Re: Tony Bennett "I would win it as usual" March 14 2005, 2:38 AM


<<
I have challenged you to provide examles where Imperial has more divisors & primes than metric. As Imperial is so good at divisibility, why have you not taken up this challenge? Again, I point out where section 5.7 is incorrect - point out your proof that it is correct.
>>

Bud's response:

Tony, I hope you won't mind my jumping in and answering this for you.

Beranger, the factors used most commonly in the imperial system are 12, 16, 32, 64, and so on. In the metric system, 10, 100, and so on.
Take any two of these numbers that are on the same order of magnitude.
10 is divisible by 2 and 5.
12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6.

See?


Who ever told you the metric system only has factors of 10, 100, and so on? The metric system has no such thing. The metric system is adaptable to any number series and any factors and divisors one chooses. What you are calling factors are only conversion relations between the prefixes. NOTHING MORE!

The same holds true for imperial. The 12, 16, 32, 64 and so on are only conversion factors between different units. NOTHING MORE!

The adavantage of metric over imperial in this issue is that metric has a common series conversion factor between the prefixes, that being the factors of 10. Imperial has different non-related series depending on the unit used. Very confusing.

There is no rule in SI that demands that products or usage be set to factors or divisors of 10. That is left up to the users. The best example is the construction industry. Here the 100 mm module is the norm and products come in sizes of 600 mm, 1200 mm, 2400 mm, 4800 mm, etc. There number series are both factors of 12 and the 100 mm module. That is the beauty of SI.

But, please continue to promote your error. It really proves that imperialsists are so desperate to see a ressurection for imperial (impossible), they have taken to grasping at straws. Twisting and contorting the facts that only they themselves would believe.

I've yet to see any practical application of measurement where this divisibilty lark is of any real consequence.

However if for some reason you wanted to divide up say the metre into equal parts then it can be done no problem.

Now remember when doing meaurements you are always constrained by some margin of error no matter how good you are and how sharp your pencil.

So lets look at dividing the metre into equal parts to the nearest millimetre. In this we look at the intermediate points such as we might mark them out excluding the end points

divide into 2

500 mm

divide into 3

333 mm, 667 mm

divide into 4

250 mm, 500 mm, 750 mm

divide into 5

200 mm, 400 mm, 600 mm, 800 mm

divide into 6

167 mm, 333 mm, 500 mm, 667 mm, 833 mm

divide into 7

143 mm, 286 mm, 429 mm, 571 mm, 714 mm, 857 mm

divide into 8

125 mm, 250 mm, 375 mm, 500 mm, 625 mm, 750 mm, 875 mm

divide into 9

111 mm, 222 mm, 333 mm, 444 mm, 556 mm, 667 mm, 778 mm, 889 mm

And so on. You do this for ANY division factor you care to name. If you needed greater accuracy or had more precise measuring and marking equipment, capable of say 0.1 mm accuracy then just go to the next decimal point, e.g. for thirds 333.3 mm, 666.7 mm and so on.

Simple!

So over to the imperial brigade. See how you get on dividing up let's say the yard to the nearest sixteenth of an inch.

Stan - I believe you are older than me (from conversations we've had over the years).

I'm not trying to be sarky or anything but you will know that one inch is 1/36th of a yard. The rest I will leave, to credit you with the common sense I know you already have.

Awe, aren't you going to play then?

Here's me thinking that the imperial lovers would relish the chance to show off their brilliant system. I was hoping they'd show me how to divide the yard into fifths and sevenths like you can the metre.

Oh well I guess I'll have to take that they can't do it and that's that.

I'm not trying to be sarky or anything but you will know that one inch is 1/36th of a yard. The rest I will leave, to credit you with the common sense I know you already have.


One inch is 0.0254 m.

Think Pizza for the fraction argument!

BTW - did you know that one fifth of a yard is 0.20 yards?

Finished.

However, if you fancy, it is also 7.2 inches (or seven and one fifth inches, if you want it in fractions).

There are no hard rules to get the right answer.

I'm hoping I'm correct, my maths was always bad - I'm useless at remembering numbers - about as good as Erin (John) on basic economics if truth be known.

Ask me a chemistry question instead!

So, 1/7th of a metre is 143mm, inaccurate by 0.015mm.

1/7th of a yard, in sixteenths of an inch as you want, is 5 inches plus 1/7th of an inch. Call it 5 inches plus one eighth and you're 0.017 of an inch out.

Neither system - yard or metre - can produce an exact figure.

So what are you trying to prove, Stan?

After all, units in the Imperial system are generally better at handling divisions by 3, 4, 6 and 8, as I think you concede.

All you have proved is that neither system can easily handle division by 7.

So what?

Tony said

"Neither system - yard or metre - can produce an exact figure."

Distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/2098547206 seconds = 1/7 metre exactly.

Tony also said

"After all, units in the Imperial system are generally better at handling divisions by 3, 4, 6 and 8, as I think you concede."

Remind me how to calculate 1/3 lb?

Or 1/6 gallon (without resorting to apothecaries measure!)

And doesn't 1000 divide by 4 & 8?

Finally, Tony also said

"All you have proved is that neither system can easily handle division by 7."

But on February 19th, Tony said (after posting a huge list of fractions of imperial units)

"Where's your 3s, 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s, 11s, 12s, 15s, 16s, 18s, 24s?"

Note the use of <<divisibility by 7>> as an <<advantage>> of imperial in this post. (My emphasis - not direct quotes)

Steve said

"Think Pizza for the fraction argument!"

OK Steve. If I have a 7-inch pizza, how do I divide it into 7 equal sized pieces?

If I have cooked a kilo of mince & am feeding 7 people with it, do you really think that anyone would accuse me of giving them a portion 1g smaller than everyone else's?

Reply to Tony

My point is that divisiblity of units isn't really an issue at all with either metric or imperial. It's not about how inaccurate 143 mm is, it's about whether it is sufficiently accurate for the purpose in hand. If it isn't then you can go to the next decimal point, 142.9 mm

Now 1/10 of a mm is pretty hard to see let alone measure and that's where it really counts.

In the imperial case 1/7th yard can be expressed to a chosen degree of precision using fractions of an inch. If you take it to the nearest 1/16th it can be worked out as follows:

There are 36 x 16 = 576 sixteenths in a yard. Hence 576/7 ~ 82.3 ~ 82 = 5 2/16 = 5 1/8

If you wanted to go finer say 1/32 then 36 x 32 = 1152.
1152/7 ~ 164.6 ~ 165 thirtysecond = 5 4/32 = 5 1/8, which is now verifed to be to nearest 1/32nd in

My reason for raising this whole issue is because of the nonsense I've seen here and elsewhere on this issue of accuracy and divisibility. Neither is more accurate than the other.

Anyone who is competent with measurements will understand that accuracy is about the physical sources of error in any given situation, not the abstract world of numbers. Even if a measurement is made with say a plastic ruler and we are able to mark someting out on an inch or cm division mark, the accuracy of the result will depend on how sharp the pencil is, the care taken and ultimately how good a quality instrument is used.

Am I getting through?

But in 90% of the need to express measures accuracy is never needed.

eg. 90% of measurement usage will be on the line of "the tree was 100ft tall". In reality the tree might be 102ft tall.

Now bear in mind my "90%" does not include the ignored figures on the side of boxes etc - I'm talking about practical usage between friends, work colleagues, family etc.

If you go to Tesco you "pick up" a "box" of "Cornflakes" - you don't look whether is 10grams or 4 kilos!

Similary you might buy a pint of milk - but most will pick up the "carton" of "milk" depending on how much you want. You wouldn't drag a 10 gallon tin of milk out of the shop because you mis-took the accuracy and relevance of the unit used.

I hope I'm coming across ok here! Its difficult to explain.

-----------------

Berenger: "Remind me how to calculate 1/3 lb?"
5 and one third ounces?

"OK Steve. If I have a 7-inch pizza, how do I divide it into 7 equal sized pieces?"

With a special septo-knife - available now at all good shops.
Yeah, I'm being flippant, but in reality one would never do that, opting for 1/4 1/2 1/8 etc. Ever noticed the left-over bit that everyone eventually wants anyway? ;-)

I think what we're all saying is - without manipulation imperial is the "better" system on the imagination, whereas with manipulation the metric way would be easier to execute albeit less familiar and might lead to "converting after the manipulation".

It's a "truth hurts" phenomena for "both sides" - although I'm wearing flame retardant clothes in readiness for being flamed by either "side" seeking to counter that for a variety of reasons that I could list but cannot be bothered too!

SteveH: "But in 90% of the need to express measures accuracy is never needed.

eg. 90% of measurement usage will be on the line of "the tree was 100ft tall". In reality the tree might be 102ft tall.

Now bear in mind my "90%" does not include the ignored figures on the side of boxes etc - I'm talking about practical usage between friends, work colleagues, family etc.

If you go to Tesco you "pick up" a "box" of "Cornflakes" - you don't look whether is 10grams or 4 kilos!

Similary you might buy a pint of milk - but most will pick up the "carton" of "milk" depending on how much you want. You wouldn't drag a 10 gallon tin of milk out of the shop because you mis-took the accuracy and relevance of the unit used.

I hope I'm coming across ok here! Its difficult to explain."

Stan: All this completely irrelevent. I was talking about those applications where measurement accuracy does matter.

Steve said

If you go to Tesco you "pick up" a "box" of "Cornflakes" - you don't look whether is 10grams or 4 kilos!

3 observations on Tesco & Cereal.....

1) I thought you said Tesco were imperial? :-) :-)

2) I disagree re the box size argument. At the local Co-op, a 500g box of Shreddies (Son's fave cereal) is around £1.30. A 750g box is £2.35. Simple maths (and the metric unit price marked on the shelf-edge) tells me that the 500g box is the better value (contrary to the usual "bigger packs are better value for money" theory.)

Currently, I am buying the smaller pack (and will do till the relative prices change)

3) I'm still convinced that Tesco is getting less imperial. The fruit & veg counter now shows metric larger than imperial on the big boards, and in equal sizes on the shelf-edge. The big "price per lb" stickers on the prepacked meat have practically disappeared.

Has the same happened down South?

Steve also said
"Berenger: "Remind me how to calculate 1/3 lb?"
5 and one third ounces?"

But isn't the Dram (16 to an ounce) the subdivision of the ounce?

5 and one third ounces
5 and one third kilos

Neither can be represented without the use of fractions or endless streams of decimals.








I'll buy a septo-knife tomorrow though!!!!!!!

Maybe in rural Wales the Tescos there haven't modernised yet. If you live in a progressive part of the UK like Scotland then it is understandable why your Tesco is more metric.

Yes Erin

You are right as usual.

What a great contribution you make to the debate.

Error NoBrains is basing his entire counter argument on a posting on the USMA site where someone mistakingly thought I lived in Wales. To be honest I have no issues with the anti-Welsh crap that its based upon. When you are Welsh you realise why that's the best bit about being British! ;-)

By the way, did I mention that John has been banned from the USMA site? I really can't remember whether I have or not ;-)

----

"1) I thought you said Tesco were imperial? :-) :-)"

Although I know you're fishing for bites from, shall we say, a "NoBrainer", but to international "normal" watchers we should clearly say that I've never said that Tesco use just imperial.
ErrorNB should be set some homework to go and reproduce any posts that said that Tesco is only imperial (apart from his own).

"2) I disagree re the box size argument. At the local Co-op, a 500g box of Shreddies (Son's fave cereal) is around £1.30. A 750g box is £2.35. Simple maths (and the metric unit price marked on the shelf-edge) tells me that the 500g box is the better value (contrary to the usual "bigger packs are better value for money" theory.)"

I go by the box size - if the stuff inside will 'go off' before I use up the whole box then any saving on getting a bigger box has been lost.

"3) I'm still convinced that Tesco is getting less imperial. The fruit & veg counter now shows metric larger than imperial on the big boards, and in equal sizes on the shelf-edge. The big "price per lb" stickers on the prepacked meat have practically disappeared."

Maybe its because Scotland is so progressive. You must be to produce gems like George Galloway!

ErrorNB: scratches head.


"But isn't the Dram (16 to an ounce) the subdivision of the ounce? "

Do you go down to the microgramme when at the new-fangled metric-only French speaking Tesco deli?

;-)

"Do you go down to the microgramme when at the new-fangled metric-only French speaking Tesco deli?"

Nah, I tend to ask for a couple of ounces or a quarter - just to give the staff some arithmetic to do!

"to international "normal" watchers we should clearly say that I've never said that Tesco use just imperial."

Sorry that my joke could be interpreted that way! No offence intended.

Beranger: "2) I disagree re the box size argument. At the local Co-op, a 500g box of Shreddies (Son's fave cereal) is around £1.30. A 750g box is £2.35. Simple maths (and the metric unit price marked on the shelf-edge) tells me that the 500g box is the better value (contrary to the usual "bigger packs are better value for money" theory.)

Currently, I am buying the smaller pack (and will do till the relative prices change)"

Stan: I've come across this as well (not Co-op). It was arificial sweetners. Similar story, cheaper unit price with the smaller packet.

I don't get it. They are pricing their own product out of the market! Crazy.

Stan

I posted last night from memory. Was in the supermarket tonight & checked

500g - £1.30
750g - £2.75

I know which one I'll be buying!

If I was really sad, I might buy one of each & mail the receipt to Steve!

"Do you go down to the microgramme when at the new-fangled metric-only French speaking Tesco deli?"

Nah, I tend to ask for a couple of ounces or a quarter - just to give the staff some arithmetic to do!


So how do you know if you got what you asked for? When you (not just you personally, but anyone who shops at the deli counter) view the scale in front of your nose, it will show only grams. Without a calculator, or having memorised the equivalents, how can anyone who still asks for imperial amounts know if they got the ounces they asked for or even how close?

Not everyone is a SteveH and avoids the deli counter because they can't bear to see the scales in gram and then have to post here that they are truely metric and Tesco made no reversion to fuddy-duddy units.

Erin

Don't you recognise a bit of p*ss taking when you see it?

Real answer - believe it or not, I do switch between imp/met when I ask. I'm not hung up on it.

Most supermarkets display "conversion charts" - have you seen one?

If I ask for a couple of ounces of some fancy cheese, I'm not going to complain if the scale reads 50g, 55g or 60g.

Again, I'm not going to complain if it reads 45g or 65g & the deli assistant says "just under" or "just over"

Before 1/1/2000, no-one complained if they asked for 1lb and were served 1lb 1oz - unless the shop refused to take 1 oz off the scale when asked.

"""Erin

Don't you recognise a bit of p*ss taking when you see it?


I didn't read that deeply into it. But it made me curious as how to ordinary people who aren't interested in weights and measures handle asking for something in one set of numbers and then seeing a different set of numbers on the digital display and on the receipt. """


"""Real answer - believe it or not, I do switch between imp/met when I ask. I'm not hung up on it. """


I'm sure you do. But I was more interested in what the masses of people do to assure they are getting what they want.


"""Most supermarkets display "conversion charts" - have you seen one? """

I know what one is, but how many people actually refer to them?


"""If I ask for a couple of ounces of some fancy cheese, I'm not going to complain if the scale reads 50g, 55g or 60g.

Again, I'm not going to complain if it reads 45g or 65g & the deli assistant says "just under" or "just over"

Before 1/1/2000, no-one complained if they asked for 1lb and were served 1lb 1oz - unless the shop refused to take 1 oz off the scale when asked."""



This actually answers my question. People ask for an amount and don't really know what they actually asked for and just except what they get. If they did know, then they would actually ask for amounts in the units on the scale and look for a match +/- an acceptable variation.

One way to test this theory would be to vend 500 g when a pound is asked for and see if people really notice the difference. I'd bet most wouldn't.

Quote: “The advantage of metric over imperial in this issue is that metric has a common series conversion factor between the prefixes, that being the factors of ten. Imperial has different non-related series depending on the unit used. Very confusing.”


1: I hope you realise, Beranger, that anyone bright enough at mathematics to understand the points at issue on this thread will have no great difficulty in either system, anyway.

For the less mathematically gifted, this is exactly where the ergonomic and culture-friendly character of Imperial/ USC units could count for a lot.


2: As for “just go to the next decimal point … Simple”, Stan, I have to tell you that decimal points are much easier to make MISTAKES with, too. I can certainly vouch for the fact that next to nobody seems to know or care about the difference between a decimal point and a full stop ( US period). Even outside the US, use of the latter for the former is widespread. And that’s only the beginning.

Working as a proof-reader, I always take excruciating care to check decimal points - usually full stops used as decimal points - because, 1) not only the poorest but, yes, even the cleverest mathematicians do make mistakes with them, just as people with PhDs in literary subjects make grammatical howlers, and for the same reason: complacent inattention, 2) decimal points/ full stops most often appear in monetary sums ( if somebody signs a document that says “£5, 675, 600” instead of “£56, 756. 00” he or she quite possibly can be stuck with having to pay it) and e-mail addresses ( as you can imagine, a decimal point/ full stop misplaced in an e-mail address is an e-mail address you might as well not have – few people will bother to ‘google’ about tracking down the correct one, or realise you can), and 3) proof-readers have been known to be made scapegoats, no matter how clearly we stipulate that we vouch only for typographic, syntactic and consistency errors and will not take responsibility for subject matter we do not understand ( actual ‘passing for press’ should be done by the copywriter and/ or a qualified person or, in the case of creative writing, a copywriter who thinks he’s a qualified person). What with these being sums of other people’s money, with the diplomatic task of asking a PhD if there’s “some special reason” why he has made a basic arithmetical error, and the fact that there ain’t no such critter as an infallible proof-reader, I doubt if I’m speaking only for myself when I say that I HATE DECIMAL POINTS!


It makes you realise that a truly convenient system would see what it could do about avoiding the little sods in the first place, only messing with them if needs must. Especially in light of the fact that most people are not mathematical PhDs and never will be. Yet reading this thread made me realise that that is pretty much what Imperial/ USC does.

Not in ten years of proof-reading have I EVER had this problem with Imperial units.

The only correction I have ever needed to make was changing an African writer’s curly apostrophes ( in a “( 6’4”)”) to conventional, upright apostrophes. Not only does the ‘inconvenience’ or ‘irrationality’ of switching between non-decimal subdivisions prove ephemeral when actually doing any arithmetic – as we often say on this site, remembering twelve inches to the foot and three feet to the yard is as easy as remembering seven days to a week and four weeks to a month – but it curbs one away from blunders with footling decimal points. After all, when was the last time you got a date or time reference wrong on account of the reckoning system? Of “06.45 a.m. Friday, 3rd April” the riskiest bit is, you’ve guessed it, putting the effing full stop in the wrong place!


So surely this is where Imperial/ USC/ any traditional system are at their MOST convenient. You are left free to write “71.675 feet/ ft/’ ” when indeed there is a special reason to put it that way, but normatively the system eschews integers. - Dare I suggest that the ‘convenience’ of a decimal system is of the ‘go faster stripes’ kind? The sort of pseudo-progress or ‘rationalism’ that led people in the sixties to believe that everything was just going to keep getting buggy-shaped? The sort that appeals to the vanity of ‘pseuds’ and makes a brilliant job creation scheme for bugginses, who get to pose as ‘the wave of the future’ but, in the long run, are ALWAYS proved wrong by real-life experience...

"Quote: “The advantage of metric over imperial in this issue is that metric has a common series conversion factor between the prefixes, that being the factors of ten. Imperial has different non-related series depending on the unit used. Very confusing.”


1: I hope you realise, Beranger........"

Chris

You are not much of a proof reader! :-)

The quote above was made by Erin - not me!

<<
I doubt if I’m speaking only for myself when I say that I HATE DECIMAL POINTS!
>>

... one of the reasons why in may countries commas are used as a decimal separator rather than dots.

"""1: I hope you realise, Beranger, that anyone bright enough at mathematics to understand the points at issue on this thread will have no great difficulty in either system, anyway.

For the less mathematically gifted, this is exactly where the ergonomic and culture-friendly character of Imperial/ USC units could count for a lot."""

Those bright enough in mathematics to be functional in imperial are far and few. The mathematically inept usually know only the most common units, can do very few calculations with them and can divide them only into the simplest of fractions, namely halves and quarters. To say USC/Imperial units count a lot for the majority of innumerate people is nonsense. The fact that most people are functionally innumerate in them is an advantage only to the manufacturers and marketers who take advantage of people not understanding imperial as a means at deceptive advertising.


"""2: As for “just go to the next decimal point … Simple”, Stan, I have to tell you that decimal points are much easier to make MISTAKES with, too. I can certainly vouch for the fact that next to nobody seems to know or care about the difference between a decimal point and a full stop ( US period). Even outside the US, use of the latter for the former is widespread. And that’s only the beginning."""


Making a mistake with decimals is easy only if you are not accustom to working with them. If you waste you efforts on keeping fractions straight and don't develop an experience working with decimals, then the first time you have to you are either likely to make a mistake or not notice if a mistake is made. Those who have the experience don't usually make these types of mistakes and if they do they recognise them easily enough to correct them.

The problem with the decimal point being overlooked is solved in non-English speaking countries by the use of the comma as a decimal marker, and the use of a space to separate numbers in groups of three. Whereas the number 123,456,789.123,456,789 can be read a number of different ways if not careful, the number 123 456 789,123 456 789 is easier to read once you adjust yourself to the difference.

The problem you are experiencing is due entirely from trying to incorporate bad English practices into metric usage rather then adopt more sensible international practices developed over time to prevent the vary problems you state from arising. It shouldn't take a rockrt scientist to figure this out.

Making a mistake with decimals is easy because decimal systems depend on the two smallest characters known to typography: the full stop and decimal point. Using a comma makes hardly ANY difference to the liability to error, in my experience. All the other uses of commas haven't just jumped down holes and vanished to avoid confusion, remember

Leaving gaps between groups of three figures makes matters worse, repeat WORSE because it depends on using typography’s most insignificant unit of all: the en space. That is why many publishing houses insist on both the comma and the en space – and I still catch myself having to sort those out, too.

“Those who have the experience don't usually make these types of mistakes and if they do they recognise them easily enough to correct them.”

Precisely wrong. Go back and read my post again and, in future, show some sign of, a) doing so and, b) clocking the fact that I’m talking about errors made by even the brightest and most experienced of people. And whilst you are about it, don’t ever apply for a job in publishing as you are liable to become an object of ridicule.


Beranger: you gave an the impression of trying to illustrate Erin’s point, or why were you posting here? Do you mean that you do NOT believe that the “advantage of metric over imperial in this issue is that metric has a common series conversion factor between the prefixes, that being the factors of ten” etc.? If so, fine. That would explain why banks insist that the sum on cheques be written in words as well as in figures. Were ‘simple’ figures expressed in decimals the short cut to efficiency, this would not be necessary. My point is that Imperial enjoys a similar safeguard, making sense of my own experience - of never seeming to catch errors in figures expressed in Imperial/ USC units.

Think about it: by depending on the decimal point to signal parts of the preceding unit, a decimal system commits itself to the risk of making errors in magnitudes of ten. Assuming your decimal point has ended up only ONE place to the wrong side! You can still write ( or anyhow get printed) mistakes in Imperial of course - misunderstandings between the figures eight and six, and one and seven, are the commonest I find - but that is a risk, a) Imperial/ USC shares with Metric and, b) less likely to lead to disaster than ending up with ten times, or a tenth of, the correct figure.

On Conrad’s ‘emotions are no argument’ thread on page eleven of the ‘Great Debate’ forum I offered a psychological reason for this ( it’s right at the bottom).

There is an equivalent problem in the Imperial system - the hand-writven values 21 1/16 and 2 11/16 can easily be confused - the character that separates the fraction and the integer is a space - unless one is careful about its placing, it too can easily cause problems. Furthermore, writing "2 11/16" requires either requires six characters or five characters and two font changes (superscript and subscript). In contrast, writing 2.93 requires four characters to provide a quantity with an better resolution (ie one part in 293 rather than one part in 45 ... (16+16+11=45)).

"""Leaving gaps between groups of three figures makes matters worse, repeat WORSE because it depends on using typography’s most insignificant unit of all: the en space. That is why many publishing houses insist on both the comma and the en space – and I still catch myself having to sort those out, too."""

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. You stated no reason why a space is worse. All you did was make a claim because of your bias against metric. I'd like to hear the comments of a proofread in a language other then English before I'm convined this practice is worse.

The use of a comma instead of a point is that a comma is more distinguishable from a point. Whereas a point may be mistaken for a smudge on the paper, a comma is less likely.




"""Precisely wrong. Go back and read my post again and, in future, show some sign of, a) doing so and, b) clocking the fact that I’m talking about errors made by even the brightest and most experienced of people. And whilst you are about it, don’t ever apply for a job in publishing as you are liable to become an object of ridicule."""


It is obvious that those who make the mistakes don't have a working experience with decimals as much as they may claim to do. I doubt that most Americans do. Those in metricated English speaking countries most likely do. But you appear to be speaking from an American experience and have biased yourself against the merits of other more efficient practices. Just because someone is a proofreader in the publishing industry does not make them an expert on style and format, nor does industry "standards" that are not in harmony with scientific standards make the publishing industry correct. How many publishing styles follow the BIPM/CGPM style for units? So being ridiculed by this lot would be considered a reward not a curse.

A solution to the problem that Martin described above regarding fractions is to use a plus sign instead of a space, for example 2+11/16. I have seen this done in a few places, although it has not caught on in general.

The correct solution is not to use fractions at all. Fractions are in reality incomplete division. Halves and quarters are fine in common lanuguage but beyond that fractions should never be used.

The problem with fractions in manufacturing is they create errors. For most work not involving a precision machine, anything past two decimal places is unobtainable and thus the fraction has to be rounded. Thus a number and a fraction like 2 and 11/16 works out to 2.6875. The "75" is meaningless and would force the number to be rounded to 2.69. In metric this would be 17.5 (assuming millimetres).

Non precision manufacturing in millimetres is more precise as you can stick with easy to use and read whole numbers for most work. Rarely is a half millimetre needed. Thus the metric equivalent of this number would be 18.

I've seen a lot of problems and mistakes with fractions. Most people have a hard time doing any calculations in practice. Those who have been trained in decimals need different tools then those devised to work with fractions. Those who can only work with simple fractions become frustrated with drawings showing decimal inches if the decimal inches can not be backed converted to a fraction via a chart. A problem that does not exist with metric.

Imperial is very confusing, error prone and costly to a business.

Bud wrote

<<
A solution to the problem that Martin described above regarding fractions is to use a plus sign instead of a space, for example 2+11/16. I have seen this done in a few places, although it has not caught on in general.
>>

This is one of the differences between the UK and the US - the UK tends to use either a pure Imperial system or a pure metric [decimal] system while the US tends to use a bastardised decimal system.

Martin - with respect that is wrong. I've seen loads of uses of fractionalised metric and decimalised imperial in the UK.

Worse still, I've seen "step up" imperialisation of metric. For example "2 metres and 25 centimetres tall".

Although rare - I've actually seen (I kid you not) a sign saying "weight limit 7 1/2 tonnes, 2.5 miles" ! Although I grant you that one is a real rarity!

==========


Berranger enscribed: "Sorry that my joke could be interpreted that way! No offence intended."

No offence taken - I thought that you might have been dangling the bait for someone!!


NoBrains: "When you (not just you personally, but anyone who shops at the deli counter) view the scale in front of your nose"

You are basing your opinion on an event that you've neither seen nor been involved with.

"...and Tesco made no reversion to fuddy-duddy units."

Berrenger - your bait worked!!! :-D

"One way to test this theory would be to vend 500 g when a pound is asked for and see if people really notice the difference. I'd bet most wouldn't. "

LOL! He's been measuring records again!!



ErrorNoBrains reminds me of Dr Who at the time of a transformation (into a new Doctor). You appear to be softening your tone, and thus I expect your name to change soon!

:-D

P.S. - To Chris Chamberlain:

I like your post-style, we need more of that!

Two main reasons for me:

1) Very well thought out and carefully written.

2) You appear to infuriate 'Erin' (John) which is a good thing in anyone's books! ;-)




I think Conrad should return here too. Although on the pro-metric "side" I like the style of his posts too.

Martin - with respect that is wrong. I've seen loads of uses of fractionalised metric and decimalised imperial in the UK.

Worse still, I've seen "step up" imperialisation of metric. For example "2 metres and 25 centimetres tall".

Although rare - I've actually seen (I kid you not) a sign saying "weight limit 7 1/2 tonnes, 2.5 miles" ! Although I grant you that one is a real rarity!
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------

This kind of thing is hardly surprising given the incompatible mixture of units used in Britain

I didn't infer or suggest that anyone complained about that! I doubt ANYONE has!

Maybe my use of "even worse" led me into the trap of actually contemplating that mixing measures in a country is a "disaterous mess" !

;-)

Just as another example, I was doing an experiment the other day involving heat transfer. All you engineers will be familiar with this. The pipes were specified in inches, but we had a centigrade thermometer and we knew the heat capacity of water in J/gC. So we ended up with heat transfer coefficients in W/in^2-K. We left them that way.
I really don't see anything wrong with this kind of thing, provided it is consistent.

Bud wrote

<<
Just as another example, I was doing an experiment the other day involving heat transfer. All you engineers will be familiar with this. The pipes were specified in inches, but we had a centigrade thermometer and we knew the heat capacity of water in J/gC. So we ended up with heat transfer coefficients in W/in^2-K. We left them that way.
I really don't see anything wrong with this kind of thing, provided it is consistent.
>>

Consistent with what or who? Everybody else in the department? Every other company who is also invovled in the project including the engineering company down the road? Everybody else in the country? Everybody else in the world?

Everyone else in the scope of who it will affect during its application.

We don't need a world government to wipe our ar***

"""Just as another example, I was doing an experiment the other day involving heat transfer. All you engineers will be familiar with this. The pipes were specified in inches, but we had a centigrade thermometer and we knew the heat capacity of water in J/gC. So we ended up with heat transfer coefficients in W/in^2-K. We left them that way.

I really don't see anything wrong with this kind of thing, provided it is consistent. """


You should!


When you said the pipes were specified in inches, what exactly were you referring to? If you mean you were referring to the TRADE NAME as an actual dimension, then your calculations would be way off. No real engineer would depend on trade names as true dimensions. A real engineer would measure the pipes and measured dimensions would be used. If all the other factors were in SI units, then the measurements of the pipe would be too, even if they had to be converted.

A half inch (13 mm) copper water pipe, for exapmle, has internal dimension of 16 mm and outside dimension of 18 mm. The difference in cross secional area is 273 mm^2 (531 mm^2 vs 804 mm^2). Multiplying this by the length of the pipe would give the volume difference, which can be significant enough to affect your end result.

I doubt you had a "centigrade thermometer", as none have existed since 1948. You may have had a thermometer in calibrated degress Celsius. A good engineer knows and uses the correct terms and is up-to-date on terms and practices. The unit for specific heat is the joule per kilogram kelvin (J/kg.K), not J/gC, as that would be joule per gram Coulomb. The resulting heat transfer coefficient is the watt per square metre kelvin (W/m^2.K), nothing else.

By creating a bastardized unit, you have isolated yourself from published data and have opened yourself to possibility of error and of developing a "who cares" attitude that can come back to haunt you in the future. This attitude may be fine when using english units, but is unacceptable when using SI. If this is typical of American engineering today, no wonder the Germans and Japanese are way ahead technologically. Don't believe it? Then go to any modern factory in your town and look at the machines they have and guaranteed, they weren't made in the USA.

Your sloppiness in technique and attitude is a disgrace. If the school promotes this type of carelessness, I'd leave and demand my money back.

Someone hand him his mallet back.

Please?

Martin said: "There is an equivalent problem in the Imperial system - the hand-written values 21 1/16 and 2 11/16 can easily be confused - the character that separates the fraction and the integer is a space - unless one is careful about its placing ... Furthermore, writing "2 11/16" requires either six characters or five characters and two font changes (superscript and subscript)."

Super- and subscript involve changes in point size, Martin, not font. A publisher would certainly be asking for trouble setting the numbers of the fraction either side of a slash, in the same point size as the whole units an en space after them, as you seem to say - but why make hard work of it? Even in the days of hot metal it was no great inconvenience to use this or that fraction's special character. We have to use thousands anyway.

In any case are you sure you've quite got my point? Using more or special characters initially may well avoid more problems further down the line. Remember my comparison to writing a cheque's sum in words. The trouble with your "2.93" is that it's so simple and slick, it's slippery.


I may be back as I may have thought a way of putting all this to the test empirically.

I don't disagree (how's that for a double negative?) with some of the criticism above of the dangers of the decimal point.

It would be better if a more substantial symbol was used. A comma is better but personally I wish something else was used. It is as Chris rightly observed quite critical.

Maybe a hash symbol? 123.456 becomes 123#456
Or perhaps two characters? >< (> and <) so 123><456

Who knows.

Anyway I will nonetheless point out that this is purely a problem with syntax not the principle of decimal which, for measurement purposes, is far more convenient than fractions.

Having said that I would stress that "for measurement purposes" not mathematics generally. No one can learn mathematics properly on decimal alone, in fact you have to understand fractions before you can understand decimals.

Decimals are just fractions where the denominator is a power of ten. The point system of representing them makes them easier to do arithmetic when it comes to pure number. However the quotient form remains important for all sorts of things in the rest of mathematics.

<<
Consistent with what or who? Everybody else in the department? Every other company who is also invovled in the project including the engineering company down the road? Everybody else in the country? Everybody else in the world?
>>

Since this is a free-standing project (not one component of a larger project), consistency within the project is all that matters. If anyone else had been involved with this project besides us, we would have had to check with them before doing this. Assuming that they were using the same equipment as we were, they would have likely agreed that it was the best thing to do.

"""Maybe a hash symbol? 123.456 becomes 123#456
Or perhaps two characters? >< (> and <) so 123><456"""

Neither is any good. They are too complex to write or type. If you can't see a comma, then you need to go see an optomistrist and have your eyes examined. This is just imperial excuses coming from those who refuse to admit the war is lost and metric has won. No one is listening to their nonsense but themselves.



"""Anyway I will nonetheless point out that this is purely a problem with syntax not the principle of decimal which, for measurement purposes, is far more convenient than fractions."""


AGREED!

"""Having said that I would stress that "for measurement purposes" not mathematics generally. No one can learn mathematics properly on decimal alone, in fact you have to understand fractions before you can understand decimals."""

Fractions are simply incomplete division. You don't need to learn fractions as much as you think. You need to learn to carry out the division to the final step instead of being taught to leave numbers in an irrational form. 3/4 means three divided by four. When you complete the division you get the rational number of 0.75.


"""Decimals are just fractions where the denominator is a power of ten. """


Not true! A decimal number is any number represented in the base 10 number system, that is using 10 distinct symbols to represnt the value of a number. 65 is just as much a decimal number as 0.47. 65 is an integer number of whole parts and 0.47 would be a portion of a single whole part.

The fraction 6/10 is just as much incomplete division as 2/3 would be.

Stan said: "Maybe a hash symbol? 123.456 becomes 123#456 Or perhaps two characters? >< (> and <) so 123><456"

To which "Error NoBrains" replies: "Neither is any good. They are too complex to write or type. If you can't see a comma, then you need to go see an optomistrist and have your eyes examined."

Here's that charming spirit from a chap that cannot stand the fact that people can have diverse opinions all across the spectrum.
The problem with being self-tightly wedged to one extreme is that you cannot blend with those who broadly should hold the same position as you - hence him being banned from the USMA listserver for being obnoxious and extremist.
Stan - I really hope you are starting to realise that, despite our own differing viewpoints, at least you can finally agree with me as to the nature of this jerk.

ENB: "This is just imperial excuses coming from those who refuse to admit the war is lost and metric has won."

So there you have it, Stan. It appears that you layed down your weapon and crossed the minefield to, perhaps temporarily, fight with the "losing side".

ENB: "No one is listening to their nonsense but themselves"

....he says whilst listening to their arguments and responding to them.

ROTFL!!! (literally)

Decimals are just fractions where the denominator is a power of ten

Stan said: "Maybe a hash symbol? 123.456 becomes 123#456 Or perhaps two characters? >< (> and <) so 123><456"

SteveH says: The trouble with that is the hash symbol is used for 'pound' in the USA. Also the "><" looks confusingly like 'greater than the smaller of' or a typo of 'not equal to'.

Maybe they should introduce a new character on the line of a lower-case 'o' but filled in.

"Decimals are just fractions where the denominator is a power of ten"

Agreed, even a child should know this. ;-)

Talking about "wars" - isn't that what "Metnow" said?

Makes you think......

<<
Fractions are simply incomplete division. You don't need to learn fractions as much as you think. You need to learn to carry out the division to the final step instead of being taught to leave numbers in an irrational form.
>>

This is true in elementary level arithmetic, but definitely not true in higher maths. In algebra and calculus, it is standard to use fractions, not decimals (even in metric countries).
By the way, fractions are not "an irrational form." They are rational numbers.

I think that when ErrorNoBrains said "an irrational form" he may have been refering to himself!

:-D

Erin: “How many publishing styles follow the BIPM/CGPM style for units?”


Dozens in the UK alone. As many as there are publishers competent to handle contracts from higher educational establishments, in the world. Elsevier Publications of Cambridge are one, some of whose biological and earth sciences material for post-graduates I proofed in the mid-nineties. Westlake Publishing of Cambridge is another, whose proof-reading test I passed at about the same time. Many of their copywriters and editors are Cambridge graduates and decimal systems, I assure you, are the least of the things in which they are formidably conversant. Yet being human they make mistakes.


Whereas you, right down the opposite end of the Bell Curve, struggle to read plain English such as, “Leaving gaps between groups of three figures … depends on using typography’s most insignificant unit of all: the en space,” and “All the other uses of commas haven't just jumped down holes and vanished to avoid confusion”, and instead yap like a Dalek as though there were no answers all your questions in my earlier posts. Which at least explains why you think simple mathematical symbols “too complex to write or type.”

Speak for yourself, cretin.

So by all means run away and find a proof-reader in another language, or guess which one I’m competent to proof in besides English, because I can tell you what he or she will say: the choice of language makes not a blind bit of difference to what is a transcription question.

Here's a simple test for you: since you insist the en space or the comma is some magic bullet for clarity, show us all how YOU can tell whether “up to 243 456, 567 of which” represents one number ( and clause) or two numbers ( and clauses), with no better ‘steer’ from the context than that. Or if the copy has really been mangled, three numbers/ clauses.

We’re all “imperialist” dimwits, remember so come on – humble us!

You know how easy it is, Erin.

Show us what you can do.


Oh, and if one can’t find “an expert on style and format” or two amongst proof-readers, and more amongst editors who served their time as proof-readers, where should one look? Amongst graphic designers? Only I’m one of those too and you, little boy, are that grievously ignorant, puerile stack of shit I put in his place last time, aren't you?


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
’:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::…/::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::\…:……::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/:::::::
::::::::::\::::::::::::::::d888b:::::::::::::::/:::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::…d888888b…::::::’::::::::::
:__::::::::::::::::::::8:.:>..<::3::::::::::::::::__:
:…::::::::…::::::::::(:.((O)):)::::::::::…_:::::::
:::::::::::::/:::::::::::::)____(::::::…\:::::::::::::
::::…::::……__|””[_\__/_]””|__:::\ ::::::::::
:::::::::/:::::::/|....….............…...|\:::::::::::::
:’:::::/::::::::/:|.......…THE...……|:\:::::::::::
:::.::::::::.::|::|...…....END…......|::|…’:::::
::::::::::::::::\:|........OF THE.…..|:/:::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::|.…..American…...|…:::…::::
::::::::::::::::::|......Economy…....|::::::::::::: :
::::::::::::::::::|..…..IS NIGH…....|:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::|...........…......……|:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::|......................…..|:::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::|______________|:::::::::::::::
:::.:::::::::::::::::||||||||||:::::::|||||||||… :::::::::::::
:::::::::::………|::::::|::::::::|::::::|:::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::|___|::::::::|___|:::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::((O)))…::::((O))):::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::MMMMMMMMMMMMM|::::::::
:::::::::::::M::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|M::::::::
:::::::::::::M::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|M::::::::
:::::::::::::M::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|M::::::::
:::::::::::::M::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|M::::::::
\\\\\’”’”””’MMMMMMNMMMNNM\\\///”""""


\\\\\!!!!!!!!!///…………..…:\\\\\!!!!!///..….:





,,,,,,\\\!!!!!!!!!\\\\////!!!!!!!!!///,,,,,,,,,,,,,\\\!!!!








!!!\\\,,,,,,,,///!!!!!!\\\\////!!!!!!\\///!!!!\\\//!!!!!!///


\\\\////!!!!!!!!!!\\\///!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\\\///!!!!!!!!///,,,,,,,,,