Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))

Bob Casanova (
Tue, 10 Oct 1995 16:21:30 GMT

In article <> writes:
>Subject: Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))
>Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 23:36:39 GMT

>In article <45btph$>, (Whittet) writes:
>>In article <>, says...
>>>In article <457e55$>,
>>> (Don Stokes) wrote:
>>>>I think there are five issues that keep feet & inches alive for "casual"
>>>>i. Familiarity (self explanatory)
>>>But short lived. I can't really *think* in feet and stuff any more.
>>>>ii. Divisibility. 10's integer factors are two and five; 12's are two, thre
>>>> four and six, making a halves, quarters, thirds, sixths and twelths of a
>>>> foot easily represented.
>>>Again, metric quarters are easy (two and a half tenths) and so are thirds
>>>(three and a bit tenths).
>>Three and a "bit" tenths? How much is a bit exactly?
>>Twelve is more easily divisable than ten in a practical sense
>>because it has nore factors.

>This is all very nice, but we are using a decimal number system. It
>is possible, plausible indeed, that a duodecimal (base 12) system
>would indeed have been more convenient.

Actually, an octal system would have been nice. Think of the triviality of
converting to or from binary or hex... ;-)

However, that's water under
>the bridge. At the time when positional notation was just getting
>accepted, it was possible to go either way, now it is a bit late for
>this. And, there are obvious advantages to having your number system
>and measuring unit system coincide.

>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> | chances are he is doing just the same"

Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *