|
|
Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))
Bob Casanova (cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com)
Tue, 10 Oct 1995 16:21:30 GMT
In article <DG7G93.By2@midway.uchicago.edu> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>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$b39@shore.shore.net>, Whittet@shore.net (Whittet) writes:
>>In article <AC9D4C3896686435F@cara.demon.co.uk>, peter@cara.demon.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>In article <457e55$7i5@st-james.comp.vuw.ac.nz>,
>>>don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think there are five issues that keep feet & inches alive for "casual"
>>>>measurements:
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>e
>>>> 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,
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
|