The metric system sucks
in [Math]
|
Prev: connecting Luminet-Poincare Dodecahedral Space with AP-Reverse -Concavity for 10% #379 Correcting Math
Next: Cantor's Diagonal?
From: Andrew Usher on 19 Feb 2010 19:15 On Feb 15, 7:06 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, > > it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct > > for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. > > You obviously have not done any arithmetic. Using 212 instead of 100 > is more difficult for every calculation. If you have your computer > do it, it will be wrong. Using 100 implies that you don't have > to do any numbers other than 1. This is just retarded. Andrew Usher
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Feb 2010 08:18 Matt wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Matt wrote: >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:06:21 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> Andrew Usher wrote: >>>>> Matt wrote: >>>>>> And the Celsius temperature scale is just silly. Why throw away twice >>>>>> the whole-number granularity afforded by the Fahrenheit scale? Or the >>>>>> notion that 100 tends to suggest more of a milestone than 38 as a >>>>>> temperature extreme for comfort? Aren't the metric zealots gaga over >>>>>> powers of ten? Why not use a power of ten to describe a temperature >>>>>> that is extreme but survivable? Sterilizers operate near 100C. But >>>>>> the Celsius scale makes it easier for tabletop chemists to calibrate >>>>>> their thermometers. >>>>> No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, >>>>> it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct >>>>> for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. >>>>> >>>> You obviously have not done any arithmetic. >>> That is simply an absurd statement. >>> >>> ... have not done *any* arithmetic?! >>> >>> I would find it hard to believe it to be true of anyone posting here. >>> I suppose some equally absurd scoffing remark could be contrived in >>> supposed refute of my statement. Still, I suspect that everyone >>> posting here has done arithmetic correctly at least once in their >>> life. >>> >>>> Using 212 instead of 100 >>>> is more difficult for every calculation. >>> Or not: >>> >>> 212 - 112 = 100. >>> Easy. >>> >>> 100 - 112 = -12 >>> A negative number which may make subsequent calculations more >>> difficult and subject to error if the sign is dropped. >>> >>> Again, "ease of calculation" is not the only consideration in the real >>> world. Conversational use of measured values has significance, too. >>> >>> Anything below freezing is a negative number in Celsius. Not so handy >>> for numbers which happen often enough in mid-latitude winters. >>> >>>> If you have your computer >>>> do it, it will be wrong. >>> Because ...? >>> >>>> Using 100 implies that you don't have >>>> to do any numbers other than 1. >>> Is zero not a number? >>> >>> So now going metric is about using fewer unique digits in a number? >>> >>> Or not. >>> >>> 1 meter divided by 4 is 25 centimeters. >>> >>> 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches. >>> >> Did you ever take chemistry in high school? > > Yes. How did you do your calculations without using scientific notation? > >> Or physics? > > Yes. How did you do your calculations without using scientific notation? > >> Or home economics? > > No. Too bad. You'ld have discovered that using the metric system might have been easier when you needed to adjust the amounts for a recipe. > > You seem to be fixated on laboratory and academic environments. There > is a much larger world outside such controlled settings. > > How about the importance of measuring as opposed to calculating? > the first step is learn about calculating using arithmetic. It is beginning to look like most the nuts posting in this thread have never done that. > Note Benford's Law: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law > lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of > data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific, > non-uniform way. > > The higher increments of those nicely spaced divisions into tenths get > little use: > According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third > of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit > with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9 > as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty. > > There are reasons why people, left to their own devices, didn't > gravitate to dividing real-world lengths into tenths. > > If one is an adherent of evolution, then *why* did people with ten > fingers win out over people with fewer digits? Perhaps because it > isn't necessarily fatal to lose a finger. And now a measurement system > comes along to enshrine factors of ten for measurements which don't > lend themselves to divisions into tenths, when fingers beyond perhaps > six or eight were considered expendable by nature. How many fingers > does Homer Simpson have? Why are we so accepting of cartoon characters > having fewer than ten fingers? Are we really just giving the > cartoonist a break? Do you enjoy playing dumb? > > Analogies between the metric system and decimalized monetary systems > are bogus. Unlike a unit of length, units of currency have no physical > reference in nature. Controlled experiments in a chemistry lab are > somewhat analogous to monetary systems in that they, too, deal with > contrived situations. The value of an ounce of gold is a cultural > convention. The length from here to there is a physical reality > regardless of the currency in one's wallet. Why do you think chemistry labs exist? do you know what chemists do in the real world? For a start, learn about cement making. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Feb 2010 08:19 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:06 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >>> No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, >>> it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct >>> for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. >> You obviously have not done any arithmetic. Using 212 instead of 100 >> is more difficult for every calculation. If you have your computer >> do it, it will be wrong. Using 100 implies that you don't have >> to do any numbers other than 1. > > This is just retarded. > If that is retarded, then your level of thinking is below an amoeba. /BAH
From: Matt on 20 Feb 2010 10:10 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:18:03 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >Matt wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> Did you ever take chemistry in high school? >> >> Yes. > >How did you do your calculations without using >scientific notation? I did use scientific notation. Scientific notation is not exclusive to the metric system. >>> Or physics? >> >> Yes. > >How did you do your calculations without using scientific >notation? I did use scientific notation. Scientific notation is not exclusive to the metric system. >>> Or home economics? >> >> No. > >Too bad. You'ld have discovered that using the metric system >might have been easier when you needed to adjust the amounts >for a recipe. Did you use scientific notation in home economics? When you took home economics, were the primary measurements in metric units? How often did (or do) you cook something using one tenth the quantities called for in the recipe? >> You seem to be fixated on laboratory and academic environments. There >> is a much larger world outside such controlled settings. >> >> How about the importance of measuring as opposed to calculating? >> > >the first step is learn about calculating using arithmetic. It >is beginning to look like most the nuts posting in this thread >have never done that. Again, an absurd claim that posters here have "never" done arithmetic. How about this: Some posters here find the metric system wanting. They don't buy the religious hype that it is oh so much better than imperial units. The metric system often does not result in more convenient numbers on a human scale in the real world. The first step in using arithmetic for something useful (rather than as an academic exercise) is to have numbers that represent something from the real world. Those numbers come from counting or measuring. Are you claiming that counting is easier in the metric system? Adding 20 eggs + 16 eggs = 36 eggs is arithmetic. The unit conversion from 36 eggs to 3 dozen is not arithmetic. It is dimensional analysis and the application of a conversion factor. The arithmetic in that conversion is incidental. The metric system is not devoid of conversion factors. Back to your focus on arithmetic. We need numbers on which to perform that arithmetic. Assuming you are not saying it is easier to count in metric, are you saying it is easier to measure in metric? We're back to Benford's law: >> Note Benford's Law: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law >> lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of >> data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific, >> non-uniform way. >> >> The higher increments of those nicely spaced divisions into tenths get >> little use: >> According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third >> of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit >> with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9 >> as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty. >> >> There are reasons why people, left to their own devices, didn't >> gravitate to dividing real-world lengths into tenths. The metric system is tailor made to run afoul of Benford's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law real-world distributions that span several orders of magnitude ... are likely to satisfy Benford's law to a very good approximation. The metric system is intended to span *all* orders of magnitude. Thus, measurements near 9x10^n meters should be relatively rare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law if one converts from e.g. feet to yards (multiplication by a constant), the distribution must be unchanged That is, if one converts *all* measurements from feet to yards, Benford's law will continue to apply. But *not* if one only converts measurements to yards *only* when distances expressed in yards are more convenient than distances expressed in feet. If one uses units that are scaled to the measurement (inches, feet, yards, miles), they will be using a more diverse mixture of numbers. How many meters in a light-year? Or a parsec? Tsk tsk. Those aren't nice round multiples of a meter. Why is no one hammering on the astronomers to get with the program? >> If one is an adherent of evolution, then *why* did people with ten >> fingers win out over people with fewer digits? Perhaps because it >> isn't necessarily fatal to lose a finger. And now a measurement system >> comes along to enshrine factors of ten for measurements which don't >> lend themselves to divisions into tenths, when fingers beyond perhaps >> six or eight were considered expendable by nature. How many fingers >> does Homer Simpson have? Why are we so accepting of cartoon characters >> having fewer than ten fingers? Are we really just giving the >> cartoonist a break? > >Do you enjoy playing dumb? Dumb how? Is not one of the claims for the metric system is that it is a more natural system of measurement because we have 10 fingers? Do you have so much trouble thinking outside the box of a chemistry lab? >> Analogies between the metric system and decimalized monetary systems >> are bogus. Unlike a unit of length, units of currency have no physical >> reference in nature. Controlled experiments in a chemistry lab are >> somewhat analogous to monetary systems in that they, too, deal with >> contrived situations. The value of an ounce of gold is a cultural >> convention. The length from here to there is a physical reality >> regardless of the currency in one's wallet. > > >Why do you think chemistry labs exist? do you know what chemists >do in the real world? For a start, learn about cement making. Which chemistry labs? You referred frequently to high school chemistry. Are you saying the metric system was conceived for the benefit of industrial chemists? Are there no industry-specific units of measure which industrial chemist find to be more useful than metric units? Is chemistry the only pursuit that matters? Why should the entire world adopt a system of units that is convenient for chemists when it is less convenient for those who are not chemists?
From: Matt on 21 Feb 2010 11:29
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:10:44 -0500, Matt wrote: >On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:18:03 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>Matt wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> Did you ever take ... >>>> Or home economics? >>> >>> No. >> >>Too bad. You'ld have discovered that using the metric system >>might have been easier when you needed to adjust the amounts >>for a recipe. > >Did you use scientific notation in home economics? > >When you took home economics, were the primary measurements in metric >units? > >How often did (or do) you cook something using one tenth the >quantities called for in the recipe? What? No examples of the wonders of the metric system in home economics where you took your slide rule to class and used scientific notation? Narrow-minded scoffers who speak in disingenuous, moot quips have an exaggerated view of their opinions. And often lack the class to admit when they were wrong. Perhaps Uncle Al has had an influence on your posting style. Your posts seemed to be of higher quality years ago. Now they often contain slaps constructed with half a thought. Being like Uncle Al is a two way street. You need to bring a lot more horsepower to the table to make an emulation worth reading. |