? And as I've said earlier, I do agree that changing your system would be insanely expensive. I just think it's worth the price since I won't be paying for it ;)


I'm afraid you lost me. I was trying to bring across that I know the rough sizes of our measurements just as well as you know the rough size of yours, but that I have the added bonus of being able to calculate more easily. I was just trying to make the point that the metric measurements don't mean that you have to perform conversions all the time any more than the English units do. You don't visualize a gallon as whatever amount of ounces and then add them together, nor do you have to sit down and calculate how many pints there are in one every time you need an ounce.. Likewise, I don't visualise a dl as 0, 1 litre, 10 cl or 100 ml, and I don't actually have to convert it to know how much it is.


We're still talking past each other. I'm referring to the example with planks in the timber yard, not the length of a person you keep returning to. ever since you asked me about why we need more exact measurements, I've been trying to give examples (houses, timber, hair and so forth). When you reply and quote those examples, I simply assume that we're still talking about that subject and haven't returned back to the original length of a person, which I thought we had dropped some time back. That's also why the length was over two metres, I was talking about timber. The example I wrote involved figuring out how many planks of a certain meter length we need and my reply was to that, how you'd have to stack your units up the exact same way if you were doing it in English units, only to then divide them again to get a measurement that can be easily comprehended. Sorry if I've been unclear. Of course you don't have to stack a persons length the same way since you don't need to figure out how many persons of a certain type you need to make a wall unless you're a very special person.


In Europe we have this amazing thing called a hair trimmer. They can be set to cut at different heights, depending on what length you want on your hair. It's a lot cheaper and more efficient than going to the barber. If my alternatives were -2 inches-1inch-bald then I'd be pretty annoyed. On my cutter the shortest length is 3 mm, and from there on up you have 3 mm intervals. Inches for intervals would suck. On the other hand, our lawn movers can't be set to mm standards. those examples were provided because I thought your question "How exact do you need length to be" to be silly, since it can have so many different applications. but I guess you missed that. I still think that question is silly, but since you've moved on to nitpicking examples instead of addressing it I guess we might as well drop it.


Yes, but what you don't seem to get is that this isn't an argument over superiority. We're not having a "devils advocate" discussion here. I'm not saying "Look at all the uses metric has, it is superior to your archaic system" and expecting you to throw out witty comebacks.. I'm simply trying to show how metric is used in everyday life, since you seem to believe that metric users only us ml and l, metres and kilometres. I don't really care if you never use small measurements because you're the toughest salsa eater of all time and can afford saffron by the boatload. I'm simply trying to illustrate that it's not as simple as "Metric is only useful for really big or really small things!" You on the other hand, seem determined to quip every example I give rather than taking to heart that there are actually metric units that can be used in every day situations, rather than just "really big and really small".


Well add the deci, and that's what we mostly use in metric system for everyday things. Nothing strange and magical about it, and you're familiar with all but one of them.


To be honest, apart from the deci- (and sometimes the hecto-) those aren't used in everyday life. You don't need to know them any more than you need to know how many furlongs there is in whatever furlongs are used with. They're there if you need them, but they aren't everyday units. I don't get your reasoning either. First you think that we only use the extreme ends oft he scale, i.e millilitres and litres. But now the scale is suddenly too complex because you think we use every prefix somewhere and you'd have to know them all. Make up your mind already. the truth lies in between the two extremes you're pushing for.


Um, yeah. The Scandinavian Mile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_mile) must be connected to the English mile, it surely can't be a remnant of the old Swedish and Norwegian systems, wherein you'd have a Swedish foot, a Norwegian foot and so on. Because before metric, naturally we all used English units. It's not like the metric system arose because every nation have their own version of inches and feet and we needed to get a standardized measurement... This is an interesting comment though, and says a lot about the danger of making assumptions. for what, like the third time in this thread? ml and l, everyone using pints, mile being only an English thing. Maybe you should stop and think a bit about this?



About the same that it has to do with the use of archaic conventions I suppose ;)

Also, in regards to how you pronounce lengths, you might all want to note that this is connected to the language. In English I say that I'm 178 cm, because that seems to be the way the English use their system. in Finnish or Swedish, you can just as well use 1,78 m. I suspect this is due to the fact that most English people are still using their own units, they haven't figured out how to do things in an easy way in metric. I wonder how much of the confusion regarding metrics arises from stuff like that. What about the Candaians, do they say 178 or 1,78?


I can't speak for anyone else, but my objective is mostly to point out to people who use the English system that this:


is ignorant and wrong. I'm just giving examples on how metrics is used, in case there are more people out there who think we have like two units and are always stuck with dozens of zeroes or really small fractions in everyday life. Draxas on the other hand, is arguing my examples as unnecessary for some reason.  :)

I use 1.81 m for height. I also use 3.86 m for car length.


My objective is to stop a pointless argument. ;D But yes, as I said (twice?), it would make things easier if there was just one system in use. Wikipedia keeps confusing me with feet, miles and pounds, for example.

This is a bit random, but...

What is the difference between a metric ton and a ton?

From Wikipedia :
"In the U.S. an unqualified mention of a "ton" almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907.1847 kg)."

And thanks for making me read it - interesting article .

-16.0469088 kg in the UK and 92.81526 kg in the US.

That's sort of the point; it's so precise that the decimal becomes significant. Granted, yes, modern digital thermometers can handle that now. But let's be honest here: I'd hate to have to consider that a difference of 2 degrees is whether or not I need a coat that morning, and which one I actually need. That's a "pain in the ass" level of precision.


And I am, which is why I keep trying to futilely argue the point. ;)

Of course, it's not like we're actually GOING to change or anything.


I suppose. I assumed we were past using building materials as examples, since I agreed that they required a greater degree of precision in order to get things to work out right and not have bugs and drafts in your house.

As for lumber, as far as I'm aware, typically they're cut to whole feet or half feet, and cutting them down to the size you need is your own responsibility once you've got them back to your workbench... Which pretty much brings this full circle back to a few pages ago. Of course, if you need a pair of 3'8" baords, and the lumber yard is selling 6 foot and 8 foot boards, you would be smart to get the eights.

I'm still missing the mark on this point, aren't I. *sigh*


Ah. See, I have really thick hair. It jams the average trimmer pretty easily, and the professional-grade ones are pretty expensive. Plus I'm completely clueless when it comes to actually styling my hair. So yeah, I get someone else to cut it for me.

And here's a funny coincidence: your 3mm gradations correspond almost exactly to 1/8 of an inch. Somehow I think you can guess what the gradations are on the US models. ;)


Of course I'm quipping you. I wouldn't be doing my job otherwise, seeing as how I acknowledged the superiority of the metric system ages ago. And honestly, I do prefer English for everyday use, though as has been pointed out countless times already, it's because I've been using the system for my whole life and am used to it. To be entirely truthful, I couldn't care less if everything else in this country converted to metric, as long as I can still check my speed in mph and get the weather forecast in Fahrenheit. I'll even get used to measuring my height in millimeters if that's what it takes. :P


But that's the thing. You've already mentioned that everything from milli- right on up to 10K (which I've already forgotten the prefix for) is used somehow in everyday things (except deka-, I guess). You trim your hair in millimeters, drink centi- and deciliters, buy your deli meats in hectograms, and drive Sweedish miles. Granted, we also have a long of crazy measurements, but we really do only stick to a few for everyday use.


What can I say, I've made an ass out of u and me (mostly me, as usual). I apologize for not being learned on all of the different European measurement systems that predated the universal use of metric. Honestly, if there really was that much variation between every country and its neighbors, then everyone converting to metric makes metric tons of sense. But the US is relatively isolated, at least geographically, which I guess is why we never felt as great a need.


Touche. sir,


Well, mostly because this thread is silly and I want to keep it going. Also because I hate Celsius and kph. Other than that, no reason. ;)

While this is of course pure opinion, I don't quite get this. I'd say that anywhere between 16 and 19 is a grey area, where you might need a coat and might not, depending on whether it's sunny, humid, windy and so forth. Just going by temperature is likely to trick you in our climate, but maybe yours is different. In fact, when we approximate temperature in Finland as "it's about 16-17" rather than going "it's probably 15.7". apparently we move at a broader spectrum than you. Funny considering our units are otherwise more precise.

Anyhow, one more thing on temperature and then I'm done. I can understand that we're used to different things, and you think centimetres are too small and centigrades are too big. The units we have mold the way we think, so I'm down with that. What I don't get, is how you can then calmly accept that inches may sometimes need to get trimmed down to 0.125 in. but really dislike the idea of 1/10th of a degree Celsius. Isn't that exactly the same thing? Or am I missing something?


Fair enough, things do get convoluted at times.


That's actually pretty interesting. I don't know squat about lumber yards in the US. To be honest I've forgotten the point by now, but I think it was about ease of multiplication.


This is the second most interesting thing to come out of this thread. Are you telling me, that if you use a scissor to get your hair as short as you can, a trimmer still sticks in it when you try to even it out? I would like some photos of this. ;)


See, this is where the thread shines. My current trimmer goes from 3 mm upwards with a mm in between. But most models I see have a step rate of 3 mm. I've always wondered about that, and now I know why. Thanks for that.


I'm perfectly fine with you liking the system you've grown up in. It's only natural. My interest here isn't to show you how superior metric is in every fashion (which it isn't always anyhow). It's just to make sure that next time, you won't make a fool out of yourself by pretending to know the everyday workings of a system just because you've used it in a lab.


I googled the Swedish mile and found out what it was called. I've never heard of that before, because I don't need it. It's enough that someone tells me that it's 10 km. And by menioning the more obscure units I may have confused you a bit I'm afraid. The commonly used units in length are milli-, centi- meter and kilometer. Hectometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare) is only used for area. Swedish Mile is only used in Scandinavia, or at least the western parts. When it comes to drinks it's centi-, deci and liter. Millilitre is more of a lab thing, or maybe spices. When we're talking about weight, it's grams and kilograms. The hectogram is used in old deli scales, but those are very uncommon. Digital ones just show grams and kilos.

Something worth remembering is that we used to have lots of different units in the different countries. Metric allows everyone to find a close fit, the Swedes with their Mile and others with other measures. I don't know why a alcohol measure is 4 cl, but I'm guessing there used to be an older measure of roughly the same size. I do know why pints are either 0.4, 0,5 or 0.6, they are remnants of old pint sizes. Even though we don't use most of the scale, it's still there, ready in case we ever find something we need it for. 50 years ago Mega and Giga were pretty useless units in the common language. Who knows what we'll need in another 50 years?


To be honest, this thread has been pretty interesting to watch just for these small things. While I know you're a bright guy, you've pretty much managed to fit the stereotypical American role here, arrogantly telling people that you know how their system works and that it's inferior when you don't have a clue and assuming that your own units (pints and miles) span the entire civilized world and mean the same everywhere. What did you think, that we all used the English system before metric and then just decided to mess with the brits? It might be worth mentioning here that I lived for a year in a country with English units when I was younger. I still don't know every unit in your system and while I think Iunderstand it fairly well, I don't make myself out to be an expert. A year in a foreign country isn't enough to learn everything there is to it. Consider that the next time you think your lab experience makes you qualified to give opinions on how people in other parts of the world surely must be living.

Actually, that sound a bit harsh. It's not meant to be, but I think you might want to think about it. Have a hug from the Carebear squad while I'm at it.  :)


What is your opinion on mpg versus l/km?

Because the practical applications of 1/8 of an inch are few and far between. On the other hand, everyone wants to know how cold it is outside, every day. If I needed 1/8 inch precision in measuring length every single day, I'd probably not be happy with that system either. But most of the time, whole units suffice just fine.


I don't exactly claim to be an expert carpenter or anything, but that's my experience anyway. It makes sense; why bother with fractional sizes if you're not cutting boards to order anyway?


My hair is a thing to be feared. I just had it cut fairly recently, but it's truly great and terrible when it gets long. It doesn't grow down as much as out, and gets huge and poofy if left to its own devices. It's also REALLY thick; my hairdresser says she has never seen anything like it before. Of course, that was before she met my grandmother, who is the source of that trait.

And yeah, if I try to shorten my own hair, I butcher it. That's at least partly because it gets so unruly so quickly.

Maybe I'll send you a pic when I'm ready for another hair appointment.


Oh, I'm sure I can find plenty of other ways to make a fool out of myself.

Well, now you've piqued my interest. In what ways is metric not superior?


Well I suppose my arrogant yankee gringo gaijin self deserved that.

To be honest, between all the wars and inbreeding of royal families, yeah, I kind of did think the English system was pretty universal. You learn something new every day.

And I graciously accept your Carebear Squad hug. But if they stare at me, I'm going to kill them all.


*Seethes quietly*

Fair enough, that makes sense.


I'm eagerly waiting ;)


To be clear, I think metric is better in that it allows for easier conversion and easier scaling. I don't think the metric units are inherently superior in themselves in any way. Like I said, I've lived with inches and miles and whatnot. It didn't make my life horribly complicated and frustrating except when I tried to scale or convert something.


European kings and lords were stubborn mules. If one of them declared that the sky was blue, the others would probably declare it to be an other colour just out of spite.


This is one of those instances where I don't think either is so much better. One needs to be high, to show how many miles you can go. the other needs to be low, to show how little gas you need to travel. But i think it's remarkable that we ended up at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum there.

This from Lukipela caught my eye.


Then further down we get:


and


I just gotta laugh...And euro's say we're arrogant?

BTW exactly how is metric more precise? You can carry out fractions in both systems indefinately.

Well, if you bother to read through the thread and the discussion, you'll find that a recurring theme is that Draxas thinks our units are unnecessarily precise. The cm is more precise than the inch, the litre is more precise than the gallon, kilometre is more precise than mile and so on. But a degree Celcius is actually less accurate than a degree Farenheit. And that is pretty funny.



Well, I don't think you're arrogant but I do think you're confusing. You've quoted two lines of me clarifying that I think ease of scaling and conversion is better in the metric system, but that I don't think that the units are necessarily better. Why is that laughably arrogant? I'd understand if you'd quoted me saying your units suck and ours are superior in every fashion. But maybe in 'merica it's arrogant to politely explain what one sees as the key difference between two systems and what one doesn't think are big differences?


Read the thread, then hopefully comprehend that me and Draxas having been talking abut the size of the base units and not fractions. Of course if you add ten decimal points to a unit you can make it super precise But Draxas has been specifically pointing out that he doesn't want to add decimal points to commonly used units for temperature and that metric units for length and so on are more precise than they need to be for every day use.

For some reason, we use km/l here in Israel. So it's like a direct metric equivalent of mpg. It's quite confusing when most of the world does l/km. But in a few years we'll probably all be looking at car battery time anyway.

I've never seen l/km anywhere, and km/l and its non-SI equivalent a lot of places.

Interesting you guys should mention that. I misinterpreted Luki as having typed km/l, which I thought was a direct conversion of mpg, hence the sarcastic response. l/km is also something I've never seen before, and honestly makes little sense to me. Do you even wind up with whole numbers with that measurement, or is this just another example of how Europeans love their numbers after decimal places (commas)? ;)

That's pretty interesting. I had no idea there was an actual km/l measurement as well. To be exact, we measure it in 1 liter per 100 km (http://www.convertworld.com/sv/bransleforbrukning/Liter+per+100+km.html), so you get something like 5 l (per 100 km,, but that isn't often written out). Here's a link to examples (http://pbjots.blogspot.com/2008/07/mpg-to-litres-per-100-km.html). I'll freely admit that this is kind of a weird measurement, and if there is an actual km/l in use as well, I think I'll have to start a campaign for that. Maybe it's only a Scandinavian thing? not owning a car I don't know. But two SI units are really one too much.

Man I like this thread. I'm learning a lot!

Ok fair enough, perhaps I mistook some of your statements. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by "I don't think the metric units are inherently superior in themselves in any way."

The "within themseleves" makes no sense to me. What are you referring to exactly?

To me you've already made it clear you felt metric was superior (which I agree by the way and for the same reasons) But the to "make things clear "statement seems an empathetic gesture to Draxas at best.

To me this is like the racist/phobic guy at work who talks about an ethnic/social minority and adds the obligatory "not that I have anything against (blank)". Likewise you seem to be saying not that I have anything against the english system.

I dunno, that is how it honestly struck me and I meant no disrespect or offense.

I'm just glad we use dimensionless parameters to describe the geometry of the universe . . .

Why dimentionless ? We use Parsecs and light years .

Parsecs and light-years are units of distance, they don't describe the geometry of space. There is a curvature constant, which I believe is unit-less, that describes the curvature of space in the universe, but I don't know if that's what Zeracles means.

Personally, I prefer h^-1 megaparsecs 8)

Close. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9905116v4)

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/converting_to_metric.png)

:D !!

I was under the impression it was pretty standard in Europe. Someone (i.e. Luki) ought to research this.

Hey, don't worry. I suppose I may not have been clear enough, so I'll try to straighten it out. To begin with, I do believe that the metric system, or what I'd call "metric" for short, is better than the English one. This for the simple reason that conversions, scaling and arithmetic is easier in a base 10 system than in a base 12 one. I don't think that base 12 is horrifyingly difficult and I didn't have any trouble (well, much trouble anyhow) using it when I lived in Ireland. But I do think that as a system, it isn't as good as metric. So you've gotten me that far.

On the other hand, I don't think that the metric units in themselves are somehow superior to the English units. This is what maybe wasn't as clear. I don't think that a kilometre is a super logical and superior measurement to a mile. As Draxas and others have brought forth through the thread, your perception of unit usefulness depends on where you've grown up. I think it's handy to have the centimetre, which is smaller than the inch. Draxas thinks it is too small and precise to be very useful. We're both right, because we're both used to our own unit.

So what I'm saying this, the metric system is better, because it connects the units in a more straightforward way. It's more usable. But the metric units aren't necessarily superior, as they depend on what you're used to. The size of a degree Celcius isn't more logical than the size of a degree Farenheit, mpg isn't a worse measurement than l/100 km and so forth.

Does that clear things up?

Pointless info - kelvin and celcius degree size is the same one . K=C+272 .

Whoops, I meant Farenheit of course. I'll edit that.

..and that is what brought (in hind sight) my knit-picky post on a beer fuled whim. I could have been a little more concise .

Anyway, could anyone really think that a kilometre is a super logical and superior measurement to a mile without considering the very things you say are superior? There are no grounds to base it on. It seems to me that we can only base a measurement system's worth by things like practicality, ease of conversion, scalability, the very things you (and I agree) claim make metric superior. Once you take those things away, what is left to compare the two units of measure?

Is the word "Inch" superior to "centimeter" because it uses less letters? Anyway ,that was my silly point.


Completely agree. I'm so used to feet, inches and fractions of an inch I can guess lengths to within an inch on a fairly regular basis.


Yes, and thanx for the response. I agree that the metric system is better and it's ok to say Metric is superior period, because it is. That's why the world is adopting it and if I remember incorrectly, even the ancient egyptians used it to build the payramids! ;)

Oh yes. Every subject has its own fanatics. That's why I wanted to point out that I'm not a gung-ho metric extremist.

So I take it you won't make it to the international, metric world domination rally in Madrid this year? I understand that this year Bjork is to be a headliner . ;)

Right on man, you can't be too careful with political correctness in this day and age. :)

I don't have any arguments to add to the discussion, but I just want to pop in an saying that I feel tremendously sorry for anyone who doesn't use the metric system in daily life.

Here are some flowers to cheer you up.
(http://www.sendflowerindia.com/Images/bouquet_07.jpg)

For those who might possibly care, it turns out that the Swedes do use hectograms. A lot. Dunno why really. But since I know they are 100 grammes or 0,1 kg it's still pretty easy to follow.

What's worse is that they seem to use only Swedish miles, no kilometres. Stupid failed empire.

Luckily, this is mostly unofficial; road signs and such are in km. Amusingly, the Swedish mile was 10 688 m until 1889, when the Metric system was introduced and the mile redefined as 10 km.

Perhaps US resistance to the metric system would be less if they could use Metric equivalents of familiar units, such as a "Metric mile" of 1.5 km and a "Metric foot" of 0.3 m (giving 1 "mile" = 5000 "feet").

Just multiply by 8 and divide by 5, isn't that easy enough for the US kids?

Wow, Swedish miles are long.

Most U.S. kids can't even find Mexico on the map let alone posses the attention span required to solve a "complex mathematical equation" such as that. Blatant facetiousness aside, give them an algebraic equation such as 8 + 8 / 4 * x = 10 and ask them to solve for x and their head would probably explode.

yeah, but unofficially entrenched. I've yet to hear a Swedish person say that something is xx km away, they all just use miles. And it affects their thinking too, they don't even seem to use signposts for distances under 20 miles or whatever. Kind of weird fro someone who is used to seeing 30 km signposts.

20 miles meaning 200km? That's really far to go without any directional cues.

Yup. when I aksed them they just said that kilometres seem unnecessarily small. I guess your units really do mold the way you think.

Well, actually, the English system (or rather, the Imperial system) did achieve some measure of universality, due to the British Empire. But not as universal as the metric system. And America does not use the Imperial system – its weights are different, due to not having the stone, and its gallons are different. (Incidentally, the stone is the source of the long ton.)

Surely there was supposed to be a decimal point there?

Nope, in modern terms the old Swedish mile was about 10½ kilometres. So they rounded it down to ten.

...Oh, actually I see what you did there. You gave the old version in metres, but the new version in kilometres. Trying to confuse me, eh? :P