View Full Version : The Metrics are coming! The Metrics are coming!
Sniper_Fox
04-30-09, 01:29 AM
I cannot stand the imperial system. I feel sorry for you yanks. I am terribly used to using metres. And am a good judge of distance with my eyes using them. But translating all htat into miles or yards. Its ridiculous! Is there any mod that makes the tools metric? like the radar ranges and such?
Even setting it on metric doesnt change all the bells and whistles ya know?
DarkFish
04-30-09, 06:32 AM
yeah I know what you mean, there seems to be no logic in the imperial system whatsoever. 1 ft = 12 in, 1 yd = 3 ft, 1 nm = 6080 ft......:o aaaaargh!:damn:
I don't know about any way to make the game use metric system besides setting it on metric. I don't think there's any other way if that doesn't change enough for you.
Personally I use the following estimations for quick conversion:
3 ft = 1 m
1 yd = 1 m
1 nm = 2 km
usually that'll do it for me, only very rarely do I need more accurate values.
Jep, the imperial system really is messed up. I guess it's like japanese/chinese letters...if you do not grow up with it you'll never be able to master it.
There's simply no rules or system behind the different measurements connecting these. :doh: But I guess that is to be expected when using a system not based on modern science, but ancient and medival time trading and travelling.
Luckily there's only one country left in the world using imperial. Unluckily driving a fleetboat makes you part of the simulated history of that country, so you gotta adjust for any feel of immersion:know:
ETR3(SS)
04-30-09, 09:34 AM
Mutual feeling. I'll give metric credit for its simplicity, but I stand by my imperial measurements. And remember Bewolf, the meter wasn't always based on modern science like it is now. ;)
A Very Super Market
04-30-09, 11:37 AM
Height in Canada is nearly always measured in feet, not metres. All else is usually measured in metric.
AVGWarhawk
04-30-09, 11:46 AM
For me, I could never get a good grasp on metric:oops:. Like stated above, if you grew up with it you are good to go....for either of these measurement systems.
I am used to the metric system too but switched to using imperial for SH4.
__Immersion__! :yeah:
Mutual feeling. I'll give metric credit for its simplicity, but I stand by my imperial measurements. And remember Bewolf, the meter wasn't always based on modern science like it is now. ;)
Ah, com'n, lemme provoke a bit :DL
vanjast
04-30-09, 02:46 PM
I grew up in the metric system, and after doing a lot of reading on the nautical system... the metric system is completely out of place here.
1) Latitude and Longitude is measured in Degrees and Minutes
2) 1 knot @ 1 hour = 1 Minute of Arc = 1/60th of a Degree (360 degrees around the earth, 180 degrees between N-S poles)
3) Celestial Navigation is in Degrees and minutes
1000's of years of making this very simple (and easy to understand - If you take the time) nautical system, is not going to be changed by the metric system.
If you think about it, the metric system is good for measuring distances, weights, and other 'in your face stuff'.
But when dealing with big round objects and relating positions to objects in the sky - the metric system fails dismally.
It's trigonometry, angles and degrees that make it work. you could from here relate the metric system, but why bother re-inventing the wheel when an already 'perfect' system is in place.
:D
I grew up in the metric system, and after doing a lot of reading on the nautical system... the metric system is completely out of place here.
1) Latitude and Longitude is measured in Degrees and Minutes
2) 1 knot @ 1 hour = 1 Minute of Arc = 1/60th of a Degree (360 degrees around the earth, 180 degrees between N-S poles)
3) Celestial Navigation is in Degrees and minutes
1000's of years of making this very simple (and easy to understand - If you take the time) nautical system, is not going to be changed by the metric system.
If you think about it, the metric system is good for measuring distances, weights, and other 'in your face stuff'.
But when dealing with big round objects and relating positions to objects in the sky - the metric system fails dismally.
It's trigonometry, angles and degrees that make it work. you could from here relate the metric system, but why bother re-inventing the wheel when an already 'perfect' system is in place.
:D
:up:
I might add that in SH3 I always had to convert my current speed to km/h when estimating ranges on the nav map, because everything used to be in km there.
Using nautical miles is by definition so much more comfortable:
1 knot = 1nm/h.
RICH12ACE
05-01-09, 12:26 PM
i like imperial and hate the new metric here in england :-?
FIREWALL
05-01-09, 12:36 PM
I like both. Each has it's own best uses.
XonE:32
05-01-09, 07:54 PM
I grew up in the metric system, and after doing a lot of reading on the nautical system... the metric system is completely out of place here.
1) Latitude and Longitude is measured in Degrees and Minutes
2) 1 knot @ 1 hour = 1 Minute of Arc = 1/60th of a Degree (360 degrees around the earth, 180 degrees between N-S poles)
3) Celestial Navigation is in Degrees and minutes
1000's of years of making this very simple (and easy to understand - If you take the time) nautical system, is not going to be changed by the metric system.
If you think about it, the metric system is good for measuring distances, weights, and other 'in your face stuff'.
But when dealing with big round objects and relating positions to objects in the sky - the metric system fails dismally.
It's trigonometry, angles and degrees that make it work. you could from here relate the metric system, but why bother re-inventing the wheel when an already 'perfect' system is in place.
:D
Vanjast has it bang on. But that is in the 3D real world. My monitor is only 2D and the game only offers Metric or Imperial. *Mmm... dreams of a holographic3D monitor...drool. In which case I can see where the frustration can creep in. Think of it as learning curve and learning is capital F-U-N fun. :hmmm:
I was born in a metric country, grew up in an imperial country, then moved back to a metric country. I get completely farfed up with both and then depending on the cookbook when I go to cook something I get to add dry & liquid measures on top.:O:
Just be thankful we're not using Cubits and Palms?
Lord Kelvin
05-01-09, 08:12 PM
Heh, being a Physicist I'm 100% used to working in Metric, despite living in the US, and that's how I used to set my game. But nowadays, I prefer playing in Imperial units, since that's how they did it back then, and it makes course calculations really easy too. Plus, the torpedo range calculations are nice and round.
Rockin Robbins
05-01-09, 08:12 PM
Metric measurements are based on things other than man, which bear no relationship to the use to which objects measured by these nonsensical units are put. Let me choose say..... a submarine. It must be built to contain men. Therefore measurements relating to men are most appropriate units to work with:
The foot, self-explanatory, the length of a "standard" man's foot.
The inch, the distance between the first and seond knuckle on your pointing finger.
The yard, the distance between the end of an up-pointing thumb on an outstretched arm and your nose.
The cubit, the distance between your elbow and fingertips (maybe it's the end of your closed fist)
Objects which contain men should be measured using units relating to the men who are to use them, not some weird fraction of the distance between Earth's pole and equator. That's nonsense!
And WHY should measurements be powers of ten from each other when the usefulness of the measurements doesn't fit that. The fact is an inch is one twelfth of a foot. You would stuff actual relationships into twisted and perverted sodomy for the purposes of convenient calculation? Do you not have a calculator? Any idiot can see that there are three feet in a yard and no power of ten!
Why sir, if man is the measure of the universe, let the universe be measured in relation to man.
Even Europeans realize that relevancy of measurements makes Imperial measurements intrinsically superior. How fast is your U-Boat moving right now? 20 kilometers per hour? No, I say! HELL no, I say. Your submarine, oops, U-Boat itself says it is traveling 10.8 knots. A knot is a nautical mile per hour: a superior and actually useful Imperial measurement. The people rest.:har:
XonE:32
05-01-09, 08:45 PM
Duodecimal for the win?
Goooo Base 12!:03:
I actually can't see your point there, RR. I mean, just because the system is used by people, there's still no necessarsy relationship to the thing they measure using it.
Meaning that no one will use his foot or knuckels or elbows or what ever to measure anything. That's just an antique definition that is still used for convenience.
And if the mariners design their tools in a way that they measure and display distances correctly either way is good.
The metrics are in a slight dilemma as the nautical measurements are used even combined with the metrics. Nobody would say that a ship is sailing at x km/h, he would say it is travelling y knots instead. That's why I was a bit confused that in SH3 they measured even large distances in km instead of nm.
On the other hand, even in the imperial system in SH4, I have to convert values when I estimate my own way travelled in shorter periods of time.
When taking two observation points of a ship within 10 minutes for example. I would calculate [own speed]*2025 / 6 = x, where x would be the distance in yards my boat traveled within those 10 minutes.
Its not *that* easy to do that in your head ;) (I'm using a calculator, could also use the in-game nomograph, but still ...).
The conversion between knots an km is strange, true. But that's why afaik even metric-sailors use nautical miles as their mean of long range measurement.
Rockin Robbins
05-02-09, 07:44 AM
First, my post was not an entirely serious post. I use metric exclusively (except for knots) when I'm playing with the U-Boat and consider that as important as not importing the American TDC into the U-Boat. You lose a central part of the experience if you use Imperial measurements there.
But my observation that the scale of metric units being inappropriate and using powers of 10 being inappropriate have some validity. The meter, for instance is way too large to use to measure people. We can say that people tend to be between 4 and 7 feet tall, but what are we talking in meters? 1.2 meters to 2.1 meters? See, the unit is too large. We could use centimeters and say 12 to 21 centimeters, but because that is 10 times smaller, now your unit is too small to explain a simple numerical relationship. The reason is that the metric units are not related to the human form at all.
If you analyze the human body as da Vinci did you find simple numerical relationships between the parts in whole numbers of 1, 2 and 3 and multiples thereof. Nowhere in nature will you see relationships of 10/1. Trying, for the sake of easier computation, to stuff all our relative measurements into powers of 10 is not appropriate because it hides the simple relationships found in reality. We are like the child who repeatedly crams the circular peg into the square hole because that hole is easiest to reach.
Study da Vinci's analysis of the geometrical relationships of parts of the human body. See how the numbers 1, 2 and 3 (and their multiples) are very important there and nowhere can you find 10, an artificial construct having no relationship to anything but ease of calculation.
We have calculators now. The only rationale for the metric system is gone. The only question that remains is "Which measurement system makes sense for measuring the world that men live in." That would be Imperial.
Heh, being a Physicist I'm 100% used to working in Metric, despite living in the US, and that's how I used to set my game. But nowadays, I prefer playing in Imperial units, since that's how they did it back then, and it makes course calculations really easy too. Plus, the torpedo range calculations are nice and round.
LOL, well after all you are Lord Kelvin and not Lord Celsius :rotfl:
I have grown and studied with a metrics system, yet my first subsim was Silent Service (Amiga) and the first one on my PC was Silent Hunter I, so learned to love the imperial system, and as Vanjast already said, nothing beats it for nautical measurements: 2000 yards= 1 mile, and the 3 minutes rule are the best thing around!
When playing with U-Boats I go back to metrics and have no problem adapting to it, because I have grown with that, but it's simply awesome and lovely to be able to play with US subs in their own measuring system. :yeah:
First, my post was not an entirely serious post.
Damit, I knew it. :damn: ;)
What I meant was that I always thought of those foot measurements as the origins of the imperial system, but that doesn't make it more useful. Back in the times where this system was invented it was useful because even without rulers and calculators people could easily measure the length of stuff and make comparisons based on this. But as we now always use rulers or more sophisticated devices of length measurements it doesn't matter anymore whether they display in meters or foot or whatever.
On the other hand the metric system sure comes in unhandy when it meets some other well established conventions, like longitudes and lats which makes more complicated conversions necessary.
A thing that still puzzles me though is, whether the u-boat crews really used kilometers instead of nautical miles. Because as far as I know german sailors (and most likely others that would normally use metrics) rely on nautical miles. I would like to know if it is historically confirmed that u-boat crews measured long distances in km. That would have made things more complicated than necessary.
But my observation that the scale of metric units being inappropriate and using powers of 10 being inappropriate have some validity. The meter, for instance is way too large to use to measure people. We can say that people tend to be between 4 and 7 feet tall, but what are we talking in meters? 1.2 meters to 2.1 meters? See, the unit is too large. We could use centimeters and say 12 to 21 centimeters, but because that is 10 times smaller, now your unit is too small to explain a simple numerical relationship. The reason is that the metric units are not related to the human form at all.Small correction: centi= a hundreth, deci= a tenth. Don't blame me, blame the greeks. :know: In Europe a person' length is usually quoted measured in terms of centimeters. But I grant you that. If I gauge a persons length in centimeters I never visualise all 160-190 of them. It is usually in relation to my own eye-height and my own length as once told by a metric-ruler.
The following is adressed to this thread in general.
If may, I would like to ask a question to provide further insight to the emotions that get provoked by this metric/imperial divide. What is it about metrics that really rubs in the wrong way.
1. Is it 'the system', that every metric value is based on natural powers of 10 of a certain unit. (the levels of which are denoted by greek prefixes like: terra, giga, mega, kilo, hecto, deca,deci, centi, milli, etc.) As opposed to imperial measures which are units related using (a seemingly random choice of) small prime numbers (and factors thereof, i.e. 12=2x2x3). The latter is convincingly argued, to me anyway, by RR with his reference to Leonardo da Vinchy's 'Vitruvian Man'. (atleast that's what comes to mind) However, I still count 10 fingers and 10 toes, made up of 2 prime numbers 2x5. ;)
Or 2: Is it just the size of the meter, or actuall mass of a (kilo)gram etc., and it's appearant non-humanbody origin? Suggesting things should be measured in man-sized units falls apart considering human size has been known to have been variable over the centuries, not to mention entire cultures, and most clearly by age. The imperial patern of inches to foots to yards, or slugs to stones to pounds or whatever says nothing about an actual standard of size or weight that is to be more 'standard'. The lengths may have been made up according averages of human sizes, but the weights have definately been made up. Perrish the thought if our weigths are ever measured in terms of 'thigh-bones'. A bloody mess that will be. :/\\chop
As for nautical units. It is a matter of luck that the yard fits 2000-ish times into a nautical mile. (Gee, do I see a power of 10 in there. ;) ) Also, saying that a nautical mile is as long as a arcminute along the surface of the earth (more precisely: defined to be along a meridian) proves nothing about it's preverance over a kilometer. And both are defined 'along the same lines' from the beginning, just a different division. It all comes down to the question why a circle needs to be divided into 360 parts known as degrees, and each degree into 60 minutes, and each minute in seconds. The Babylonians (where the origin of degrees/minute/second lie) must have had good reasons for them. But sofar it looks arbitrary to me. 365 days in a year is barely convincing. And where would the 60 come from? I have no clue.
vanjast
05-04-09, 08:17 AM
But sofar it looks arbitrary to me. 365 days in a year is barely convincing. And where would the 60 come from? I have no clue.
Maybe 1000's of years of astronomical observations, and sailing had something to do with it.
You could change it all to metric, but imagine the disasters. There's been quiet a few already with aircraft, where 'imperial based' countries have converted to metric.
:)
Maybe 1000's of years of astronomical observations, and sailing had something to do with it.
You could change it all to metric, but imagine the disasters. There's been quiet a few already with aircraft, where 'imperial based' countries have converted to metric.
:)I guess, I have never lived that long to come up with some alternative. ;)
BTW, I don't advocate one system over the other. Both have there merrits. Imperial for the 'natural feel' vs. metric for it's regularity and objectivity. As I've said before, they (meter vs. nautical mile) both look like apples and oranges to me. Spherical in nature. Both sour to some degree in taste. And both start to rot (in my mind) if not frequently used.
A thing that still puzzles me though is, whether the u-boat crews really used kilometers instead of nautical miles. Because as far as I know german sailors (and most likely others that would normally use metrics) rely on nautical miles. I would like to know if it is historically confirmed that u-boat crews measured long distances in km. That would have made things more complicated than necessary.
They used metrics for anything related to firing solutions and target plotting, as well as for short distances when maneuvering the U-Boat (Near the pier, distance to another ship to prevent collisions, etc.) but for navigating they used the sea mile (1852 metres) and of course the conventional longitude/latitude divisions. Whenever a navigator or the Kaleun talked about something related to navigating, miles were used unless the distance mentioned was short.
The Babylonians (where the origin of degrees/minute/second lie) must have had good reasons for them. But sofar it looks arbitrary to me. 365 days in a year is barely convincing. And where would the 60 come from? I have no clue.
They also came up with counting by dozens, and you still will buy eggs in dozens or half-dozens. Again some arcane reason behind that that also....go figure :zzz:
vanjast
05-04-09, 03:46 PM
You see back then when they had no atomic and solar pollution, people had 3 eyes and 12 fingers and toes - not to mention that women had 3 boobs as well.
Just goes to show how contaminated our world is..:hmmm:
why we are on about imperial v metric, what do the metric countries use at Air traffic control these days? when I used to fly it was all in FEET, ie flight level 250 = 25,000 FEET, spacing distance was in MILES too, has all that changed too?
Simon
Sniper_Fox
05-06-09, 11:06 PM
For me, I could never get a good grasp on metric:oops:. Like stated above, if you grew up with it you are good to go....for either of these measurement systems.
how? everything is divisable by 10.... 10mm to a cm, 10 cm to a decimetre 10 decimetres to a metre 1000m to a kilometre (kilo means thousand)
thats unbelievably easy
Rockin Robbins
05-07-09, 05:38 AM
And there's the only handle on dominance the metric system has: units divisible by powers of 10. Were it not for that, it would have been abandoned as junk 100 years ago. However, ease of calculation is valued over utility and relevance. After all, you CAN measure stuff with it. The real world has divisions of scale based on small prime numbers, not 10.
Number of degrees in a circle is a holdout. Why 360? There were 360 days in a Roman year. Each day the Earth traveled 1/360 of the way around the Sun. Actually that isn't quite correct. Between the same time on two successive days, the stars had traveled 1/360 of the way around the Earth. (wrap your brain around THAT!) And then at the end of the year they tacked on 5 or six days belonging to no year at all, called it Saturnalia, a festival where the object was to eat and drink way too much, all contracts, even (or especially) the marriage contract, were deemed not in force and you were encouraged to copulate with as many members of the opposite and/or same sex as possible before the next year began. Quit your dreaming, it wouldn't work today!
Why don't we have 10 days in a week or 10 weeks in a quarter? Damn! Can't have quarters of a year, that's archaic... OK, kill months too unless you want 10 months in a year. But then a year would be longer than a year. Who cares! It would all be divisible by 10. All measurement of time is arbitrary anyway. Kill the year and call it the Ptolemy. Naw, he wasn't some socialist European egghead, we have to name the year after one of them. After all, part of the metric system is to take all units, rip the descriptive names from them and then call them by the name of a dead scientist. I know!!!!! The year will become the Darwin.
Days need to be divided into 10 Hawkings (no more hours), comprised of 10 (choose obscure scientist)s and 100 (choose another obscure scientist)s. Voila! Now time has as ridiculous a measurement system as distance, mass, power and electrical characteristics, with units that mean nothing in particular and have no relationship to the world as we know it! Because these units are all divisible by 10 Eurpopeans will love them and the rest of the world will be forced to comply!
Yes, we can bring order to the world, just as insane job titles have brought order to the corporate world, where district sales managers have no district, they don't sell and manage no one. Progress is sweet!
But you should also consider why it is so easy to calculate when everything is a multiple of 10.
The decimal system established probably for the same reasons you lead onto the field for usage of the imperial measurements: convenience and a natural connection to it.
Mathmatics adapted to Numbers at a base of 10 perhaps we all have 10 fingers, 10 toes or whatever. But that would be a very natural thing to use those numbers, right ?
And that makes everything very natural to calculate at a base of 10. And now, that measuring devices have finally given us the opportunity and accuracy to measure and compare stuff even if it's not the length of a foot, the number of days per year, ..., why shouldn't we rely on an easier to calculate system then ?
I mean, utility, usability and convience can also be given by the ease of using a system. I don't want to say that everything should be changed to a system where every unit is divisable by 10, I just wanted to point out that this fact is also a very natural one for us, as was measuring lenghtes in feet when nobody had precise rulers.
ETR3(SS)
05-07-09, 08:13 AM
If everyone on the face of the planet converted to metric, does that mean the Brits would have to change their money from pounds sterling to kilograms sterling? :O:
Yes, we can bring order to the world, just as insane job titles have brought order to the corporate world, where district sales managers have no district, they don't sell and manage no one. Progress is sweet!
LOL you mean like having a country divided in counties, despite not having -and never having had-, earls, dukes, marquises and such? :har: Not even in continental Europe (Where we still have them in many countries) did we do that in the modern age. (J/j of course, no offence intended but just pointing out the funny contradictions history causes)
Yes, divisions are arbitrary, the more so in the nature. You have a point there :up:
DarkFish
05-07-09, 08:49 AM
But you should also consider why it is so easy to calculate when everything is a multiple of 10.
this is the main advantage of the meter. I'm 1,89 m tall, that's the same as 189 cm or 18,9 dm, it simply doesn't matter what unit you choose, it's the same number.
If you measure my length in the imperial system it'd be 6.2 ft; 6.2*12=74,4 in; 6.2/3=2.07 yd.
What matters most is what you grew up with. If you're used to the imperial system it's probably easy to see the advantages this system has, while I, having grown up using the metric system, can't see why there are still people preferring the imperial system.
Personally I don't think discussing this any further has much use as both systems have their advantages.
Besides, there haven't been any new arguments for the last page or so, it's all about metric being easier with calculations while imperial is based on more logical units. We've brought up the Romans, Greeks and Babylonians, will we end up discussing the measuring system of Homo Erectus?:)
Even naming conventions have been discussed, and what's been said doesn't make any sense either. Isn't Fahrenheit an 'obscure scientist' too, RR? And does anyone know some 'Mr. Metre' or 'Doctor Gram'?;)
And all the time there hasn't been anyone who even made an attempt to answer the question this all started with:Is there any mod that makes the tools metric? like the radar ranges and such?So unless someone has got something really new to say let's quit this war between the metrics and the imperials and get back to sinking ships:yeah:
just my opinion, don't be offended, if you want to continue this fight just go ahead but I doubt it'll be useful
Of course, everyone should use what he/she is used to use.
And although you can make the 'natural point' for the imperial and metric system as well, I don't know how much this really counts.
In our culture the decimal system feels really convenient but even that is not naturally given for us. Look at the romans for instance, they used their own version of a unary number system and lived well with it for hundreds of years.
Sniper_Fox
05-07-09, 11:01 AM
the romans lived with it because they couldnt come up with something better themselves. everything they had was stolen from other nations. Their gladius was a celtic invention, same with mail(chainmail was first invented by Celts, it baffled the romans because the Celts seemed almost impervious to their spears!)[lorica hamata is the name of the roman equivilant that they stole and modified], and their helms and their shields - modified gallic sheilds. when the Roman empire began to stagnate the technology dried up, and the remaining people's who'd fought hard and long enough to keep from becoming subjugated continued to develop technology and society. eventually overcoming them, aided by the fact that the romans had to accept non romans into the heirarchy, who turned on them in the final episodes of the empire.
look at rome's religions originally they stole the greek's gods, then as the empire grew and grew (after 100AD) the empire began to encorporate their subjugated people's gods inside their place of worship inside Roma herself! the names of carthaginian gods, and even a few eastern one's i believe were included! Then, dolefully, with constantine, they would again steal a religion, and pervert it, or Romanize it as they like to see it, inorder to use it for control over the growing (and increasingly dissatisfied) christian population. Afterall, if the head of your religion is the head of state, it would be a sin to rebel, and you'd risk eternal damnation!
:timeout:
totally off topic... I read too much history for my own good :yawn:
EDIT: I should however add that the Romans were exceptional builders and engineers - a good example would be Julius Caesars wall around Vertingorix's last settlement's walls. The romans build 2 giant seige walls of wood and turf around the city's walls because the gauls had a relieving force that was coming to fight him.
Rome had a knack for taking people's inventions, adapting them to their own Roman style, and in some cases improving on them. Such as the pila, gladius, or aqueduct. They failed to be good innovators, and were wary of change (see violent reactions to 'power hungry' senators.) and only accepted something if they saw it already work (see celtic weaponry ripping through roman linthorax and tunics), which all attributed to their cataclysmic and power vacuum destruction.
Munchausen
05-07-09, 07:34 PM
:03: Ironic that all of this is being discussed on computers ... which use base 2.
Rockin Robbins
05-07-09, 09:02 PM
And 2 is a small prime number, so is much more amenable to measuring our universe than base 10. Powers of 10 are too far apart and end up with a unit that is too large or a unit that is too small. the small prime numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the building blocks of the universe.
The amazing thing is that 5 is not a number you often see in nature at all. It is too large a prime number! The very first one that is too large and we multiply it by two and use it. Missed it by THAT much!
Erm, could you please explain to me what advantage we would have displaying numbers to the base of a small prime ?
I mean, in the decimal system the gaps between the powers are larger, yes. But we have also more digits to display the numbers in between. There's no accuracy lost as we display the same numbers just a different way.
I'm probably just too tired right now but I just don't see where small primes as a base would be more useful.
In computer science we use base 2 because transistors have to differentiate between low level and high level voltages. Theoretically we could divide those levels into smaller intervals that way that also computers would work to the base of 10. But that would be far to unreliable as the gap between each to values would become too small to tell them appart 100% all the time.
Using numbers to a higher base than 2 would be useful because this would allow the machines to store the same amount of information in much less space, compared to the space-heavy binary system.
vanjast
05-08-09, 01:48 AM
:03: Ironic that all of this is being discussed on computers ... which use base 2.
There are only 10 people that understand this... Myself and the other person:03:
Logic was simpler to implement that analogue.
Munchausen
05-08-09, 04:32 PM
In computer science we use base 2 because transistors have to differentiate between low level and high level voltages.
The transistor was invented in 1947 (a very good year). Computers are a lot older than that. Binary code probably comes from the "on-off" limitation of mechanical swithches in some of the earliest computers.
don1reed
05-08-09, 05:28 PM
$0.02
an interesting book on this topic...
"ZERO The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" by Charles Seife
Cheers,
:03: Ironic that all of this is being discussed on computers ... which use base 2.Yeah, considering with 10 fingers we could really count upto 1024 instead of just 10. (We don't call them digits for nothing :D ) It's those ring and pinky fingers. They never want to bend independant of eachother. :(
Yeah, considering with 10 fingers we could really count upto 1024 instead of just 10. (We don't call them digits for nothing :D ) It's those ring and pinky fingers. They never want to bend independant of eachother. :(
Actually, it's only 1023 ;)
But we should still really start counting in binary with our hands, takes a little bit of pratice getting used to it but would be much more efficient ;). Nice Idea. :yeah:
But the fact that we usually can only count up to 10 with our 10 fingers is not a fault of the 10 based system but a fault of our fingers. Because each one alone can't display more than two digits we are forced to use them counting in the unary or binary system.
Sailor Steve
05-10-09, 04:16 PM
And when we start doing that all the hearing-impaired folks are going to stare at us and sign to each other "What are they talking about? I don't know that language!":rotfl:
FIREWALL
05-10-09, 04:21 PM
Don't worry SS. Even the hearing-impaired know what nerds and geeks are. :haha:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.