|
But the numbers will be decimal.
You don't get it I give up.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Cricket wrote: I give up.
That's exact what he was trying... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
You would expect a software developer to possess an IQ higher than his age ...
When you tell someone to write the weight of their sandwich in binary and he responds:
No I will write it in ounces!
Every follow up conversation becomes meaningless.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
754-2008 - IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic - IEEE Standard
Quote: Abstract:
This standard specifies interchange and arithmetic formats and methods for binary and decimal floating-point arithmetic in computer programming environments.
It appears that you are mistaken; many people do use the decimal system, even on computers. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: You have it all ass-backwards. Since most everything numeric is done directly and indirectly by computer, it is that system which we must accommodate.
Didn't y'all blow up a space shuttle or some other spacecraft in recent memory cause the imperial system the Yank muppets used was wrong?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Cricket wrote: It's very arbitrary.
Um, can we bear in mind that all measurement systems are arbitrary? Even the Kelvin? Even numbers themselves, to a large degree?
I actually did a great talk on this, once (back before the days of Ted, so the only records of it are my own notes, which may or may not be in a format recognisable by IBM PCs), where I got the audience to create entirely new systems of measurement for speed, acceleration, mass, torque, etc, all revolving around the calculation requirements for bicycle rides.
It was a lot of fun, and I'm pretty sure that no-one who attended was ever again fooled by most of the "Gosh!" numbers*, because the arbitrariness of measuring systems was clearly shown to be, well, arbitrary -- and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if at least one of them has since created a new measurement thingummy or constant, to suit the precise needs of the calculations that they've had to perform.
* A prime example of a Gosh! number is minus forty, in temperature. Is it Fahrenheit or Centigrade? Gosh!**
** The truth is that, as with most Gosh! numbers, it's not something to say Gosh! about. If you have two measurement systems to enumerate the same thing, they're bound to intersect somewhere. The fact that 40 is a "round number", according to our arbitrary numbering system, is pretty much irrelevant.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Again how many yards is one yard plus two feet plus two inches? IN metric it's trivial you know.
For better or for worse we do conduct business in a decimal system. The imperial system is ill suited for these types of calculations.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Cricket wrote: Again how many yards is one yard plus two feet plus two inches?
1y2'2"
Next question.Urban Cricket wrote: The imperial system is ill suited for these types of calculations.
Oh, nonsense.
Back before the pound was decimilised, you could see people, every day, performing complex mental arithmetic calculations involving pounds, shillings, and pence, at lightning speed -- and the same went for distances, volumes, etc.
So everyone's day-to-day experience of how-much-can-I-spend-on-this mental arithmetic is now your "trivial" decimal stuff, and no-one can do it with the complex calculations that everyone used to do day after day -- i.e. your decimilisation trivialisation has made everyone a bit more stupid.
And computers don't care which arbitrary units you use -- once the routines for them are added to libraries, the calculations can be performed as often as you'd like.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
More stupid, really, there are people, who devote their entire lives to memorise entire Shakespeare plays. They think it is smart. Smart people decide to devote their mental resources to something more useful.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I say, if you want to join the top ranks of mensa, spend a couple of weeks doing stupid little puzzles, because mensa has set the ability to do stupid little puzzles as the benchmark for intelligence, so a couple of weeks practice turns an idiot into a genius.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I won't comment on the turning idiots into geniuses part. All I would like to say is that in the end the british changed their currency to a decimal system.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Cricket wrote: Again how many yards is one yard plus two feet plus two inches?
As I already answered, 1y2'2"
You're assuming that, because you use our arbitrarily 10-based numbering system to express metres using the decimal point, all other arbitrary numbering systems have to do the same.
You simply don't express inches as decimal percentages of feet, because they are not arbitrarily decimal -- they are arbitrarily duodecimal, so you express them as duodecimal percentages, where the division is by twelfths, not tenths.
If you insist on using a decimal point as the divisor for ternary and duodecimal numbers, then you would write 1y2'2" as 1.2.2, with the first "decimal" point actually being a ternary point, and the second being a duodecimal point.
Me, I prefer to use the accepted divisors for yards, feet, and inches, because it avoids any confusion -- i.e. for the same reason that I write metres down with an 'm' for metres, rather than 'l' for litres.
Your insistence that ternary and duodecimal numbers be expressed as decimals is the problem, not the ternary or duodecimal systems.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I insist that doing calculations in that arcane system is a pain. There is a much more convenient alternative. That's all.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Cricket wrote: The US is still clinching to the old for some inexplicable reason.
I am offended!!
We are not clinching anything. We, however, are clinging rather tightly to a great many things.
It had to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
America - Switching to the metric system... inch by inch!
|
|
|
|
|
Just before the metric system was adopted, just about every town in France had its own measure: it's own cloth yard (often two: one for buying, and one for selling!), its own bread weight, it's own fruit weight. It was frequently difficult to work out how much you were actually buying or selling because some would cheat and use short weights, and what do you check them against?
So a travelling merchant needed to work out conversion values for each town (or even customer) he visited!
The metric system was invented to get round this, and introduce a standard system what could be checked, and which would be the same regardless of where you were.
There is a fascinating book on this: The Measure of All Things[^] about the two astronomers who set out to measure the meter. While the French Revolution happened around them.
And don't forget: Josh Bazell: In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade—which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it. Whereas in the American system, the answer to "How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?" is "Go Elephant yourself" because you can’t directly relate any of those quantities.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: because some would cheat and use short weights, and what do you check them against?
Literally, a problem as old as the bible.
But - at the time - didn't the UK &etc. have an imperial system? The problem you describe is that of France, not of any particular system of weights and measures. All that you really wanted was a fixed standard. Any standard, in terms of trade, would do.
As for Bazell - The mole and the mass of hydrogen (molecules) (or anything else) were defined using metric measurements - saying that they are better is self-referential. Also, they tossed the calorie (not to be confused with the Calorie !) in favor of the Joule - which is roughly 4.18 per degree increase in water temp at STP. And temperatures are mis-measured in the metric system: either use Kelvin or Roentgen - but not something base on water's properties. Clearly, Bazell's credential suck: he's supposedly a physician. He writes crime novels. Surely you can do better!
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The UK had its own Imperial system - which was based on a single standard weight, and a standard length, and so forth along with a fixed price for bread and ale of a certain weight (plus severe penalties for mucking about with them).
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, the argument about a need for something applied to France: not an argument for the metric system.
As for dishonest weights and measures - when did that stop? Only if you're caught. At US Gas (petrol) stations, they come around, unannounced, with a standard gal (with a tall thin neck on a more squat reservoir - to make sure a gal is a gal. Unfortunately, less often in stores
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Great summary explanation. Almost makes me want to read that book...almost. 
I will stick with your explanation and pass it along to others. Honestly, very fascinating.
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: always been a problem with converting a country from one unit to another
W∴ Balboos wrote: Why do you need to convert it all all
Because I am not in the habit of lifting kilograms and drinking litres.
So I'd like to know when something is 72Kilos if I can lift it.
And if something is 17 litres if it will quench my thirst.
No idea without converting to pounds and ounces. 
|
|
|
|
|
But all you need do is learn "this is a Grodnick" and I need two Grodnick's of beer to get wasted. No calculation of Grodnicks into other units is necessary.
In US, soda (carbonated beverages) are sold in metric-sized bottles. That all they're thought of. Beer, on the other hand, is still primarily sold in 12oz cans. In a bar, a (glass of?) beer is whatever they want to server you at whatever price.*
If you fall from a height of 20 Pisvoid, you will die. You're roughly two Pisvoids tall. No need to convert to anything else (like the beverage analogy - consumers adapt and don't convert).
* they actually get, in many cases, smaller bottles made especially for bars.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: After all, a 750ml bottle of Single Malt Scotch is very close to a fifth (of a gallon).
Not if you use the proper gallon which is 4.546... litres and not that pansy poofter wine gallon you muppets use over there.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: That's always been a problem with converting a country from one unit to another.
When you buy something it has a size - period. Why do you need to convert it? After all, a 750ml bottle of Single Malt Scotch is very close to a fifth (of a gallon). Why do you need to convert it all all, though? As the say, but here it actually applies "It Is What It Is". Trying to get people to memorize long list of conversions was doomed from the start.
Being from Canada, I know the real reason. It's all because of the ounce. I think it is correct that there are 9 of them in common use. The Imperial ounce (fluid) is 28.4130625 mL. The US ounce (fluid) is 29.6 mL. There are 20 Imperial ounce in a pint, 160 in a gallon. There are 16 US ounce in a US pint, 128 in a gallon. There is ounce weight (Imperial, US), ounce mass, troy ounce (jewelry, precious stones etc.) and who knows how many others there are.
Canada is part of the British Monarchy, and precious few years ago used Imperial measurements as standard: specifically, ounce, cup, pint, quart, gallon etc. Canada's largest trade partner however is the USA, which uses US measurements, and items purchased from the USA and sold in Canada displayed US quantities. An Imperial gallon of something was a different size from the US gallon of the same something, and of course a different price. Confusion abounded.
A second problem was sale of some food items (eg. powder) that were sold by the ounce. If you buy a 27 ounce box of powdered milk, is that the ounce weight or ounce volume (yes, some powders were sold as liquid/by volume), and of course US or Imperial? If you mix 40 oz water with 20 oz henweigh powder, how many ounces in the result? What is the volume? What does it weigh?
Driving a car between US and Canada would give you considerably different "gas mileage" (gas == petrol here) because of the differences in gallon size. Getting 20 miles per gallon in one country might be good but bad in the other.
Canada converted to the metric system in the 1970s and fixed all of these problems. Some mistakes were made, but the ounce problem was fixed.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
H.Brydon wrote: Canada is part of the British Monarchy,
The root of all of your problems. Once you escaped across the Atlantic you should have just pharted in their direction and went on about your business. Had they inbred for another generation they'd need to put paper bags over their heads.
Actually, statehood wouldn't be out of the question . . . except the problem of Quebec. Made it a no-go before the question was even raised.
H.Brydon wrote: If you mix 40 oz water with 20 oz henweigh powder,
This is a much bigger question than you think. Even if both were liquids, they'd be non-ideal liquids. Experiment: Mix 8oz Water with 8oz pure ethanol (drinkable alcohol). The final volume is not 16oz - it is less. Even if you use metric measure, the mixture will not take up the full volume of the two, separately. In either case, mix with an equal volume of Orange Juice and consume the evidence. This holds for gases, as well (gas-gas and gas-liquid). Solids, if soluble in the liquid, rarely come close.
As for the henweight? After taking splashing into account, hard to say.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
