6 ms·

>That pretty much sums up how I view arguments about metric vs. imperial measurement systems. One argument I will make in favor of imperial: feet (when divided

>That pretty much sums up how I view arguments about metric vs. imperial measurement systems. One argument I will make in favor of imperial: feet (when divided into inches) are easy to divide into thirds because it's base 12 instead of base 10. This makes a a lot of things (especially in construction, woodworking, and others) a lot easier. Of course it has a whole boatload of downsides to go along with it, but that's one real and tangible benefit to imperial over metric that I've experienced.

ziml77 3y ago
Metric should have been base 12. You get more typical factors than base 10, and it's not an absurd deviation from base 10 (base 60 would allow for the same factors as both 12 and 10, but I doubt anyone would be happy to adopt that)
nayuki 3y ago
That's exactly the kind of thinking that I'm alluding to. Okay, if base 12 is so great, why are gallons not divisible by 12? Why is our currency not divisible by 12? Why is a mile 1760 yards - what if you wanted to parcel a square mile into thirds on each side? Why is an inch partitioned into binary fractions? Why are pounds not divisible by 12? The imperial customs (it's hard to even call it a system) have no internal consistency. To add to the observation about lack of internal consistency: Metalworkers use decimal inches. Woodworkers use feet, inches, and binary fractions. Surveyors use decimal feet. Some people use decimal miles. You could argue that each of the aforementioned systems make sense on its own, but none of them interoperate. Seriously - you'll be baffled if you pick up a decimal foot measuring tape in real life (they exist). Metric doesn't have this problem because if someone is doing detailed work in millimetres, someone is planning a house's rooms in metres, and someone is organizing a town's land in kilometres, they can all work with each other by simply moving the decimal place and changing the prefix. Another problem is that you're presupposing that the products you interact with are designed in a whole number of feet, and then you subdivide from there. I don't see this as true at all; things come in all sizes like 2'5", how are you going to divide that into thirds?
- kemotep 3y ago
  Unlike metric, all the different imperial measurements are just combinations of different kinds of initially unrelated measurement systems. So a gallon has absolutely nothing to do with foot, miles are a completely different measurement system than feet, pounds and so on. Needing to know the weight of a cubic hectare of water and then how many gallons that is, is not a common issue. Metric does give you a system that can quickly calculate these things comparatively.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > The imperial customs (it's hard to even call it a system) have no internal consistency. "Internal consistency" doesn't matter. Virtually nobody ever has to convert miles to yards; the use cases for measuring a distance in miles and the use cases for measuring a distance in yards almost never overlap. For the rare cases where they do, the units do have an integer conversion. For the use cases that do commonly overlap, e.g. inches and feet, you get a useful-for-that-specific-domain conversion factor of 12. Some domains use decimal miles or decimal inches and that's totally fine; sounds to me like they didn't need the metric system after all. But if you're going to be so insistent on "internal consistency", riddle me this: why do we measure time in hours, days, weeks, months, and years rather than in decaseconds, hectoseconds, kiloseconds, megaseconds, etc.? > if someone is doing detailed work in millimetres, someone is planning a house's rooms in metres, and someone is organizing a town's land in kilometres, they can all work with each other These people never work with each other. This is a fantasy.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >why do we measure time in hours, days, weeks, months, and years rather than in decaseconds, hectoseconds, kiloseconds, megaseconds, etc.? Because it would be astronomically expensive to slow earth's rotation enough for a day to be 100 ksec.
    - nayuki 3y ago
      There's no theoretical problem if we define 86400 seconds = 1000000 newseconds. One big practical problem is that because SI is a coherent system, the second is embedded in many units. For example, 1 N = 1 kg m/s^2. 1 J = 1 N m. 1 V = 1 J/C. 1 Pa = 1 N/m^2. And so on and so forth. So all of those units will have to be replaced with units derived from the newsecond. This is kind of like how SI has the unit tesla but the CGS electromagnetic unit is gauss. A long-term problem is that no matter what, the length of the day on Earth will drift from scientifically accurate atomic time. Sometime in the near future, a day will be 86401 seconds. Then 86402, and so on. So the old second or the new second will not solve this problem.

ziml77 3y ago

Metric should have been base 12. You get more typical factors than base 10, and it's not an absurd deviation from base 10 (base 60 would allow for the same factors as both 12 and 10, but I doubt anyone would be happy to adopt that)

nayuki 3y ago

That's exactly the kind of thinking that I'm alluding to. Okay, if base 12 is so great, why are gallons not divisible by 12? Why is our currency not divisible by 12? Why is a mile 1760 yards - what if you wanted to parcel a square mile into thirds on each side? Why is an inch partitioned into binary fractions? Why are pounds not divisible by 12? The imperial customs (it's hard to even call it a system) have no internal consistency. To add to the observation about lack of internal consistency: Metalworkers use decimal inches. Woodworkers use feet, inches, and binary fractions. Surveyors use decimal feet. Some people use decimal miles. You could argue that each of the aforementioned systems make sense on its own, but none of them interoperate. Seriously - you'll be baffled if you pick up a decimal foot measuring tape in real life (they exist). Metric doesn't have this problem because if someone is doing detailed work in millimetres, someone is planning a house's rooms in metres, and someone is organizing a town's land in kilometres, they can all work with each other by simply moving the decimal place and changing the prefix. Another problem is that you're presupposing that the products you interact with are designed in a whole number of feet, and then you subdivide from there. I don't see this as true at all; things come in all sizes like 2'5", how are you going to divide that into thirds?

kemotep 3y ago
Unlike metric, all the different imperial measurements are just combinations of different kinds of initially unrelated measurement systems. So a gallon has absolutely nothing to do with foot, miles are a completely different measurement system than feet, pounds and so on. Needing to know the weight of a cubic hectare of water and then how many gallons that is, is not a common issue. Metric does give you a system that can quickly calculate these things comparatively.
philwelch 3y ago
> The imperial customs (it's hard to even call it a system) have no internal consistency. "Internal consistency" doesn't matter. Virtually nobody ever has to convert miles to yards; the use cases for measuring a distance in miles and the use cases for measuring a distance in yards almost never overlap. For the rare cases where they do, the units do have an integer conversion. For the use cases that do commonly overlap, e.g. inches and feet, you get a useful-for-that-specific-domain conversion factor of 12. Some domains use decimal miles or decimal inches and that's totally fine; sounds to me like they didn't need the metric system after all. But if you're going to be so insistent on "internal consistency", riddle me this: why do we measure time in hours, days, weeks, months, and years rather than in decaseconds, hectoseconds, kiloseconds, megaseconds, etc.? > if someone is doing detailed work in millimetres, someone is planning a house's rooms in metres, and someone is organizing a town's land in kilometres, they can all work with each other These people never work with each other. This is a fantasy.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >why do we measure time in hours, days, weeks, months, and years rather than in decaseconds, hectoseconds, kiloseconds, megaseconds, etc.? Because it would be astronomically expensive to slow earth's rotation enough for a day to be 100 ksec.
  - nayuki 3y ago
    There's no theoretical problem if we define 86400 seconds = 1000000 newseconds. One big practical problem is that because SI is a coherent system, the second is embedded in many units. For example, 1 N = 1 kg m/s^2. 1 J = 1 N m. 1 V = 1 J/C. 1 Pa = 1 N/m^2. And so on and so forth. So all of those units will have to be replaced with units derived from the newsecond. This is kind of like how SI has the unit tesla but the CGS electromagnetic unit is gauss. A long-term problem is that no matter what, the length of the day on Earth will drift from scientifically accurate atomic time. Sometime in the near future, a day will be 86401 seconds. Then 86402, and so on. So the old second or the new second will not solve this problem.