4 ms·

I think this is a great example of how specialised numbering / counting can have advantages, in specific domains. Most imperial vs metric arguments tend to deg

I think this is a great example of how specialised numbering / counting can have advantages, in specific domains. Most imperial vs metric arguments tend to degrade into "my <slightly contrived> use case works for my number system, but not yours!", or the more nuanced "the number of use cases where my system works well is higher than yours". While I do fall on the metric side of the argument even for most of these, I think a more reasonable way to approach it is that by standardising, we lose some domain specific tricks and perhaps take on a tiny bit more complexity, in order to have a more consistent and unified system, overall.

dalbasal 6y ago
Agreed, but I think we should also pay attention to reasons which have nothing to do with practicalities... however they are represented. In the medieval world of that novel, people didn't count much. Most people didn't use money much, and everyday language didn't place much demand on counting systems. The domains where numbering systems were used beyond simple basics were pretty isolated. Shepards count sheep. It's probably the only thing they ever count past 10, so a counting system for sheep is what evolved. They didn't interface with warlords counting troops, so there was no reason for these numbering systems to converge. It seems obvious to us that counting systems should be universal, but standards don't tend to appear in advance. They appear when needed.
- kazen44 6y ago
  this is also the reason why it took until the industrial revolution for a wider used system to develop. Even before metric became standard, a lot of local measurements existed inside countries. mass manufacturing required a system which would work outside the local sphere.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    Good point. I think this story also interweaves practical and cultural elements. The industrial revolution changed how measurement systems were used. It became important that a 13mm fitting measured in Paris was 13mm in Milan. Also, that age had novelty everywhere. Cobblers & weavers were separate worlds in medieval times. It didn't matter if they used different units of measurement. Novel industrialism required it. On the cultural side, there was the French revolution. They wanted to throw out everything old and irrational. Old measurement units got the same guillotine treatment as old rulers. Tradition must die. This was the political and cultural environment that yielded the metric system. The political element also explains why the British Empire didn't adopt it. The BE also needed rational units, ultimately. But, instead of adopting the radically rational metric system... they tweaked their medieval system into standard "imperial units." Why? First, they weren't going to adopt their enemy's stupid system. Second, their philosophy was conservative. Tradition must live. It's interesting how the ideals of the era (republican vs parliamentary monarchy) were mirrored in these decisions.

dalbasal 6y ago

Agreed, but I think we should also pay attention to reasons which have nothing to do with practicalities... however they are represented. In the medieval world of that novel, people didn't count much. Most people didn't use money much, and everyday language didn't place much demand on counting systems. The domains where numbering systems were used beyond simple basics were pretty isolated. Shepards count sheep. It's probably the only thing they ever count past 10, so a counting system for sheep is what evolved. They didn't interface with warlords counting troops, so there was no reason for these numbering systems to converge. It seems obvious to us that counting systems should be universal, but standards don't tend to appear in advance. They appear when needed.

kazen44 6y ago
this is also the reason why it took until the industrial revolution for a wider used system to develop. Even before metric became standard, a lot of local measurements existed inside countries. mass manufacturing required a system which would work outside the local sphere.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Good point. I think this story also interweaves practical and cultural elements. The industrial revolution changed how measurement systems were used. It became important that a 13mm fitting measured in Paris was 13mm in Milan. Also, that age had novelty everywhere. Cobblers & weavers were separate worlds in medieval times. It didn't matter if they used different units of measurement. Novel industrialism required it. On the cultural side, there was the French revolution. They wanted to throw out everything old and irrational. Old measurement units got the same guillotine treatment as old rulers. Tradition must die. This was the political and cultural environment that yielded the metric system. The political element also explains why the British Empire didn't adopt it. The BE also needed rational units, ultimately. But, instead of adopting the radically rational metric system... they tweaked their medieval system into standard "imperial units." Why? First, they weren't going to adopt their enemy's stupid system. Second, their philosophy was conservative. Tradition must live. It's interesting how the ideals of the era (republican vs parliamentary monarchy) were mirrored in these decisions.