Metric/imperial

[Creature]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

It also has to do with saying "Month Day", like June 12th. It's the order people are used to. It's also a bit faster than 12th of June

 Something like this is probably a big reason behind most conventions outside science.

Like for example we use comma as decimal point here, which kinda makes sense if you're writing things by hand because it's easier to see that way and in normal life there's usually no need to write down numbers beyond thousands so you don't even need separators. And if you do, you can just leave a small space and it's pretty much always clear what the intention is.

Same goes for millions and billions, we use the silly milliard concept here which again is actually more convenient if you don't go above that or translate between languages. It's convenient because it's phonetically more different from million than the word billion and our language doesn't use the letter b much. Also people don't normally need higher numbers than that and event then it's mostly for things like government budgets and such. Otherwise it's just plain silly.

In science people here often speak in powers of ten just to avoid any confusion. It's not uncommon to see mistranslations in media where the english word billion translates to finnish word billion which is wrong.

[LN400]

As for the billion/milliard issue, or short/long scale issue, I personally find the long system has a greater consistency between the name of the number and the number itself.  The short scale's names aren't totally disconnected from the numbers they represent but to me it's a more cumbersome naming system.

Billion (long scale): A million has 6 zeros, bi = 2, a billion has 2*6=12 zeros. Trillion: Tri = 3, 3*6 = 18 zeros and so on and so forth. The "ards", milliard, billiard, trilliard and so on, go in between so you get 1.5*6=9 zeros, 2.5*6=15 zeros, 3.5*6 = 21 zeros etc.

Short scale: Now I have to keep one factor of 1000 out of it, then look at the power for the remainding 1000. Billion = 1000¹ * 1000².for (1+2)*3 = 9 zeros. Trillion = 1000¹ * 1000³ for (1+3)*3 = 12 zeros. To me that is more complicated.

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by LN400
typo

[omelaw]

by the way, who has a foot long feet? isn't a bit large for foot?

Edited February 21, 2016 by omelaw

[Shpaget]

My foot, at least the right one, is 28 cm (or 0,92 ft, for you Yanks). I suppose some regular footwear would bring it up to "standard", but then again, I'd also expect an average man living in the period when the foot was defined to not be as tall as I am, making his feet even shorter.

[AngelLestat]

21 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

Most of standards USA uses is totally screwed up (imperial system as a tumor on SI, month-day-year, electrical standards which cause higher metal consumption, etc.), but I must say that "millions and billions" have more sense than "millions and milliards, billions and billiards". Also the usage of point for decimal mark, I like that a lot.

Just because you are used to it; and I am kinda too, but it does not make it right.
In this Numberphile video is explained why it does not have any sense:

If you think that it is because it save you time with names..  not really:  million, milliard, billion, billiard, trillion, trilliard.
Million = Million¹
Billion = Million²
Trillion = Million³

On the points and comma, the ip number use points and I bet you are fine with that
Is all about at what we are used to it.  But I will like global standards all based on coherence, even if some are against my habits.

7 hours ago, YNM said:

Other way around down here... We even say them "koma" (comma) when start talking numbers below 1 but above 0.

I did not follow you there..  You mean that you have a new word or decimal point just for numbers between 1 and zero?    What about 4,56  or -0,24?

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Commas are bigger than decimals, and if you use them to separate every 3 powers of ten, it's a bit easier than decimals. Also, why every 3?

It does not have sense.. the bigger mark should not be in the place when it really matter to separate? As decimals?
Meanwhile we dont have a global understanding of this, we would make huge errors that might cost lives in some cases, because there is no way to know what is this mean: 634.345 unless the people who read it has a really good understanding of the number context.

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

The month date year thing makes a lot of sense. Here, people like to know about the month of the year more than the day, probably because of sports seasons, or something like that. The day comes second, since it's not all that important, and the year last, since you should know the current year.

It also has to do with saying "Month Day", like June 12th. It's the order people are used to. It's also a bit faster than 12th of June

I kinda picture the image..  from the couch...  hey honey!  What's the date today?    -23..   no I mean month...
Your second example may have a bit more sense, but no enough to put the month first , day second and year third.

Edited February 21, 2016 by AngelLestat

[YNM]

@ angellestat : yes, just what you're usied to. Thousands, millions, billions, all use point (for example, slippers cost around IDR 10.000), while anything below one but above zero use comma. Like, (4,52 = 4 + 0,52) or -0,24 = -(0,24).

[lajoswinkler]

4 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Just because you are used to it; and I am kinda too, but it does not make it right.
In this Numberphile video is explained why it does not have any sense:

Actually, I am used to the long scale. Millions and milliards, billions, billiards, trillions, trilliards, etc., and I've said I liked the short scale better.

 

But now that I've watched that video I think I'm gonna change my opinion. The long system is better.

[Camacha]

19 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Commas are bigger than decimals

You mean in a physical sense? That must be the strangest line of reasoning I have heard in this discussion

[Kertech]

6 hours ago, Camacha said:

You mean in a physical sense? That must be the strangest line of reasoning I have heard in this discussion

trust me this converation has being on weirder places, asking for evidence as to why the evidence for the speed of light is valid....

[LN400]

Or as Niels Bohr once said: Anyone who can contemplate the questions asked on forums without getting dizzy, haven't understood the question.

[Bill Phil]

9 hours ago, Camacha said:

You mean in a physical sense? That must be the strangest line of reasoning I have heard in this discussion

Yeah, but it is true.

The strangest thing though is that we use a separator ever 3 powers of ten. Why 3?

[RizzoTheRat]

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 0:14 PM, omelaw said:

by the way, who has a foot long feet? isn't a bit large for foot?

I think a foot long foot corresponds to a size 12 (or 13 if you're American, or something in the high 40's if you're in the Eurozone).  Given that the population is getting taller, presumably our feet are also getting larger, that must have been considerably larger than the average foot size when the Foot first started getting used as a measurement.

 

Of course the really confusing unit of measurement is the furlong, these days it's defined as 220 yards, but it originally varied depending on the type of soil you were on, as it was the length of furrow you ploughed before giving the horse a rest.

[omelaw]

15 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

I think a foot long foot corresponds to a size 12

http://www.shoemetro.com/t-shoe-size-chart.aspx

lt's more like size 14. how many peolple uses +14 size shoes? I won't find such big shoes in local shoestore, I think

Edited February 22, 2016 by omelaw

[RizzoTheRat]

On ‎19‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 5:12 AM, sevenperforce said:

I actually gave a few examples already. In particular, the question was posed of how you'd divide 3 3/4 cups in half; as it turns out, I knew without blinking that that's 2 tablespoons less than 2 cups. 

While I know exactly what you mean, I feel I have to point out that in metric we wouldn't divide 3 3/4 cups in half, we'd divide 888ml in half and that's very easy

[sevenperforce]

9 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

While I know exactly what you mean, I feel I have to point out that in metric we wouldn't divide 3 3/4 cups in half, we'd divide 888ml in half and that's very easy

Indeed it is.

Of course, I didn't pick that amount. It was given to me as something that was expected stump Imperial.

The problem is, with metric you end up at the mercy of the base 10 numeric system. There's nothing wrong with base 10; it is just really really limited when it comes to intrinsic factoring. Unless your numbers just happen to come to a multiple of 2 or a multiple of 5, you can't factor without doing some extended math. 40% of all numbers, when written in base 10, will be unable unfactorable using the prime factors of the base 10 system.

In contrast, the imperial system has more units and more conversion factors, which makes it harder to learn initially, but its units are arranged in such a way as to enable factoring and subdivision of almost any value. And that is what makes it slightly more useful for a limited range of applications where the use of a calculator or very small increments is not really desired.

[Bill Phil]

How about a base 12 system? That's super easy, although a whole bunch of the world is used to the base 10 system...

[p1t1o]

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

And that is what makes it [the imperial system] slightly more useful for a limited range of applications where the use of a calculator or very small increments is not really desired.

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day

Edited February 22, 2016 by p1t1o

[RizzoTheRat]

As I've mentioned elsewhere on here, we Brits are just $%*@ed up when it comes to measurements.  I buy fuel in litres, roads are measured in miles, I calculate fuel economy in miles per gallon and pump my tyres in pounds per square inch.  Horse racing in done in miles and furlongs, but I run 5km and 10km races.  My wife also does 13 mile and 26 mile races with timing splits given in 5km intervals.  Cricket is played on 1 chain long wicket, while athletics are on a 400m track.  Recipes often use fluid ounces but never cups.

[sevenperforce]

19 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

How about a base 12 system? That's super easy, although a whole bunch of the world is used to the base 10 system...

Yes, far superior in every way.

You can even count in base 12 using just the fingers on one hand. Hold up your fist with the back of your hand facing you. That's 0. Then, lift your thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and pinkie in sequence to count 1,2,3,4,5. Turn your hand so your palm faces you and make a fist again; this is 6. Raise the fingers in reverse order (pinkie, ring, middle...) to count 7,8,9,10, and 11. There's your base-12.

[Shpaget]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day

Not if it's still running but losing or gaining time.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Shpaget

[p1t1o]

2 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Not if it's still running but losing or gaining time.

You know, I typed "stopped" but changed it to "broken" cos I thought it sounded better.

[omelaw]

how about using orange tank standard?

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah, but it is true.

The strangest thing though is that we use a separator ever 3 powers of ten. Why 3?

Because 000 is easy to visually distinguish from 0 and 00, but 0000 and 000000 and 00000 are more difficult. That's why Roman numerals almost never chained more than three of the same digits in sequence; III can be identified at a glance as three but you have to look more closely at IIII whether it's four or five.

Also because we have "ten" and "hundred" and "thousand" but no "ten hundred" or "hundred ten", so doing things in thousand-magnitude orders makes sense for verbally spoken numbers.

Edited February 22, 2016 by sevenperforce

[Shpaget]

Keep in mind that not all geographical regions use this method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system

[Camacha]

8 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah, but it is true.

It is true, but also irrelevant.