Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Still more metric
From: lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:06:17 -0400

Henning writes:

"Using the metric system because we have ten

fingers are related, but not the reason. Our

common numbering system is base 10, and that is

why metric makes sense. Our numbering system is

base 10 because we have 10 fingers. Therein lies

the logic."


Logical, perhaps, but not practical. Many other systems of measurement in
common use use bases other than 10. Computer science uses the binary system
(base 2) since a switch, relay, or transistor is either open or closed.
Close behind is the octal system (base 8) for measurement of text in bytes
and the hexadecimal system (base 16). Merchants use the duodecimal system
(base 12) since a dozen of anything can be divided by factors 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 6, making it easy to sell things by the fractional dozen. Thirty five mm
film is sold in commercial lengths of 12, 24, and 36 exposures. Even Lincoln
calculated historical time by the score (base 20) in the Gettysburg Address
phrase "Four score and seven years ago." And, of course, we recently
celebrated the millennium (base 1000).


On a personal note, the first computer that I personally programmed was the
Burroughs 101, a base 10 machine that used 10 step Nixie tubes as a
calculating element. The machine existed during the heyday of 10 digit IBM
cards. While it made interpretation of the results easy for a ten fingered
operator, the machine was soon eclipsed by much faster binary machines. So
it goes.


Larry Z


Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Still more metric)
Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Still more metric)
Reply from shino at panix.com (Rei Shinozuka) ([Leica] Still more metric)
Reply from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] Still more metric)