Metric vs Imperial poll

Depends if it is a metric or imperial stone.

 

He he he... Good answer

 

Counting is also metric. 1, 2, 3 and so on. So why would one count in metric but measure in another system ?

 

No, not really. To say that 'counting' is 'metric' is to use the word metric in the same way as you would to say that the Imperial system of measures is a 'Metric'. It actually works the other way around, Metric uses Decimal to work the way it does.

We count in Decimal, that is Base Ten. This means we use ten digits, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. However this isn't the only way we count, those of us in Computer Science often use base 8 or base 16 for easy ways to deal with base 2. However these systems can do some very weird things if you apply Decimal ideas to the Metric system when dealing in different number bases.

Base 8 is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. After 7 you get 10 as 8, and writing numbers works the same. The issue with other bases is that we 'count' in decimal. 100 in base 8 is only 64 in base 10. As you can see this will do "Very Bad Things" if you try to do Metric in a different base. Multiplying 10 by 10 in base 8 gets you from "Eight" to "Sixty-Four", you have to do 12*12=144 (base eight) to get 10*10=100 (base ten).

Now, there are lots of fun properties you can play with by quickly switching your bases around, but this is an advanced issue for Comp.Sci. that is out of my realm of research.



Fun side note, all number systems but one are "Base 10", but only Decimal is "Base Ten".

 

Luckless, you're out of luck again

Here you acknowledge what I just said That is exactly what the decimal system is, normal (note NORMAL) counting.

I have never heard anyone count 1 2 3 4 ... 7 , 10... unless you're four and a half years old

If you have 3/8ths... however long that was then you don't dount up to three and then count 8 backwards. It's problematic everywhere To prove it that's the way our finances work, get three and spend eight

 

Actually, ye bunch of ignorant pirates, the decimal system starts with zero and stops with 9.

Which I find rediculous because zero, by definition, is not a mathematical number. It is a "natural" number. It counts nothing, null, nada. It symbolises the absence of something.

Mathematical numbers' role is to count and calculate something.

And what if a stone is 2 metres high, three metres wide and one metre long? And then you say that you are 6 stones in weight...? (just screwing around. do not answer this one...)

(like that is going to stop anyone...)

 

The metric system (SI) and the use of decimal arithmetic are different things. Quit confusing them! SI is based on the metre and the mass of water, both arbitrary. Also the second, also arbitrary and not even part of a decimal time system. The foot is just as arbitrary, but I have a couple I can use if I don't have a tape measure handy. Ditto the inch (thumb width), yard (nose to fingertip) and cubit (elbow to fingertip), all available with modest accuracy to anyone with an average body. Can't say that for the metre and centimetre although my hand is a decimetre wide, but the decimetre has fallen out of official use even though the cubic decimetre is the litre.

Anyone familiar with the Imperial system has no problem using duodecimal and hexadecimal as I have said before. Perhaps a messy illogical set of units is an advantage in a messy illogical world.

Zero is a relatively modern concept, the ancient greeks were debating whether it had a use and the romans got along without it just fine. If you need a challenge, try designing your next boat using roman numerical notation! Yet the romans beat the world for a long time.

 

a stone is bigger than a sinatra, I agree metric is much easier

 

on a tangent, for indelibly marking beams, keels & frames, roman is hard to beat as it can all be done with a straight chisel, one of the few times in boats where curves are trouble & not required,

 

Correct, but for general discussion purposes it is easier.

Same with colour, black is not really a colour, yet we refer to the colour black.

 

This thread is slipping inexporably down into philosophy and metaphysics as it inevitably approaches senility. Sigh.

 

Hi Ancient,

That is because everyone is now convinced that the metric system is the way to go and there is nothing much left to say about it

It's just a matter of easing one's ego into admitting the change is going to be ok for the better... and no one says 'I told you so'

 

The Decimal System is NOT Metric. Metric is done In Decimal. And 3/8th is a fraction, represented using decimal numbers. You'll see the difference if you look at 3/16th.
in decimal: 0.1875
If the fraction was in hexadecimal then the fraction is actually 3/22.
That works out to: 0.136363636363636363636....


0 0 0
1 1 1
2 2 10
3 3 11
4 4 100
5 5 101
6 6 110
7 7 111
8 10 1000
9 11 1001
10 12 1010
11 13 1011
12 14 1100
13 15 1101
14 16 1110
15 17 1111
16 20 10000
17 21 10001
18 22 10010
19 23 10011
20 24 10100

Three series of numbers, (and assuming I didn't make a typo somewhere, I'm still waking up) where all three numbers on a given line represent the same value, each in a different 'base'. And I count in these systems a lot. If you are wondering why these are important to modern life, it is because of how computers work, a series of 'switches', on and off, 1 and 0. If you pad the binary digits with leading 0s, you can see how there is a connection between the digits 0 through 7 that will match up with binary digits. This means if you know binary numbers 0 through 7, 000 to 111, then you know that 0001000 is 10 in octal. This is furthered by the use of Hexadecimal, where we add A through F to our 'digits', and 10 in Hex is 16 in normal numbers.

 

Well, I remain unconvinced, must be the last man standing

Somebody mentioned stones above, most people in the UK still weigh themselves in stones and pounds. They say "I put on a stone on that holiday with all the beer and the eating I did". The US guys don't use them and go straight with pounds.

When I have a load of steel plate in various bundles stacked in a yard and I have to send it on by road, I don't measure the thickness of each plate individually to get the weight, I just measure the bundle thickness in inches and multiply it by 4. If the plates are 20ft X 10ft (the normal sizes supplied from the US) then this figure is the weight in Tonnes Metric Or Tons Long with an allowance for dunnage, pallets, etc.

If for some reason the weight is required in Lbs or in Short Tons, maybe a US supplied forklift is at the other end, I have to be more careful and calculate. What I do then is multiply a factor of 1.1 to my figure and this keeps my safety margin intact.

I can do all this without a pencil or a calculator.

If the plates are Metric sized I measure the thickness in Metres, eg 0.125 for 125mm thk. and multiply this by the length and breadth and the specific gravity. I have not worked out a way of doing this in my head as I do with Imperial, but there must be a knack there somewhere. Maybe I'm too long in the tooth to bother working one out.

 

Total sqm's x thickness mm x 7,86 = total kg