[Leica] Still more metric

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 12:06 PM -0400 8/10/10, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:
>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.


Very practical. Our number sets are base 10. Even when we use feet 
and inches we generally have to introduce base 10 at some point to do 
calculations, and the set of digits we use are base 10.


Computers use the binary system because their basic operation is 
binary. Octal and hexadecimal follow directly from that because 
binary results in too long strings that are hard to take in in a 
glance. In the end it's still all binary.



  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.

Just because we sometimes find other units to be the right size 
doesn't mean we're abandoning base 10. Japanese sell and package many 
items in quantities of 5, because that number appeals to them more 
than 4 or 6, and 35mm film has also come in lengths of 8 exposures 
and very often in 20 exposures; 120 and 220 produces an almost 
endless variety.


  Even Lincoln
>calculated historical time by the score (base 20) in the Gettysburg Address
>phrase "Four score and seven years ago."

There are a whole lot of units that have been used. Thousands. All 
somewhat different and all problematic when trying to deal in global 
society. No practicality to speak of at this point, and the 'score' 
very used only very peripherally as a base.


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.

Nixie tubes were readout tubes on the 101 terminal, not calculation 
tubes. Registers were occasionally base 10 at that time because of 
historical (adding machine) reasons, but binary was generally the 
operational base if the computer was electronic.

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.

The cards were binary as well. Hole/no hole. A card held 10 'words'.


>
>
>Larry Z
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com