3 ms·

> In any case, you aren't going to give them 1 km x 333.33 m unless the law of your state really stangely provides a maximum precision of 10 cm. Nit: That's 1c

by gwd 6y ago

> In any case, you aren't going to give them 1 km x 333.33 m unless the law of your state really stangely provides a maximum precision of 10 cm. Nit: That's 1cm precision, which I chose because that's about where it should be clear to everyone that it really doesn't matter. A slightly unreasonable person might be miffed about 1m; a very unreasonable person might be miffed about 10cm; but if you're miffed about your older brother getting 1cm more than you, I think you're going into mental illness territory.

Symbiote 6y ago
Therefore your example doesn't support your argument. A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties involved. You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the metric system. You have the same assumption implicit in your square mile of land, as you assume everyone is satisfied with measuring to the nearest inch (or half-foot, or whatever is realistic with the measuring device).
- gwd 6y ago
  > You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the metric system. ...except that nobody does. And that would pretty much void the entire point of the metric system, which is to "make the math easier" by making everything a power of 10. > A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Sure, you can, but it's less satisfying. Remember how we got here in the discussion: A: "Miles are easier because you can divide by 3 evenly." B: "How is the math easier? <Does math converting km to cm, miles to inches>" Me: "How often do you convert miles to inches or km to cm, compared to how often do people have to divide distances by 3?" I'm not saying that I think we should all stick with / switch back to using furlongs. On the whole I think having a simple universal system like the metric system is better. But there is a trade-off involved.

by gwd 6y ago

Symbiote 6y ago

Therefore your example doesn't support your argument. A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties involved. You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the metric system. You have the same assumption implicit in your square mile of land, as you assume everyone is satisfied with measuring to the nearest inch (or half-foot, or whatever is realistic with the measuring device).

gwd 6y ago
> You can also write 333⅓m, no-one prevents you from using fractions with the metric system. ...except that nobody does. And that would pretty much void the entire point of the metric system, which is to "make the math easier" by making everything a power of 10. > A division to 333.3+333.3+333.4 works to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Sure, you can, but it's less satisfying. Remember how we got here in the discussion: A: "Miles are easier because you can divide by 3 evenly." B: "How is the math easier? <Does math converting km to cm, miles to inches>" Me: "How often do you convert miles to inches or km to cm, compared to how often do people have to divide distances by 3?" I'm not saying that I think we should all stick with / switch back to using furlongs. On the whole I think having a simple universal system like the metric system is better. But there is a trade-off involved.