Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:57:13 +0100, Double-A wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 2:35 pm, "Peter Hucker" wrote:
> >> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:19:10 +0100, Double-A wrote:
> >> > On Sep 5, 12:52 pm, "Peter Hucker" wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:27:28 +0100, Double-A wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 4, 2:45 pm, "Peter Hucker" wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > No, I only advocated base 16 (hex).
> >>
> >> >> You ambiguously said "based on binary" :-P
> >>
> >> >> I personally think base 16 would be harder to do calculations in. How about base 8?
> >>
> >> > Base 8 is the obvious alternative. Numbers would become a little
> >> > longer to write out. It takes only 3 binary digits to write a number
> >> > equivalent to an octal digit, as opposed to 4 with hex, but which
> >> > somehow doesn't seem as esthetically pleasing. But the multiplication
> >> > and addition tables would be shorter. Kids would like that. I could
> >> > live with octal.
> >>
> >> >> Anyway, back to the miles/kilometres argument. What base is miles yards and feet?!?
> >>
> >> > They are not aligned with any numerical base. That's why scientists
> >> > don't like them.
> >>
> >> You said metric measurements are irrational, I assumed you meant you liked the imperial ones.

> >
> >
> > Not rational in the sense that the number 10 has no special
> > mathematical significance except that aligns with our number base 10
> > system which in turn is based on our number of fingers. Of course I
> > like the older units because I am used to them, but if we are going to
> > convert to a completely new system of measure, I think we could do
> > better than the metric system.

>
> Isn't the metric system based on a load of scientific stuff? Divisions of the earth's diameter and all that?

Originally. Some Frog came up with the idea while traipsing around the
Andes working out the size of the Earth.