Metric II 5

[vpl]

The original post is getting a little hoary -- not to mention hard to read.

So this is an opportunity to continue the debate in a nice, new post where people may actually read your input because they don't have to wade through 100's of other posts to do so.

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[corus]

There is no advantage at all in adopting a duodecimal system. To argue that 1/2=0.6, etc is an advantage is absurd. In the decimal system 1/5=0.2 and 1/2=0.5 seems good enough for me for someone who doesn't like long division. Going to a 12 numbering system brings back the glory days of english money of 12 pence to a shilling, 2 shillings to a florin, 20 shillings to a pound and 21 shillings to a guinea. It certainly was (not) a joyous time trying to add up money in the predecimal days!
Of course a duodecimal system already exists in that we have the dozen as a recognized measure of quantity. Though I did here of one tale of MacDonalds selling chicken wings in portions of 6, or 12. When the person asked for half a dozen they were told, "sorry sir we only sell them in portions of 6, or 12" ... You just can't win

corus

 

[unc]

corus

You have ignored totally the items you can't refute, in particular that 1/3 would be 0.4 exactly. Unless you are prepared to look at ALL of the advantages, citing a single item as a counterargument is just ducking the question of which system is better.

 

[BigH]

Why wasn't time converted to metric? Let's see; 60 second/12=5 ... 60 minutes / 12 = 5 . . . 24hrs/12 = 2 . . . 12 months/12 = 1 . . . mmmmmmmmm.
- quite an interesting thread, I think.

 

[JoeTank]

During this holiday season we often send cards to those in far away places. Somehow "missing you from across the kilometres" just doesn't have the right ring to it.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[BigH]

Neither does kilometrage over mileage! I read an interesting piece yesterday in the paper about how even Europe hedges a bit - they call 500g a pfund?; hence order meat, etc by the pfund or half-pfund. I'll try to find it and see if it is posted anywhere.

 

[BigH]

x 5 - I read that bit in this thread - arrrrrggggghh.

 

[StressGuy]

unc, so far the only "advantage" you keep pointing to by going to a base 12 numbering system is being able to represent 1/3 by the exact value of 0.4 in base 12 vs. 0.333333333 in base 10.

That's not nearly enough to generate much enthusiasm on my part, particularly with the drawback that, as you said, we need two more digits to represents the numbers 10 and 11 of base 10 in a base 12 system. Plus, just about every measuring device currently in use from speedometers to pressure gauges to bathroom scales reports to us in a base 10 system. So, switching to a base 12 system would not be simply a matter of educating the next generation in school to use base 12 instead of base 10, we'd have the substantial expense of replacing an incredible amount of hardware and signage around the world that would become "wrong" since reading the speed limit sign that says 55 miles per hour would become 65 miles per hour.

Considering that computers and calculators can calculate 1/3 with enough digits to be precise enough for most work (certainly more so than any Roman base 12 scale, I'd wager) I just don't see how switching to base 12 can pay off.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[unc]

StressGuy

Sorry I couldn't include all the reasons in a post like this, as there are just so many. All I can do it state some of the advantages without providing the detailed tables and examples. I would be happy to provide much more by email if you wish, but for now will jsut stick to statements (which you could verify yourself by a little calculation).

1. Greater divisibility, since 12 has factors of 2, 3, 4 and 6, where 10 has only 2 and 5.
2. Reduction in the number of repeating fractions when expressed in duodecimal.
3. Simplified multiplication tables with more regularity in resulting values.
4. Visibly easier identification of divisibilty.
5. Representation of values with fewer digits.
6. As a result of 5, greater precision with the same number of digits, or equal precision with fewer digits.
7. Time is still predominantly based on 12, 2 x 12 hours per day, 5 x 12 minutes per hour and seconds per minute.
8. Measures of angles (apart from radians) is still predominantly 12 based with 3 x 12 x 10 degress in a full revolution.

As I said before, comparing tables of values in each number base would show the clear superiority of the duodecimal base for calculation. However, it would not be sufficient to introduce such a number base without also providing with it a coherent set of names, prefixes, and a consistent set of weights and measures.

The number base is just one part of a whole system. I may not have stated it before, but close examination of our current definition of the second and the metre from their original definitions onward shows clearly that the metre is a completely arbitrary measure resulting from circular arguments from the definition of the metre to the second, to to speed of light and back again to the metre.

"The senses imprison us, and we help them with metres as limitary,--with a pair of scales and a foot-rule and a clock."

http://www.footrule.com

 

[25362]

To unc, some general questions concerning the probable advantages of converting to base 12:

What are the benefits of having say, [Π][sub]12[/sub] = 3.184809493...instead of the conventional 3.1415926535...? The same concerning other transcendental numbers like e, etc. ?

What advantages would result from converting log[sub]10[/sub] to log[sub]12[/sub] as, for example, when calculating pH ?

While writing numbers in base 12 is one thing, would you orally still call 1300[sub]12[/sub](=2160[sub]10[/sub]) one thousand three hundred ? Wouldn't that be confusing and disruptive ?

One comment:

At this stage, I must agree with the opponents to the switching over to base 12, in that given the inertia inherent in the use of the present decimal system, conversion would be far more trouble than its worth.

 

[TrevorP]

Further to BigH and unc. Time is actually quoted in base 10, not base 12.
If it was in base 12, we would require 2 new numerics for 10 and 11. Let's call them A and B for the sake of argument.
So then we have clockwise from the start - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,10.
As opposed to:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.

If we work in base 10, not base 12, then a duodecimal system is illogical. If we already had, and commonly used symbols for A and B, then base 12 would be the norm., and would make more sense.

Also,

12 has factors of 2, 3, 4 and 6, where 10 has only 2 and 5.

But, what what about the inverse? 6/12 = 0.5, then 3/12 = 0.25 and 9/12 = 0.75. Other than that...
How about 10? 1/10 = 0.1, 2/10 = 0.2, 3/10 = 0.3 etc.

Since we currently already have base 10, introducing base 12 would be thoroughly confusing, as some would use 10 and some 12, so really you'd have to come up with symbols for 1 to 11 [base 10], or else you'd have to write 100[sub]12[/sub] for 144[sub]10[/sub]. I have enough trouble with omission of units - i.e. pressure = 18, let alone thinking about which base it is in.

 

[BigH]

Point taken - has a bit to do with AASHTO's reporting concrete test strength results to nearest 79kPa.

 

[IRstuff]

Any advantage of duodecimal is rather pointless, since most people can't do math without a calculator anyway.

TTFN

 

[MRM]

I'll try this once again, and I'll check my sense of humor at the door so my post won't get pulled again....

Unc said, "All that is needed to bring it (a duodecimal system) about is for American industry to find a significant economic advantage it may give over their competitors and it would be on its way."

I can't see that happening. The idea, however, is kind of neat and I understand Unc's points. I hadn't thought of it before.

 

[25362]

Industry ? And what about science ? Geophysics, astrophysics, economics, chemistry, to name just a few, would have their data and formulas completely changed.

Try to rearrange the atomic numbers of the periodic table of elements. U wouldn't be 92 anymore, but 78 !

Even the 55 mi/h limit would change to 47 mi/h !

All formulas based on log[sub]10[/sub] would have to re-adapt, as for example, the Richter intensity scale of earthquakes.

A Babel-type of confusion would be the result.

 

[epoisses]

My post got pulled too... What happened to freedom of speech? I just asked unc to give an example of how his idea could be economically justified. I guess it was not a question to be asked!

 

[GregLocock]

epoisses - Freedom of speech, where it exists, is intended to allow you to be allowed to say what you like (with certain provisoes). It does not guarantee you a platform from which to say it. Eng-tips is a platform, owned by a private company. As such they can do what they want with your posts. Including delete them.

If you really want to discuss base 12 as a substitute for denary then why not set up your own web site or discussion board to do so? Who knows, you may get so much traffic that you get rich beyond the dreams of avarice?

Base 12 is at the very least off topic for a forum entitled "Where is engineering going in the next 5 years", it would be more appropriate in a forum entitled "Engineering we do while off our heads on magic mushrooms". So far as I know there is no intention to start such a forum on eng-tips.


Cheers

Greg Locock