A gratuitous and subjective point of view on measurement systems.
Following my awkwardly provocative forum reply,
about how metric system rules, to my intentionaly provocative and childish
forum topic, on
how EUR owns USD, I decided to start my very own b0g jihad on non-metric
systems.
The main motivation for such an article is that I have nothing better to
do.
However, I will try my best to illustrate the benefits of the metric
system.
In order to make this rant more enjoyable, I will not be 100% true to
myself and sincere, I will develop my rant b0g style : sarcastic, cynical,
narrow-minded, insulting, intolerant, gore, partially informed and maybe
scatologic.
Someone challenged me to give a single concrete reason why the metric
system is better then other systems such as the imperial system.
Here is something for him to chew on.
Apparently, it is not clear to everyone why the metric system is the only
viable system.
The superiority of the metric system over any other system is so obvious
that I will not even need to use the argument of the majority by showing
how the vast majority of the people use the metric system.
Concrete reason : The metric system is a
consistent decimal measurement system.
Therefore it appears logical and straightforward to organize units in
powers of 10 (^10).
This allows easy mathematical manipulations to be applied to measurements
for greater usability and I will, of course, explain that in details a
little later.
On the other hand, organizing units according to pragmatic prehistoric
measurement tips, as used in some non-metric systems, is not only
unpractical, but senseless, in spite of the nice "where does that unit
come from ?" historical touch.
Now it is time to be more explicit. Below are actual sample units :
How can one not see the superiority of the metric system ?
Also note that I intentionally skipped 2 imperial units : the pole (or rod)
and the link. Those units do not even subdivide into an integer number of
the next smaller unit (1 rod = 5.5 yards, WTF ?).
It is understandable that one might keep using a non-metric system to
measure things that are from rarely to never mathematically manipulated.
A good example is the time measurement system which could grossly be
described as a hybrid-base system.
Base-10 for measures under the second, 60 for measures in seconds or
minutes, 24 for hours, 28/29/30/31 for days, 12 for monthes, ...
I admit there is no point bothering changing the time system to something
more metric. The reason being you don't usually do math with time
measures.
Now, being a computer programmer, I am well aware that this assumption is
not true; there are numerous usages of time calculations.
But even when you deal with time calculation in computers, clever
programmers don't bother using the time units in their algorithms.
Instead, they manipulate mathematical representations of time measures.
Those mathematical representations of time are numbers computed through
specific algorithms taking a classical time representation (eg : September
23rd 2006 at 06:28 AM) and transforming it into its mathematical
representation (eg : 0.654737444366532652652) so that :
- two different classical time representations always give two
different mathematical representations;
- any given classical time representation will always give the same
mathematical representation.
The resulting equivalent value is easily "understandable" by a
computer.
That way you can apply all mathematical operations, transformations and
formulaes to those values : summing, substracting, comparing, making
averages,...
This example on time manipulation gives a hint on how common sense tends to
using units that are :
- easy to remember and crystal clear; {coefficient} {prefix}{referentialunit}
{ 3 } { deca }{grams}
- easy to use and manipulate; 3 decagrams + 250 decigrams = 0.055 kilogram = 0.55 hectograms = 5.5
decagrams = 55 grams
- easy to convert; How many bytes are there in 1.44 megabytes ?
{coeff.} {mega} {ref. unit}
1.44 * 10^6 bytes
- allows you to represent the widest range of values; metric : offers infinite range {coefficient} * 10^{integer} {unit}
anglo-saxon : range of values limited by unit labels (yards, miles,
...).
- consistent with all measures. {coefficient} * 10^{integer} {meter/liter/gram/Watt/byte/...}
***
Now it's time for a little quizz !
According to the few theoretical advantages described above, answer this
hard question :
Q: If you have to set up a measurement scale using pure water, what would
you use as referentials (choose one of the following) ?
1) A big round even value of 100 when hot pure water starts evaporating and
a default round value of 0 when cold pure water solidifies into ice.
2) A random value of 32 when cold pure water starts to melt (because
you're 32 years old or because you had your way with 32 different
girls at that time) and another random value of 212 when hot pure water
starts boiling (because your street number is 212 or because you wanked 212
times so far this week).
3) Simply assuming the value 0 as the lowest temperature possible.
***
Honestly, the only drawback with the metric system could have been the fact
that, in order to be more human-friendly and respect the vocabulary
richness of all the languages of the fine and educated people that use the
metric system, pure numerical representations (eg : 3.465 * 10^7 meter) had
to be dubbed with prefixes (eg : mega-) and their respective label (eg :
"million" for mega).
For instance, in the metric system, the label "quintillionth"
represents the prefix "atto" (10^-18).
Also, in order to learn the system, you have to memorize the prefixes and
the labels.
One could argue that this makes the metric no better than other systems.
Wrong.
If you take a closer look at the naming in the metric system, you will
notice a certain patterns.
First of all, metric prefixes all come from latin. Their translation gives
a slight hint about the range of the value.
For example, the prefix "nano-" tells us we are dealing with
something small.
Of course, other systems have units that also give such hint but the big
difference is that the metric prefixes apply to all fields. You can use the
prefix "nano-" with "nanometer", "nanogram",
"nanojoule", ...
This means you only have to learn and memorize a given set of prefixes and
then apply them to any measure you want and everybody will understand
you.
On the contrary, other measurement systems use completely different sets of
unit names whether you are talking about length, weight, volume, and so
forth.
Secondly, metric labels like "hunderd", "thousand" or
"billion" is extended logically to deal with wider ranges.
You have "billions", "trillions",
"quadrillions", "quintillions", etc.
Again, latin comes to the rescue. The first part of each of these words is
latin for quantities : "bi" means 2, "tri" means 3,
"quad" means 4.
Assuming that each of these labels constantly represent a value 1000 times
bigger, you can automatically guess how you call 1000 quadrillions : a
quintillion.
All this thanks to the fact metric system uses decimals.
You can now rely on this fact to never wonder what are 10 grams called. A
value 10 times bigger corresponds to the prefix "deca-", so 10
grams is simply 1 decagram.
One could argue that the metric system naming might be more straightforward
but that a non-metric system is as simple to use one you get used to the
naming.
It might be correct but fact remains that the metric system is designed to
represent any range of values by simply using numerical representations
with powers of 10 regardless of any prefix or label. Labels and prefixes
are there for ease of communication.
Non-metric systems do not rely on a base system. One have to come up with a
new term and an arbitrary rate each time you want to represent bigger or
smaller values.
You cannot directly convert a big value of a small unit (1394 inches) into
its equivalent using a bigger unit (0.02... miles) without knowing the
conversion rate.
And of course, once you have converted the value, it is possible that the
precision decreases just because the units you just converted are not
multiples.
***
Now it's time for a little story !
John Doe always used his foot to measure things.
One day, he wanted to measure things smaller than his foot, he came up with
the first idea that blasted through his slow brain and decided to use his
thumb to measure inches.
Fortunately enough, his feet were exactly 12 times as long as his thumb,
not even a little more ore a little less, how impressive.
***
This never happens with the metric system. Not only you never lose
precision when converting units of the same measurement, but you also
always have the conversion rate (1337 grams gives 1337/1000kilograms -> 1.337 kilograms).
Of course everybody knows this, that is exactly my point. I am just
pointing out the obvious : metric system owns.
Well, do not mind my explanations after all.
The true reason why the metric system is the best is because it allows you
to count with your fingers.
posted by u83r1337*N!Xh4x0r on Saturday 23rd September 2006, 04:04:53
I just can't believe that americans and englishmen are capable of
using the imperial system in a blink of an eye.
BTW it's fun to fool americans when they ask for directions in Norway
and you tell them "oh just a couple of miles away" (cough -
Norwegian miles ;) )
Serves the bloody imperialists right! Allah Akhbar! Etc.
"In order to make this rant more enjoyable, I will not be 100%
true to myself and sincere, I will develop my rant b0g style : sarcastic,
cynical, narrow-minded, insulting, intolerant, gore, partially informed and
maybe scatologic."
Actually its not all. I am a science student and reguarly use the
metric system because it is SI. It makes conversions ridiculously easy
to do - you try expressing 113 picograms in imperial...
Oh yes, I hated having to bother with the imperial units in some
thermodynamics course. My calculator would default to them, so I
had to reconvert back into those crap units. Often I'd just
do it all in metric and then convert at the end.
Rant : metric system Vs non-metric systems
