Author
|
Topic: Evolution of math in the USA (Read 13545 times)
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 802
|
Pressure measurement would be funny - PSCM ... pounds per square centimeter ...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
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... 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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:
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.]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.
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.
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.
Centilitres aren't very common, but they do have their place. Alcohol 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.
What can I say, five-eleven just rolls off the tongue. One-hundred-sevety-eight-centimeters... not so much.
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.
You also have to realize, that since everything is in English units around here, builders make things like walls accurate to whole inches.
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
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.
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.
Because a combined Metric-English system totally wouldn't drive people crazy, no sir.
Like Novus pointed out, you already have one unless you're using Jiggawatts.
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!).
Thank god the British thermal unit is disappearing as well. That was an annoying unit.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 05:18:17 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Alen
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 30
|
Canada uses building measurements with the English system but for about everything else we use metric.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dabir
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 291
|
Furlongs are used in horse racing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
we needed 12 2,45 meters long planks
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... 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
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.
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. 
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.
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.
Centilitres aren't very common, but they do have their place. Alcohol 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.
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).
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.
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).
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
Oh, snark snark snark.
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.
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.
Snark snark snark. I wasn't referring to building, and I said as much before.
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.
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?
Like Novus pointed out, you already have one unless you're using Jiggawatts.
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.
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.
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,
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alen
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 30
|
You learn something new every Evolution of math in the USA post.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
