The thing that I find absolutely hilarious about any discussion of the fact that the US does not use the metric system is that the assumption behind this is that the metric system is inherently superior to the US customary system of units.
-
The thing that I find absolutely hilarious about any discussion of the fact that the US does not use the metric system is that the assumption behind this is that the metric system is inherently superior to the US customary system of units. (We do not use "Imperial" units in the US and never have.)
However, this is given as a bare assumption, without any actual evidence beyond the fact that Base 10 math is easier.
The real truth is that the metric system is completely arbitrary and irrational.
-
The thing that I find absolutely hilarious about any discussion of the fact that the US does not use the metric system is that the assumption behind this is that the metric system is inherently superior to the US customary system of units. (We do not use "Imperial" units in the US and never have.)
However, this is given as a bare assumption, without any actual evidence beyond the fact that Base 10 math is easier.
The real truth is that the metric system is completely arbitrary and irrational.
If all the other lemmings are running off the cliff, they must know something we don't, right?
The US, by the way, is official a metric nation, by law. The federal government legally adopted by law the SI systems of units as our preferred measurement system in 1975, and all US customary units have been defined by their metric equivalents since 1893.
The customary units persist, because they are better suited to the scale of human needs. The metric system bears zero relationship to human scale.
-
If all the other lemmings are running off the cliff, they must know something we don't, right?
The US, by the way, is official a metric nation, by law. The federal government legally adopted by law the SI systems of units as our preferred measurement system in 1975, and all US customary units have been defined by their metric equivalents since 1893.
The customary units persist, because they are better suited to the scale of human needs. The metric system bears zero relationship to human scale.
Base 10 may be easier to calculate in certain contexts, but the customary units largely are composed of highly composite numbers, so they are vastly superior in most contexts that involve division. The factors of 10 are 1, 2, 5, and 10. The factors of 100 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, and 100. The factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. The factors of 16 are 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. The factors of 36 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36.
-
Base 10 may be easier to calculate in certain contexts, but the customary units largely are composed of highly composite numbers, so they are vastly superior in most contexts that involve division. The factors of 10 are 1, 2, 5, and 10. The factors of 100 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, and 100. The factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. The factors of 16 are 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. The factors of 36 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36.
It should be obvious to most people that the most common contexts in which human beings rely on remainderless division by single-digit integers is in dividing goods equally among small groups of people, like families.
-
It should be obvious to most people that the most common contexts in which human beings rely on remainderless division by single-digit integers is in dividing goods equally among small groups of people, like families.
And it should also be obvious the the SI system of units includes the second, and the way that time is measured uses highly composite numbers, as well. If Base 10 is so superior, why are there not 100 seconds to a minute, 100 minutes to and hour, and 10 hours to a day, instead of 60 seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to an hour, and 24 hours to a day? Why not 100, 000 seconds in a day instead of 86,400? Why are there 360 degrees in navigation? Why don't we navigate in radians or gradians?
-
And it should also be obvious the the SI system of units includes the second, and the way that time is measured uses highly composite numbers, as well. If Base 10 is so superior, why are there not 100 seconds to a minute, 100 minutes to and hour, and 10 hours to a day, instead of 60 seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to an hour, and 24 hours to a day? Why not 100, 000 seconds in a day instead of 86,400? Why are there 360 degrees in navigation? Why don't we navigate in radians or gradians?
Why is the length of a metre the distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second, and not 1/300,000,000th? It would have made the math much easier!
-
Why is the length of a metre the distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second, and not 1/300,000,000th? It would have made the math much easier!
@gcvsa Well, that one has to do with a certain king's arm length, I believe...
I don't disagree that any measuring system is equally abstract, but the reason I'm glad we use metric here is fractions of an inch. I always sucked at fractions & pro'lly wouldn't have become a cabinet maker if I'd had to contend with using 1/8, 1/16 etc. of an inch, then at some point switching to thousandths. It's utterly unintuitive to me; seems like raw memorization, which I also can't do, at least for numbers. -
@gcvsa Well, that one has to do with a certain king's arm length, I believe...
I don't disagree that any measuring system is equally abstract, but the reason I'm glad we use metric here is fractions of an inch. I always sucked at fractions & pro'lly wouldn't have become a cabinet maker if I'd had to contend with using 1/8, 1/16 etc. of an inch, then at some point switching to thousandths. It's utterly unintuitive to me; seems like raw memorization, which I also can't do, at least for numbers.@jwcph Until the advent of modern precision machine tools, no one would have had the capability of reliably and repeatably working in thousandths of anything. It would have been rare for carpenters to work in 32nds, and only machinists would use 64ths.
However, the point of using fractional math is that it's binary in nature. It's easy to divide by 2 when you are working in powers of 2. Traditional systems of units use composite numbers because of the importance of division.
-
@jwcph Until the advent of modern precision machine tools, no one would have had the capability of reliably and repeatably working in thousandths of anything. It would have been rare for carpenters to work in 32nds, and only machinists would use 64ths.
However, the point of using fractional math is that it's binary in nature. It's easy to divide by 2 when you are working in powers of 2. Traditional systems of units use composite numbers because of the importance of division.
@gcvsa That has to be some kind of brain-wiring thing - to me, division is never going to be the intuitive approach. I mean, I can usually divide by two, I'm not that dumb, but a system of divison, which switches between at least 8ths & 16ths, will never work as well for me as (essentially) adding integers and/or zeroes.
If I just throw out, say, 4/8 and 5/16, I have no concept of the relation between those two - even if I try to think about it I have no idea if they're close or not.
