4 ms·

Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do. Marking it down to tenths or hundredths is surprisingly hard. Is why I picked that example, a

by taeric 3y ago

Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do. Marking it down to tenths or hundredths is surprisingly hard. Is why I picked that example, and nothing more. That said, arbitrary numbers are arbitrary was ultimately my point. "base 10" is very inconvenient for the old imperial units, so we moved heavily to metric. And that ultimately makes sense, especially with the path dependence on how we got there. Converting between units is something folks don't like doing, so we moved a long way to turning conversions into radix shifts. Even if the old units each had individual advantages at different scales. (Consider, nautical miles are still the de facto unit in shipping, no?) It is beyond amusing how base 10 does not work for computers that well, such that 2k of data is typically not 2000. :D Edit: I am curious on what the argument for 10 is in scientific notation that isn't path dependent on us using decimal? Or are folks just reading a criticism of metric in my post? (Because I can easily throw in more criticisms of imperial, if that helps. :D )

masklinn 3y ago
> Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do. The measuring stick follows the numeral system, not the other way around. And while base 2 has had some historical success, it wasn't much compared to 10, 20, 60, or 12. > Marking it down to tenths or hundredths is surprisingly hard. There's decimal rulers from the indus valley civilisation, it clearly was not sufficiently hard. > Is why I picked that example, and nothing more. From what you're saying you apparently pick that example every time and it goes wrong every time, for completely obvious reasons. Maybe you should consider changing example? > I am curious on what the argument for 10 is in scientific notation that isn't path dependent on us using decimal? Why would there be? We use base 10 numerals, our notation is base 10, therefore a convenient, natural, and uniform system of units would be in base 10. Base 2 is of little help outside of length, and it's hardly critical there either. > Or are folks just reading a criticism of metric in my post? Well yes, 2 out of 3 paragraphs are about imperial and metric and your comment is at best tangential to the one it replies to.
- taeric 3y ago
  I mean... no? The number system we used is clearly path dependent on the ways that we measured things. Moving measured things to a single number is precisely why metric works so well. And is why many people in the world know their height not as a single number, but as a combination of two units. This seems the case for all measurements. Used to, you wouldn't necessarily combine two units that often. Evidence of the indus valley seems an odd choice? The images I'm finding online about them did exactly as I said, subdivide by half until happy with precision. Indeed, their "lower units of measure" were binary?
benj111 3y ago
>Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do Is it? I suppose if that stick is going to be the standard you could get a rope of the same length and fold it in half enough times. Of course you could always make a shorter stick the standard and then find a measuring stick >= 10 times longer and add marks to the longer stick...
- taeric 3y ago
  My assertion is dividing things by 2 several times is not that difficult. Happy to be shown I'm wrong. :D Edit: And yes, multiplying by basically any number is somewhat easier going up. It is specifically the down measuring that is harder to do.

by taeric 3y ago

masklinn 3y ago

> Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do. The measuring stick follows the numeral system, not the other way around. And while base 2 has had some historical success, it wasn't much compared to 10, 20, 60, or 12. > Marking it down to tenths or hundredths is surprisingly hard. There's decimal rulers from the indus valley civilisation, it clearly was not sufficiently hard. > Is why I picked that example, and nothing more. From what you're saying you apparently pick that example every time and it goes wrong every time, for completely obvious reasons. Maybe you should consider changing example? > I am curious on what the argument for 10 is in scientific notation that isn't path dependent on us using decimal? Why would there be? We use base 10 numerals, our notation is base 10, therefore a convenient, natural, and uniform system of units would be in base 10. Base 2 is of little help outside of length, and it's hardly critical there either. > Or are folks just reading a criticism of metric in my post? Well yes, 2 out of 3 paragraphs are about imperial and metric and your comment is at best tangential to the one it replies to.

taeric 3y ago
I mean... no? The number system we used is clearly path dependent on the ways that we measured things. Moving measured things to a single number is precisely why metric works so well. And is why many people in the world know their height not as a single number, but as a combination of two units. This seems the case for all measurements. Used to, you wouldn't necessarily combine two units that often. Evidence of the indus valley seems an odd choice? The images I'm finding online about them did exactly as I said, subdivide by half until happy with precision. Indeed, their "lower units of measure" were binary?

benj111 3y ago

>Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do Is it? I suppose if that stick is going to be the standard you could get a rope of the same length and fold it in half enough times. Of course you could always make a shorter stick the standard and then find a measuring stick >= 10 times longer and add marks to the longer stick...

taeric 3y ago
My assertion is dividing things by 2 several times is not that difficult. Happy to be shown I'm wrong. :D Edit: And yes, multiplying by basically any number is somewhat easier going up. It is specifically the down measuring that is harder to do.