I wonder if someone else faced the same issue.

...The goblin was only few meters from you, pardon, a few feet... or should be some feet... Lets say 15 feet which are roughly 4.5 meters.... Or 4,5 meters if you are in europe... Oh my God


Personally as most of people here is from US i use american standards

In reply to stivale (msg # 1):

Generally I would say stick to the measurements used in the rule system you are using. If no set measurements then just be consistent in using imperial or metric measurements.

I think better in meters lol. Even though I am from America. That being said my lazy eye gives me problems with distances. I guess I am used to rule systems using Meters.


All that being said I agree with Jarodemo, go with the rule system or at least be consistent.

  Generally it's easiest to treat it as 3 feet = 1 meter. It's close enough to work for most things.

Yeah I forgot to detail that I am a free-form Gm otherwise I would definitly go with the system.
I am surprised some of you guys are familiar with metric system.
Point is when you want to give just an idea. Worst thing is character height. 5 feet is defintly short. 6 is already pretty tall. It's inpressive how culture and habits influences this stuff.
Not talking of pounds and date formats.... That a nightmare

I would probably express things in more general terms. Characters can be described as short, tiny, rotund, mammoth, tall, taller-than-average, a tall woman, voluptuous, solidly built, thin, slender, cadaverous, etc. Specific weight and height are probably best left to the character sheet.

As for distance and such, you can again be general, across the room, halfway down the block, a long bow-shot, pointblank, just out of reach, a few strides, ten paces (a pace being two steps), etc. You can always add a PM telling the knife thrower that the target is 'just out of range.'

Actually I'd be very careful with heights especially with being 'general'.

My family for example, 6 feet would be average. Actually technically for my family below average, but we count it as average. No way would that be considered 'pretty tall'.

But usually I've found, regardless of what units people use for everything else, talking feet and inches for height people can get. Now talking pounds vs kilograms for weights is a different story. Consistency though is the key.

The other day I posted something mentioning height of two meters, but I don't think anyone understood me.

Depends on the system.  A lot use feet and inches, pounds, and miles per hour.  But Runequest and later editions of Traveller use metres, kilograms, and kilometres per hour.

If you really want to freak people out, give all speeds in furlongs per fortnight.  :)
This message was last edited by the user at 15:01, Wed 01 Oct 2014.

You can also use more abstract measures. Plenty of games are made to use a grid, so those games you could refer to "spaces" or how many moves it takes.

For freeform you can always use measures by how reasonable it is for a character to cover that distance, "reach" for within arms/weapons reach, "triple" for a triple pace which is just out of weapon reach, etc.

Like mentioned before, height and weight, could easily be average, below average, etc for the race of the subject.

Egads!  I was traveling at 147,840 fpf this morning.  People can drive 67,200 fpf right down a residential street!  There could be children out there!

I can definitely see why that would freak people out!

GURPS uses yards, but says that meters are 'equivalent' even though one is 36" and the other is ~40". There are other considerations besides system though. Depends on the theme of the game as well. If I'm playing some game designed after a japanese based VN or something, the girl is likely either 1.5 meters or 155 centimeters, but she weighs 53 kg. Movements aren't heavily tacked down in thus themed games.

The Bad Movie game I'm running likes feet to judge distance, or Imperial measures in general really. If I'm in a space game, I might talk about Parsecs, but those aren't as commonly known as light years, so I'd rather use LY.

I adapt the units to my story. For instance I run a fantasy campaign that takes place in the middle ages. So people are ten stones tall, a few paces away. Long units are leagues away. Otherwise I revert to simpler descriptive terms, a stone's throw, on the opposite bank of the river, out of earshot, and heavier than a lead brick. At that point it's easier to use similes to compare or contrast distances and weights.

Technically 3.26 Light Years.  But who's counting?  - Local Science nut

You may have misread my comment. I didn't make a statement that parsecs are lightyears, I made the statement that lightyears are more commonly known than parsecs.

I prefer metric, but I grew up in the USA so that may bias me.

(It's a joke.)

But seriously, people in the US learn metric.  They can handle it.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:17, Thu 02 Oct 2014.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 15):

Gotcha, sorry.

Yeah, I can do caliber conversions mostly in my head, and there's a lot of 1.1s and 2.2s floating around. it's funny, I know a lot of people who can convert from metric to standard, but don't know the numbers for standard to metric. I know that I figured out a mile was 1760 yards because of knowing it's 1.609km. That's really close to a 1.1 approximation.


it's cool

Aww... I was going to work out the speed of light in furlongs/fortnight, but it's already been done.

Google spoils .02% of everything. pout

(1.8026175×10¹², apparently, if anybody is curious.)

I'm used to imperial measurements, but metric doesn't "confuse" me.  If you're GMing, I would say use what you are comfortable with.  Or, for a more serious take on BBR's suggestion, dig back for some of the archaic units and use those for `feel'; some of them (measuring height by "Hands" and weight by "Stones", for example) can give people a perfectly good feel for roughly what-it-means without having to be precise.  And it breaks up that assumption that the party wizard has laser-measuring-eyes and can tell to within a quarter inch (.635cm) where the edge of her fireball will be.

If you don't have a preference of your own -- poll the players :)

As Gaffer says, paces are good for flavour, though I use Byzantine measurement, not Roman, so 2 paces = 5 feet.  For those who are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_%28unit%29

Thus a 100' stretch becomes "forty paces".

I tend to bypass the problem all together by simply saying "he is x number of hexes away". For those that play dnd this removes the issue of feet or meters.

I really don't understand how inches can be added together to form feet. I play D&D and I use the metric system for my character's height and weight. In the map I know that 5ft is one square, but I always have a website where I can convert units at hand.

It's no different from adding centimetres together to get decimetres, or metres, or kilometres.  If it's what you grew up with, then it seems entirely natural.

Me, I'm happy to use either system, as required by the game.

A meter and a yard are only 10% off, and that's more than accurate enough for 99% of RP needs. Mental image >> topographical accuracy.

Even if it does make a diff, such as in a range penalty or a limit to whether something can/not be thrown that far, IC few PC's have a laser rangefinder HUD system built in, so all they ~should~ know is a close estimate.

I only give precise measurements if the character in question is actually using surveying tools. Otherwise I give abstracts, or at best, "paces".

According to this website
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccftins.htm
Ten inches does not make a foot.

I never claimed it did.

My point was that, to somebody who grew up with them, there is no difference between 12 inches = 1 foot and ten centimetres = 1 decimetre (apart from the actual size of the measurements themselves).

There is nothing special about the number ten in regards to measurements. The only neat thing about ten is when used as a threshold value at every step, it is easy to teach the conversions. However, for someone who is familiar with a set of measures, it is no easier to use than any other set.

Really, the only thing that makes any kind of difference is size relative to measured object when estimated (as it is easier to estimate when the unit of measure is between 1 and 5, and the more units needed, regardless of the size of those units, the more difficult it is to estimate.) and familiarity with the measures being used (not only because familiar things feel less awkward but also because one has more experience with more familiar things.).

If it helps a yard is close enough to a meter to not matter.

Yes, you did.




Your point has nothing to do with my original post, only states a very obvious fact.
      

No, I didn't.  If you believe I did, then show me where.


My point has everything to do with your post, where you said:

How about this? Get back on topic. I looked at BBR's posts and fail to see where he claimed 10 inches is a foot. He has a good point. It is important what we grew up with. More importantly is what we are willing to learn and work with. Ask your players to become familiar with the system of choice, or teach them how to google for conversion. Problem solved.

Kark2:

12 inches go into a foot the same way 60 minutes go into an hour and 24 hours go into a day. Base 12 is convenient because it's got more factors than base 10; 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, vs 1, 2, 5, 10. It works the same way.

Metric time exists; you could measure your life in kiloseconds rather than minutes, but it's really inconvenient, and nobody outside the scientific community ever uses it for anything.

But yes. Add inches to get feet the same way you add minutes to get hours. Inches/12 = feet; minutes/60 = hours; centimeters/100 = meters.

In reply to Merevel (msg # 33):

Exactly.  I grew up with yards, feet, inches, furlongs, miles, acres, pounds, ounces, and an Imperial bucket-load of other old measurements, so they seemed natural to me.  Now I live in a place where everything is metric*, and can switch between the two quickly and easily.

*Except TV screens and computer monitors which are, for some reason, measured in inches even though everything else is measured in cm.

I always have a problem explain distance to people. For some reason saying that the sun is 1 AU away from us confuses people. They them ask silly questions like "is that metric?" Even in something rather universal like D&D I have a problem of distances. I eventually gave up on most measurements and said "It's 5 hexes away" but then I end up with people complaining because I'm using hexes instead of square and they can't handle it. I have also tried alternatives such as in a cyber punk game having things be measured in hexadecimal, binary, and oct(base 8) because I knew it would force players to think. In the end I discovered a lot of players don't actually want to think.

The thing is, I know there's this thing amongst some circles of RPers, that there is a greater ratio of intelligent people RPing. But there's really not, and there is certainly a lot who don't like maths. In fact, whilst a lot of my RP friends are quite good with the arts; with writing etc, I know a lot of them who absolutely despise having to use maths.

Here:



It has nothing to do with my post as it doesn't explain how they add up to form a new unit. You only say that people who are familiar with a certain system understand it. Which I could already imagine it myself.


Hey, that is good to know! Thank you!

There are lots of measure converters in the internet. I find them all handy, particularly when I had to roleplay a scientist.

Okay, I think I see where you misunderstood.

You thought that my mentioning centimetres and decimetres in the same sentence meant that I said there are ten inches to a foot.

I mentioned centimetres and decimetres, yes, but I never said that there are ten inches to a foot, any more than mentioning metres and kilometres (later in that same sentence) means that I was saying that there are 100 inches to a foot, or 100,000 inches to a foot.

You clearly said that it was not different from adding centimeters to get decimeter, or to get meters or kilometers. And the metric system is in base 10.

I didn't misunderstood. If anything, you didn't explain properly.

I grew up in Canada where I was taught metric system, but my parents were taught Imperial system. So I always end up mixing my system. for distance I tend to used kilometer. for height and weight, I'll use feet and pounds.

So I have my benchmark:

1 inch = 2.5 centimeters
12 inches = 1 foot = 30 centimeters
3.3 feet = 1 meter
5 feet = 1.5 meter
10 feet = 3 meters
2.2 pounds = 1 kilo
1 mile = 1.6 kilometer
1 km = 0.6 mile
454 grams = 1 pound
28 grams/30 mililiter = 1 ounce
1 gallon is either 3.8L(US Gal) or 4.5L (UK Gal)

and we can go from there and we pretty much end up using the system provided in the game system

But, it's really easy to convert into something you are more familiar to thank to the internet.

In reply to kark2 (msg # 40):

Seriously, I think it's your reading comprehension that's been at fault here, not BBR's explanation.

I (and it appears most people reading this) knew exactly what he meant: that adding smaller units together to arrive atlarger units is the same concept, whether you're using palms to cubits, reeds to cords, passae to stadium, inches to feet, or centimetres to decimetres.

It's a common practice since the ancient past when a person would rather talk about some distance being "a furlong" away rather than 625 foot-lengths away.


Note that nothing I'm saying implies that a palm, reed, passum, or centimetre equals an inch, nor that a cubit, cord, stadium, or decimetre equals a foot.

Which, of course, is something that I knew beforehand. As I clearly said, I didn't know "HOW" inches were added to become feet. A basic statement that anyone can comprehend.

I know there is a system. I just didn't knew how it worked. And bigbadron's reply was not right at all.

Like, how the people who invented "feet" divided them into inches, or how Foot/12 = inches works?

Think someone forgot to put that don't feed the troll sign up, oh wait yep there it is, it just got knocked over that was the problem. Here let me put that back for your guys *adjusts the don't feed the trolls sign*

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 44):

All I know about the origins of feet is I heard it used to be the literal length of the British kings foot. Idk, it might be worth looking up sometime.

*spit shines the don't feed the troll sign*

Revisiting the original question...

For me, I personally am fine with either metric or imperial. That said, I would say to use whatever the DM is most comfortable with using, since they are the one running things and would have the most to keep track of, so it should be whatever helps them run the game.
If they are fine with either and do not have a preference, then yes, a poll of the players sounds like a good idea, and in this case, my preference is to use whichever the system uses, since that would require the least conversions (if it is a system based game as opposed to freeform).
This message was last edited by the user at 20:06, Mon 27 Oct 2014.

This makes no sense. The "how" is always the same, smaller unit multiplied by some conversion value equals the larger unit. This doesn't change, ever. Thus the how remains the same.

Thus, you just need to know the conversion value. Metric always uses 1 with some number of zeros.

Imperial uses different values .

Doesn't really matter as you are either memorizing how many zeros, or memorizing the conversion value, and either way you are memorizing a simple number.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 48):

Whislt I do agree that bigbadron's reply was very clear, I think you're misinterpreting what kark2 means here. If I'm reading it right, what he's saying is, to put it simply, he didn't know how many inches to a foot.

What he said makes perfect sense to me. I can even understand, given what he's said, how he misread what bigbadron said. Doesn't change the fact that he -did- misread it; just that I understand how he could have.

Thing is that you don't expect that people with a star start trolling.

Also, some games already have conversions. For example D&D had a conversion table.
http://archive.wizards.com/def...p?x=dnd/rg/20040323a
Thing is that someone familiar with the two systems told me that the conversion was simplified. As in 10 ft is not really 4 mts, so I prefered to avoid it and keep with the original in-game system when I GM.



The "how" is not always the same and your sentence is proof of that.
Metric system is smaller unit x 10 = next bigger unit.
Imperial system is Inches x 12 = 1 ft
10 is not 12, never was, never will, therefore the "how" is not the same.

This is why you were called a troll. Obviously you miss the point of when it was said "smaller units become a bigger unit" It does not matter if its feet hours lightyears or meters. The point remains.

Now to ignore the thread.

I think the term 'troll' is too lightly thrown about.

Either someone -is- a troll; in which case you should literally just ignore them, not even saying that you are. Or they're not, in which case, rather than calling them one, it would be best to explain them to the issues you're having with their post/manner of speaking/whatever.

I don't think calling people trolls helps anyone, or does anything except potentially cause flame wars.

Dude.

bigger unit * conversion rate = smaller units

smaller units / conversion rate = bigger units

Always.

Every time.

The only thing that changes is the conversion rate. And you can google that in like a minute.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:38, Tue 28 Oct 2014.

I can't believe that this has escalated this far.

I am with kark2 here, not only because he is a friend that I personally know, but because he clarified in his first post that he knew that inches could be sum to get feet. He just didn't know how. We come from a country where metric system is used in everything except TVs, pipes and screws. And noone can take two 3/4 inches tubes to get a 1 1/2 inches tube, so maths are not used with the english system.

If bigbadron's answer was "Oh yes, a bunch of inches make a foot" then noone asked that question. And if his answer was "There is no difference with the metric system" then the answer is wrong, just like tortuga pointed out in msg #53, because the conversion rate is different.

Actually, no he didn't.



He did not state, in his first post, that he knew inches could be added together to get feet. In fact, that post suggests he just did not understand that they could, at all.

So in my view, bigbadron believed he was explaining something kark2 did not understand.

In reply to willvr (msg # 55):

That's exactly right.

The "how" is the formula (people use these everyday without thinking about it).

You change the inputs and you get a different output.

Changing the inputs doesn't change the formula itself, thus the how remains the same, only the inputs change.


---
Interestingly, I bet it will be a long time before you forget how many inches to a foot because of how long this has gone. :)

That quote right there states that he knew that inches can be added to form feet. Otherwise, he wouldn't even wrote the word "added". He just didn't know how. 20 inches is a foot? 15? Now he (we) know that 12 inches make a foot.


Exactly, and the formula for the english system is different than the metric.

Metric: A x 10 = B
English: A x 12 = B

They are similar, but different.

No, the formula is always A * B = AB.

A is the number of longer units (feet or meters)
B is the conversion factor. 10 for metric. 12 for imperial.
AB is the number of the shorter units. (inches or centimeters)

Only the variables change. "How distance conversion works" is constant.

Even I know this, and I had a public American education.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:29, Wed 29 Oct 2014.

This thread is still going on lol?!? That horse is mush now, gross.

You know, I just realized, us americans are always using different conversion factors, but those metric guys only ever use ten. Perhaps that is why they can't understand that the conversion factor is a variable, cause they have it all nice, easy, and constant. While we have to deal with it being a variable so we are better at dealing with it when it changes, but those for whom it never changes have trouble dealing with it when it does change.

Just a hypothesis.

Whilst I won't deny the metric system is simpler; I'm not American (okay -technically- I am, but I haven't lived there since I was three) and have no difficulty understanding the conversion factor is a variable. Where I live, the only time that anything but metric is ever used is for the size of computer monitors and TV screens. Oddly, it's often used for heights as well, but that seems to vary a bit - I know some people who are steadfast for using heights in metric; so I've learnt to approximate what my height is in both. But don't actually ask me what the conversion is for it; I looked it up online once and have memorised it since. (The fact that I'm almost right on 2m makes it easier to remember I suppose.)

I'm actually coming to the conclusion that this whole conversation is just a big misunderstanding and there's not really much point debating it, as it's gotten to the point of being circular. (If it ever wasn't.)

Circular topics are the best though, aren't they? They encourage deep thinking and logical analysis, if you can set aside the urge to reject everything that isn't your own idea anyway (hard for some, easy for others).

So... by your formula:
1 foot * 12 = 1 inch ?

You realize that you are treating a constant as a variable and that noone asked how distance conversion works in general, but in the imperial system?


According to Tortuga it is base 12 O_O
 

I can't believe I fell for this thread.  I am ashamed.

Here's some fun facts:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0769529.html

Inch: At first an inch was the width of a man's thumb. In the 14th century, King Edward II of England ruled that 1 inch equalled 3 grains of barley placed end to end lengthwise.

Hand: A hand was approximately 5 inches or 5 digits (fingers) across. Today, a hand is 4 inches and is used to measure horses (from the ground to the horse's withers, or shoulder).

Span: A span was the length of the hand stretched out, about 9 inches.

Foot: In ancient times, the foot was 111/42 inches. Today it is 12 inches, the length of the average man's foot.

Yard: A yard was originally the length of a man's belt or girdle, as it was called. In the 12th century, King Henry I of England fixed the yard as the distance from his nose to the thumb of his out-stretched arm. Today it is 36 inches.

Cubit: In ancient Egypt, a cubit was the distance from the elbow to the fingertips. Today a cubit is about 18 inches.

Lick: A Lick was used by the Greeks to measure the distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the index finger.

Pace: The ancient Roman soldiers marched in paces, which were the length of a double step, about 5 feet; 1,000 paces was a mile. Today, a pace is the length of one step, 21/2 to 3 feet.

Not really -- only when talking inches and feet.  This is the bad hangover which come from using a mishmash of systems.

        LENGTH                   VOLUME                        WEIGHT              
 12 inches = 1 foot      5 ounces* = 1 gill             16 ounces = 1 pound
    3 feet = 1 yard        4 gills = 1 pint             14 pounds = 1 stone
  22 yards = 1 chain       2 pints = 1 quart              8 stone = 1 hundredweight**
 10 chains = 1 furlong    4 quarts = 1 gallon    20 hundredweight = 1 ton
8 furlongs = 1 mile
   3 miles = 1 league

* note that US and British fluid ounces are different.
** note that in the US and Canada, the hundredweight is 100 lbs instead; aka the "short hundredweight".  This also means that the US and Canadian ton, aka the "short ton" (at 2,000 lbs) is less than the UK ton (at 2,240 lbs).

Thank goodness I moved to a mostly metric country ;-)

edit: to make my chart more clear.  Also, it's amazingly easy to confuse someone by going to home depot and asking for 2.5 chains of rope.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:31, Wed 29 Oct 2014.

Actually you are misinterpreting the formula,
1 (larger units, feet in this case) * 12 (conversion factor between feet and inchs) = 12 (smaller units, inches in this case)

Likewise, 24 (smaller units) / 12 (conversion factor between feet and inches) = 2 (larger units)

Likewise, 2 (larger units) * 100 (conversion factor between centimeters and meters) = 200 (smaller units)


The conversion factor is not the how. The how is the formula and the conversion factor is a variable dependent on the unit types involved in the conversion.

Sure magnitudes of ten are neat, but has only two very minor advantages (too small to worry about in my opinion), first is easier to memorize the common conversion factors (by the age of adulthood this has long since passed being an issue for one's native measures) and two is when frequently converting. It also has the disadvantage of making unit conversion mistakes harder to find, particularly in larger equations where the difference between two units is often nothing more than a 0.

Imperial units

1 foot = 12 inches
1 cubit = 1.5 feet = 18 inches
1 yard = 2 cubits = 3 feet = 36 inches
1 chain = 22 yards = 44 cubits = 66 feet = 792 inches
1 furlong = 10 chains = 220 yards = 440 cubits = 660 feet = 7,920 inches
1 mile = 8 furlongs = 80 chains = 1,760 yards = 3,520 cubits = 5,280 feet = 63,360 inches
1 league = 3 miles = 24 furlongs = 240 chains = 5,280 yards = 10,560 cubits = 15,840 feet = 190,080 inches

Gosh, it seems like someone already said that.

Gosh, a half-dozen people posted whilst I was typing.

There's some other good stuff here:

http://mentalfloss.com/article...g-sense-measurements

I think that if the OP had asked Google their question, rather that us, they'd have gotten their answer a lot sooner and without rancor.

In reply to Alyse (msg # 70):

lol, happens to me all the time, too :-)


In reply to Arkyn (msg # 71):

Everything's better with rancor.  http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rancor

Touche', Cruinne.

In reply to Arkyn (msg # 73):

Omg! I posted this question once i logged and saw my games all black. I Remeber I was at the toilette too LOL.

What have I done !!! ???

I just remember that 1 inch is approximately 2.54 centimetres and it's all downhill from there. ;>

As a personal preference, I like imperial measurements for fantasy games, and metric for SF.  Just feels right.

What really confuses players IRL is when you say "you can move inch on the map," and they look at me like I just threw poop at them. So not even Americans can look at something and say "hey thats a foot."

I'm British and generally what I use depends on what I'm measuring.

I measure peoples' heights in feet and inches and body measurements in inches (ie 36-30-34)

I say "a few feet away" or "[X] feet tall" is something is not very far/ big. (If your character is 5'8" then it's easy to relate to an object being 8' tall).

If it's larger I might say "100 metres" or "2 kilometres".

I measure speed and the distance between locations in miles per hour and miles because that's how our road signage works.

I measure weights and fluids in metric: 100grams, half a kilo, 2 litres, etc. Because that's how our foodstuffs are sold.

But I have no clue when it comes to how much characters weigh. It doesn't matter whether you use metric or imperial I have absolutely no frame of reference for that.

In reply to Undeadbob (msg # 76):

This depends, as one with experience in carpentry, I can look at something and judge feet/inches. The interesting thing I found is that accuracy drops off beyond 3-5 units regardless of unit size.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 78):

Its a difficult skill to master, I only have it because of martial arts practice lol. Course its probably because my players IRL are always noobs, since no one wants to stick around and listen to me talk for 8 hours.

What kind of martial arts practice has you moving an inch on the map?

Ah no you misunderstand, martial arts allows me to know distances between me and a person. Not very many people can understand that, without some sort of practice at, not saying I'm awesome at it or anything.

You're lucky. I found that it was the complete opposite, for me, going from training to "real" fights. Totally unprepared for the way stress hormones distort apparent distance and size. I read somewhere that the shape of the eye literally changes, but I don't know if I believe that.

My spatial recognition and hand-eye coordination were totally screwed up.

Talking to my instructor, he said that you can eventually learn to compensate, but the only way is to put yourself in "real" stress situations.

Not worth it, imho, but it gave me a new perspective on running games. Characters are definitely in stressful situations just walking down a corridor. Their senses won't be accurate, so I don't sweat giving them accurate descriptions; just ones that are atmospheric and emotionally infused.

Stopped using minis and maps for just that reason; it's not immersive enough unless the character is literally a walking battlefield computer. Situational awareness just doesn't work that way.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:17, Fri 31 Oct 2014.

In reply to Tortuga (msg # 82):

Yes that does make perfect sense, I just use 3D paper terrain deals now. Much more immersive than a hex grid, but it takes time and money so I've started small. Also heroclix are super cheap on the Internets and easy to pop of the base to be glued on penny or piece of card board..

I wish we learned Metric in US early on, because most sciences use metric, but I only have a feel of how tall/cold/heavy something is in imperial units because that's what I grew up with :( , so just an additional hurdle in learning science things.

The how is the formula that converts inches to feet.
It is simple:
12 inches = 1 foot
xx inches = ?
so ? is xx/12

Is 12 a variable? No, it a part of the formula that is constant and we cannot convert to foot without it. Because, again, if it would be no different from the metric system, we could use a 10.


In the meantime children using metric system can go shopping without fearing to be cheated then?


I suppose you are talking about the units in the same metric system. If that is so, the system is designed to be fool-proof, unless you are talking about a very obscure and rare case.

It is a variable, same formula but 12 is replaced by other numbers when converting different units, I.E. 12 is replaced by 100 when converting centimeters to meters, thus 12 is a variable dependent upon the units being converted rather than other numbers, but that doesn't make it any less a variable.


Honestly, mathematical skill isn't even involved in this issue. Besides adults aren't any better at avoiding being cheated then kids.

Besides, how does metric play into shopping?



Metric isn't fool-proof, you still use formulas to convert units, the same as any other system.

However, a number being off is easier to spot when the numbers don't end in 0. I.E. 12 * 12 = 144, but by accident you put 12 * 1 = 12 is easier to spot than 10 * 10 = 100 ends up by accident as 10 * 1 = 10.

144 vs 12
100 vs 10
Which has the easier to notice difference? Seems small here but just drop that into a pageful of numbers and see how easy it stays.

It can... Where I live produce and meat are sometimes marked in per-pound prices, and sometimes marked in per-kilo prices, and sometimes marked in per-hundred-grams prices.  You have to be pretty aware though because all the supermarkets write the price numbers quite large and the unit quite small.

What might seem like a bargain or even a reasonable when you normally think of it in kilos can be a total rip-off if that's actually the per-pound price (and you were distracted and just picked up a bag of it and went on your way).

I sometimes wonder if it happens as much to others as to me, or I'm just particularly out in la-la land when I have to go to the store but at least once a month or so I take some fruit to the counter only to be hit with severe sticker shock and have to go "Uh, no, I do not want to pay $26 for that bag of cherries, thankyouverymuch."

Anyway... must be extra confusing for a generation that didn't grow up steeped in pounds.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:33, Thu 06 Nov 2014.

Which, of course, means that Laditis is right. 12 is not a variable when converting inches to feet. Also 12 is not 10, so the how is different than converting centimeters to meters, because as you have said the 12 is replaced by a 100 in the formula, making the formula different.


You brought the issue.


You said metric is easier to memorize. Therefore imperial is harder to learn. You said by the age of adulthood, it is has not been an issue for a long time. I have to think that it is a problem by childhood to at least preadolescence.

Food is weighted in kilos, fabric is measured in meters, candies are weighted. But chldren worries mostly about candies.



100 has more digits than 10, so I have an easier way to spot that someone multiplied 10 * 1 instead of 10 * 10. In any case, we can just use a bigger unit and solve the problem. Maybe I misunderstood your concern?

Laditis, let's take our distance from this discussion. I guess maths work different in different countries.

A formula has variables, some variables depend on another number, while other variables depend on other types of things.

In the conversion formula one number depends on what is being converted, another number depends on how much is being converted, the last number is dependent on the other two. As long as you know two of those numbers (regardless of which two), the third number can be determined, hence all three numbers are variables.

The how doesn't care about the details, all steel boats float by the same mechanics, yet each boat is different. How they float is the same regardless of the details of their construction.

The "how" in "how units are converted," is the same, no matter how those units may be defined.

Yep, totally different.