2 ms·

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

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".

Turing_Machine 12y ago
U.S. units are defined in terms of metric units. The official definition of the inch is 2.54 cm (exactly). An inch isn't a nice round number of cm, but neither is an A(whatever) piece of paper (other than A0). A4 is 21.0 cm × 29.7 cm. for instance. "The next sentence was a _completely_ independent statement about the utility of the page ratio used in ISO/DIN paper sizes" And I pointed out that the exact same argument applies to U.S. liquid measures. They're easy to divide or multiply by two.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- talideon 12y ago
  Ok. I'll be super explicit about this. The page measurements don't matter. What matters is that all the standard page sizes have exactly the same width:height ratio when halved or doubled to obtain the next size up and down. That's the magic property that the 1:sqrt(2) width:height ratio used in the ISO/DIN page sizes gives you. The fact that an A0 sheet is defined as having an area of 1m² is a distraction. It's the width:height ratio that matters. Your comparison to liquid measurements misses the point. It's irrelevant. Your statement that the US units are defined in terms of US units is irrelevant. What is relevant is the preservation of the width:height ratio between pages sizes in the ISO/DIN paper size series.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    "That's the magic property that the 1:sqrt(2) width:height ratio used in the ISO/DIN page sizes gives you." Which is very similar to the "magic property" that you get when you have measuring units that are powers of two rather than factors of ten. So, no, I"m not "missing the point" at all. That you think this is "irrelevant" indicates to me that you haven't done a lot of cooking.
    - talideon 12y ago
      Yes you are, because _this has nothing to do with factors of ten vs factors of two_. This is nothing to do with US customary units vs metric. _The units are irrelevant._ That's what you're not getting. What is relevant is that the same page width/height ratio is maintained between the different page sizes.

Turing_Machine 12y ago

U.S. units are defined in terms of metric units. The official definition of the inch is 2.54 cm (exactly). An inch isn't a nice round number of cm, but neither is an A(whatever) piece of paper (other than A0). A4 is 21.0 cm × 29.7 cm. for instance. "The next sentence was a _completely_ independent statement about the utility of the page ratio used in ISO/DIN paper sizes" And I pointed out that the exact same argument applies to U.S. liquid measures. They're easy to divide or multiply by two.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
talideon 12y ago
Ok. I'll be super explicit about this. The page measurements don't matter. What matters is that all the standard page sizes have exactly the same width:height ratio when halved or doubled to obtain the next size up and down. That's the magic property that the 1:sqrt(2) width:height ratio used in the ISO/DIN page sizes gives you. The fact that an A0 sheet is defined as having an area of 1m² is a distraction. It's the width:height ratio that matters. Your comparison to liquid measurements misses the point. It's irrelevant. Your statement that the US units are defined in terms of US units is irrelevant. What is relevant is the preservation of the width:height ratio between pages sizes in the ISO/DIN paper size series.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  "That's the magic property that the 1:sqrt(2) width:height ratio used in the ISO/DIN page sizes gives you." Which is very similar to the "magic property" that you get when you have measuring units that are powers of two rather than factors of ten. So, no, I"m not "missing the point" at all. That you think this is "irrelevant" indicates to me that you haven't done a lot of cooking.
  - talideon 12y ago
    Yes you are, because _this has nothing to do with factors of ten vs factors of two_. This is nothing to do with US customary units vs metric. _The units are irrelevant._ That's what you're not getting. What is relevant is that the same page width/height ratio is maintained between the different page sizes.