Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[werothegreat]

Anything above 1 Milliard (1e9) becomes incomprehensible really fast.

No one uses long form.  Go back to the dark ages.

Continental Europe does. And it makes more sense than short form.
At least there's no possible confusion with it.

Tell me, how much is a Trillion? (2 answers possible).

I realize that "billion" is supposed to mean "million million" and "trillion" is supposed to mean "million million million" and that's where "bi" and "tri" come from, and I realize that it would make more sense if instead of "million, billion, trillion" we had "bousand, trousand, quousand" or something like that, but the half things, the "-ards", while sounding cool, just make the whole process more confusing.  If someone says "quadrilliard," that takes a moment of thought.  If someone says "quadrillion" in short form, you just think "oh, that's the 4th one after thousand".  It might not make sense semantically, but short form is easier to work with mathematically.  And "quadrillion" (short form) is a much more useful number than "quadrillion" (long form).  The former may actually see the light of day with the US's national debt soon, but the latter will probably only ever be used to quantify the size of stars, and at the point, you're going to use scientific notation anyway.

[Kirian]

Anything above 1 Milliard (1e9) becomes incomprehensible really fast.

No one uses long form.  Go back to the dark ages.

Continental Europe does. And it makes more sense than short form.
At least there's no possible confusion with it.

Tell me, how much is a Trillion? (2 answers possible).

How is there no possible confusion?  Only someone who uses both systems could possibly confuse "trillion" with anything other than 10^12.

Looking up information on this, interestingly the plurality of the world's population uses neither system; China, India, and Japan, among others, use other traditional systems.  Among the 25 most populous nations, 11 use the short system (billion = 10^9), 9 use a traditional system, and only 5 use the long system.

In other words, except for most of continental Europe, and a few former French and Spanish dependencies (Mexico and Congo, for instance), no one uses long form.  It is approximately as backwards as the USA still using the Imperial measurement system.

[DStu]

In other words, except for most of continental Europe, and a few former French and Spanish dependencies (Mexico and Congo, for instance), no one uses long form.  It is approximately as backwards as the USA still using the Imperial measurement system.

Seems like there opens a path to a compromise...

[Kirian]

In other words, except for most of continental Europe, and a few former French and Spanish dependencies (Mexico and Congo, for instance), no one uses long form.  It is approximately as backwards as the USA still using the Imperial measurement system.

Seems like there opens a path to a compromise...

Oh please, please, please.  I hate the Imperial system.  Please let me use SI units in everyday life.  Please.

[theory]

The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

[werothegreat]

The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

The one big thing that bothers me about the Imperial system is that "pounds" are both a measure of mass, and a measure of force, which is one of the big reasons why most people still have trouble distinguishing the two.  "Hurr hurr, I weight less on the Moon, so I won't have to diet there!"  "... yes, you will, you fut fack."


(wasn't sure if I'm allowed to say naughty words on this forum - and yet spellcheck tells me "fut" is actually a word...)

[WanderingWinder]

The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

The one big thing that bothers me about the Imperial system is that "pounds" are both a measure of mass, and a measure of force, which is one of the big reasons why most people still have trouble distinguishing the two.  "Hurr hurr, I weight less on the Moon, so I won't have to diet there!"  "... yes, you will, you fut fack."


(wasn't sure if I'm allowed to say naughty words on this forum - and yet spellcheck tells me "fut" is actually a word...)

Actually, pounds aren't a unit of mass. You have the lazy 'poundmass', which is the amount of mass to give you a pound of force under 'normal earth gravity', and you have, more properly but less used, slugs.
Also, I'm not sure why you'd think 'naughty words' are unacceptable, but such obvious spoonerisms (is this technically a spoonerism) are fine...

[Schneau]

(wasn't sure if I'm allowed to say naughty words on this forum - and yet spellcheck tells me "fut" is actually a word...)

That's 12 ichnes.

[DStu]

slugs.

Just realized that this imperial system really misses some strange unit for "time"...

[WanderingWinder]

slugs.

Just realized that this imperial system really misses some strange unit for "time"...

What do you mean? Seconds is the strange unit, and originates pre-metric.

[Tables]

On the subject of strange units of time, it looks like WW made that post about 185 ounces ago...

[Davio]

Don't even start about time.

As a software programmer I find myself battling time and awkward APIs every day.

I'm a fan of New Earth Time as it's very international.
230 degrees in The Netherlands is 230 degrees in the USA. It's basically the location of the 12 AM line.
So if the time is 230 degrees, it's 12 AM at 230 degrees latitude (or was it longitude?)

[theory]

I think with all the SI fetishization we miss a couple points: namely, that convenience should trump mathematics for everyday use.

This is an argument in favor of using metric to measure distance (though in construction, imperial tends to be easier because of how many factors 12 and 36 have), but not time, and not temperature.  For everyday use, Fahrenheit is objectively more convenient than Celsius.

[WanderingWinder]

For everyday use, Fahrenheit is objectively more convenient than Celsius.

It is?

[timchen]

For everyday use, Fahrenheit is objectively more convenient than Celsius.

American prejudice! I think it really depends on what you grow up using.

[theory]

Yeah.  Celsius degrees are twice as "fat" as Fahrenheit degrees and therefore less precise with fewer significant digits.

Americans can say "today is in the 60s" and you immediately have a sense of what the temperature is.  You cannot say "today is in the 20s" and know what to expect from a Celsius perspective.

In other words, Fahrenheit is sufficiently precise that you need only one significant digit for everyday purposes.  Celsius requires two.

Plus, 0 to 100 is a convenient frame of reference for the most extreme weather temperatures the average person will likely encounter.

It's true that 0 = freezing and 100 = boiling is somewhat convenient for Celsius purposes.  But in every day life I have never, ever needed to know that 32 was freezing or 212 was boiling.  It just isn't relevant for figuring out today's weather.

[DStu]

I think with all the SI fetishization we miss a couple points: namely, that convenience should trump mathematics for everyday use.

This is an argument in favor of using metric to measure distance (though in construction, imperial tends to be easier because of how many factors 12 and 36 have), but not time, and not temperature.  For everyday use, Fahrenheit is objectively more convenient than Celsius.

Time I also don't see. "Day" ans "Year" are the only one that are fixed, "Month" is quite hard to define /10, but everything else below a day, you could just define as you like.

[theory]

But we're used to 24 hour days and 60 minutes.  It's not especially more convenient to force people to change to decidays and centidays.  And 10 is wonderful for multiplying but not so wonderful for being divided.

[Fabian]

You know what I'm used to though? Celsius. I absolutely don't buy that Fahrenheit is more convenient (never mind "objectively" so, heh), and I think if you were used to using celsius the post above wouldn't have been written.

[timchen]

Yeah.  Celsius degrees are twice as "fat" as Fahrenheit degrees and therefore less precise with fewer significant digits.

Americans can say "today is in the 60s" and you immediately have a sense of what the temperature is.  You cannot say "today is in the 20s" and know what to expect from a Celsius perspective.

In other words, Fahrenheit is sufficiently precise that you need only one significant digit for everyday purposes.  Celsius requires two.

The first two points are true but somewhat contradictory. In fact, both systems are over-precise for weather proposes. Your point is more valid if we compare Fahrenheit/10 with Celcius/10.

And actually, 10s(5-15) in Celsius= cold, 20s= comfortable, 30s= hot also work fine. Or if you figure this is not precise enough you can think in increments of 5. Sure writing down 2 digits is twice as hard as writing one; nevertheless conceptually increment of 5 and 10 are not that different. As I said, it really is a habitual thing.

On the other hand, can anyone tell me why or whether base ten numbers is better than other bases, say, base 8 or base 16?

[Thisisnotasmile]

On the other hand, can anyone tell me why or whether base ten numbers is better than other bases, say, base 8 or base 16?

Because we have ten digits.

[WanderingWinder]

I'm holding out for a factorial-base number system, and (more seriously) an 'absolute' temperature scale.

Indeed, the 1 sig fig argument does not sway me that much. ; saying that the temperature is 70 is a pretty significant difference to me than 79. Not to mention that 1 sig fig in the 0-9 range of the celsius scale is pretty darn useful, significantly moreso than you get from the fahrenheit scale. Finally, and most importantly, the extra effort to go from one digit to two is really negligible - in any case, I want more. So I think the reason that '70s' and the like get used more is that the temperature varies from moment to moment. I get upper/lower/mid much more than just 70s. But anyway, for these purposes, you can do a similar thing on celsius - it's around 23, or it's in the mid 20s, or whatever it is.
I use fahrenheit, because I'm used to it, but I don't think that it's really easier. I just happen to be used to it. Somehow, feet are not more normal to me than metres, though; neither for volume; for weight I know pounds much more - nobody uses newtons day-to-day - but between pound-mass and kilogram... I guess pound-mass might be slightly more normal to me. But not super much. Certainly I'm more used to grams than ounce-equivalent.

[Davio]

It's all about what you learn when you're young.

If we start teaching our kids that we use 20 digits instead of 10, they'll be able to use it flawlessly.
Then again if we have 20 digits, we can't really express the number of digits in base 10.

Neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius (nor Kelvin) is optimal for every day use for simpletons. We could just express the weather temperature on a scale from 0-10 with 0 meaning "freezing your ass off" and 10 meaning "noon in the Sahara desert". This would map from -10 to 40 Celsius or something like that.
In human understanding, there isn't a big difference between -10 and -50, only "very cold" to "colder than the devil's heart". Anything above 40 also becomes incomprehensible, it's only at 100 that we can say, well that's when water boils.

And that's not even true, water at the tip of Mount Everest boils at a 69 degrees Celsius.

[theory]

On the other hand, can anyone tell me why or whether base ten numbers is better than other bases, say, base 8 or base 16?

This was a very helpful post on AskScience Reddit on this question.  Turns out the mathematically "optimal" base is ... e.

[eHalcyon]

And actually, 10s(5-15) in Celsius= cold, 20s= comfortable, 30s= hot also work fine.

In human understanding, there isn't a big difference between -10 and -50, only "very cold" to "colder than the devil's heart".

Whoa, what?  No Canadians here, I guess?  5-15 C is not cold, it's cool.  It's not cold until -20.

And let me tell you, there is a huge difference between -10 and -40 (not going to consider -50, haven't experienced that).  In -10 weather I'm still wearing t-shirts under my fall jacket, maybe with a hoodie.  At -40 I'm wearing long johns and have a giant winter jacket.  -10 is still pleasant.  -40 is not.