5 ms·

I am not sure, if the paper sizes (A4, ...) are belonging to the metric system ... but of course, here a standardization would be nice. At least software produc

I am not sure, if the paper sizes (A4, ...) are belonging to the metric system ... but of course, here a standardization would be nice. At least software producers seem to know (most of them) now, that there are also other formats as the "standard US formats".

sophacles 12y ago
A0 is a square meter, and everything in the A series has an aspect ratio of sqrt(2) and different sizes are achieved by simply folding (or cutting) in half. It's actually pretty neat... check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  Oh, did not know that! The reason: I don't think, that this fact is essential to the A series. It is neat, yes, but when do you have A0 paper in your bureau? (When you are not in the printing-business). The thing with cutting in half is more essential to it, than that it is based on square meter. Also, even when it is an square meter, the sides are something "odd" because the ratio is fixed.
talideon 12y ago
They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely, and the other series are such that an Ax sheet fits nicely into a Cx envelope, and a Cx sheet fits nicely into a Bx envelope.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  How are factors of 2 and sqrt(2) "based on metric"? At some level you could say that the U.S. measurements are "based on metric" since almost all of them are defined in terms of metric units. You just have to apply the proper factor (which is a decimal, but a terminating one --- unlike the sqrt(2) business).
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    By that standard, the U.S. liquid measures could also be described as "metric". 2 cups->pint, 2 pints->quart, 2 quarts->pottle (rarely used, more commonly called a "half gallon"), 2 pottles->gallon.
    - talideon 12y ago
      You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes. Also, the word "metric" has a very precise meaning: that of being part of the internationally agreed system of decimal measurements. The thing you've mentioned don't fit that definition, and US customary units are simply defined in _terms_ of metric units, but are not metric units themselves.
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        "You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes." I do understand it. It's exactly the same reasoning as being able to divide liquid measures in half.
        talideon 12y ago
        No. Here's what you wrote: > By that standard, the U.S. liquid measures could also be described as "metric" The ratio has nothing to do with metric. The base sizing of the A0 page is, on the other hand, defined as having an area of 1m² in that regard, DIN/ISO paper sizes are _based_ on metric. However, _never_ did I state that they _were_ metric. So no, by the standard that I gave, you _couldn't_ say that US customary measurements for liquid measures could also be described as "metric". Go back and read my original comment. The first sentence was this: > They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. Here I was making reference to A0 sheets being defined as having an area of 1m², thus the sheet sizes are _derived_ from metric, not _part_ of the metric system. The next sentence was a _completely_ independent statement about the utility of the page ratio used in ISO/DIN paper sizes: > The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely, and the other series are such that an Ax sheet fits nicely into a Cx envelope, and a Cx sheet fits nicely into a Bx envelope. I can't fathom how you somehow got from an innocuous pair of statements about paper sizes to powers of two in US customary measurements for liquids somehow being "metric".

sophacles 12y ago

A0 is a square meter, and everything in the A series has an aspect ratio of sqrt(2) and different sizes are achieved by simply folding (or cutting) in half. It's actually pretty neat... check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216

PythonicAlpha 12y ago
Oh, did not know that! The reason: I don't think, that this fact is essential to the A series. It is neat, yes, but when do you have A0 paper in your bureau? (When you are not in the printing-business). The thing with cutting in half is more essential to it, than that it is based on square meter. Also, even when it is an square meter, the sides are something "odd" because the ratio is fixed.

talideon 12y ago

They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely, and the other series are such that an Ax sheet fits nicely into a Cx envelope, and a Cx sheet fits nicely into a Bx envelope.

Turing_Machine 12y ago
How are factors of 2 and sqrt(2) "based on metric"? At some level you could say that the U.S. measurements are "based on metric" since almost all of them are defined in terms of metric units. You just have to apply the proper factor (which is a decimal, but a terminating one --- unlike the sqrt(2) business).
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  By that standard, the U.S. liquid measures could also be described as "metric". 2 cups->pint, 2 pints->quart, 2 quarts->pottle (rarely used, more commonly called a "half gallon"), 2 pottles->gallon.
  - talideon 12y ago
    You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes. Also, the word "metric" has a very precise meaning: that of being part of the internationally agreed system of decimal measurements. The thing you've mentioned don't fit that definition, and US customary units are simply defined in _terms_ of metric units, but are not metric units themselves.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      "You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes." I do understand it. It's exactly the same reasoning as being able to divide liquid measures in half.
      - talideon 12y ago
        No. Here's what you wrote: > By that standard, the U.S. liquid measures could also be described as "metric" The ratio has nothing to do with metric. The base sizing of the A0 page is, on the other hand, defined as having an area of 1m² in that regard, DIN/ISO paper sizes are _based_ on metric. However, _never_ did I state that they _were_ metric. So no, by the standard that I gave, you _couldn't_ say that US customary measurements for liquid measures could also be described as "metric". Go back and read my original comment. The first sentence was this: > They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. Here I was making reference to A0 sheets being defined as having an area of 1m², thus the sheet sizes are _derived_ from metric, not _part_ of the metric system. The next sentence was a _completely_ independent statement about the utility of the page ratio used in ISO/DIN paper sizes: > The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely, and the other series are such that an Ax sheet fits nicely into a Cx envelope, and a Cx sheet fits nicely into a Bx envelope. I can't fathom how you somehow got from an innocuous pair of statements about paper sizes to powers of two in US customary measurements for liquids somehow being "metric".