Page 15 of 16

wrote:

9mm is actually closer to a .357

So is a .38 Special.

nb

?

(sigh)

OK. What is it you don't understand, this time, Leon?

HINT: no one makes rules for bullet calibers, either.

nb

OK, I am aware that actual sizes are different than indicated sizes. I thought you may have been referring to actual sizes. The 9mm is slightly smaller than .357 and the .38 family varies in size just slightly larger than the .357 but under the an actual .38 measurement. Way back in the EARLY 70's, when we were teens, a friend and I did a lot of target shooting. At the range we shot mostly .22, .38 Special, .357, AND .45. Because the .357 was a "cruel to the shooter" gun we often shot less agressive rounds through it. Typically we went through a couple hundred rounds weekly. We often ran wad cutter .38 rounds through the .357. We spent hours melting down wheel weights and pouring our own wad cutter bullets. Hot Job!

Counter argument in support of base ten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9g-WoezG8

nb

Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII

"IV" is a relatively recent invention.

#### Site Timeline

- posted on September 9, 2009, 10:00 pm

wrote:

9mm is actually closer to a .357

- posted on September 9, 2009, 10:40 pm

So is a .38 Special.

nb

- posted on September 10, 2009, 12:04 am

Leon wrote:

So's a .38.

So's a .38.

- posted on September 10, 2009, 4:31 am

?

- posted on September 10, 2009, 4:46 am

(sigh)

OK. What is it you don't understand, this time, Leon?

HINT: no one makes rules for bullet calibers, either.

nb

- posted on September 10, 2009, 10:56 am

Leon wrote:

Get out your reloading manual and check the bullet dimensions for the more popular of the cartridges normally described as ".38".

Get out your reloading manual and check the bullet dimensions for the more popular of the cartridges normally described as ".38".

- posted on September 10, 2009, 1:25 pm

OK, I am aware that actual sizes are different than indicated sizes. I thought you may have been referring to actual sizes. The 9mm is slightly smaller than .357 and the .38 family varies in size just slightly larger than the .357 but under the an actual .38 measurement. Way back in the EARLY 70's, when we were teens, a friend and I did a lot of target shooting. At the range we shot mostly .22, .38 Special, .357, AND .45. Because the .357 was a "cruel to the shooter" gun we often shot less agressive rounds through it. Typically we went through a couple hundred rounds weekly. We often ran wad cutter .38 rounds through the .357. We spent hours melting down wheel weights and pouring our own wad cutter bullets. Hot Job!

- posted on September 9, 2009, 9:38 pm

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:32:40 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

Reason? Most people do not like this kind of change (nor the Obama kind.) Now we are stuck with two systems. Woodworkers are usually skilled in adding fractions.

Reason? Most people do not like this kind of change (nor the Obama kind.) Now we are stuck with two systems. Woodworkers are usually skilled in adding fractions.

- posted on September 9, 2009, 11:21 pm

Robatoy wrote:

I think that we should stop using both the 'English' system of measurements (which is used in the US) and the metric system. At the same time we should also stop using decimal notation for representing numbers.

All of the present measurements systems are based upon silly anthropomorphic considerations. Instead we should switch to using Planck units and hexadecimal.

Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion factors. (The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. I.e. how many calories are there in a joule: 0.239005736 or erg: 2.39005736x10^-8 . How many calories are there in a Calorie: 1000 (Calling the kilocalorie a Calorie is really silly), etc.). Planck units simplify things. For instance, Einstein's famous equation e = m*c^2 is simply e = m. (The c^2 is in the equation simply because we measure energy and mass in different funny units.)

For more information on Planck units see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in decimal.

Some of the other discussions in this thread have pointed out that the decimal system (and the metric system) is great if you want to scale by 10 but is a pain if you are only trying to scale down by 2. Binary (and hexadecimal) works well for scaling by 2, 4, 8, or 16, etc.

For more information on Hexadecimal see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal

Dan

I think that we should stop using both the 'English' system of measurements (which is used in the US) and the metric system. At the same time we should also stop using decimal notation for representing numbers.

All of the present measurements systems are based upon silly anthropomorphic considerations. Instead we should switch to using Planck units and hexadecimal.

Both the English and metric systems have too many funny constants and conversion factors. (The pro metric people claim that they don't but they are there. I.e. how many calories are there in a joule: 0.239005736 or erg: 2.39005736x10^-8 . How many calories are there in a Calorie: 1000 (Calling the kilocalorie a Calorie is really silly), etc.). Planck units simplify things. For instance, Einstein's famous equation e = m*c^2 is simply e = m. (The c^2 is in the equation simply because we measure energy and mass in different funny units.)

For more information on Planck units see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Likewise the use of decimal (base 10) for representing numbers is based on the minor detail that people have 10 fingers. Since most people have stopped doing arithmetic on their fingers, we should switch to a more rational base for our number system. Ask any computer and it will tell you that binary is much more rational. The only disadvantage of binary is that it takes a bunch of digits to represent anything useful. Hexadecimal reduces the binary digit count by a factor of four. Most numbers take fewer digits in hex than in decimal.

Some of the other discussions in this thread have pointed out that the decimal system (and the metric system) is great if you want to scale by 10 but is a pain if you are only trying to scale down by 2. Binary (and hexadecimal) works well for scaling by 2, 4, 8, or 16, etc.

For more information on Hexadecimal see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal

Dan

- posted on September 9, 2009, 11:38 pm

Counter argument in support of base ten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9g-WoezG8

nb

- posted on September 10, 2009, 12:38 am

On 9/9/2009 4:21 PM Dan Coby spake thus:

OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are

1. A09E + B1AF 2. 79 * AAAA 3. 2179 / 9D2

Show your work.

OK, I want to see how adept you are at hex arithmetic. Quick: what are

1. A09E + B1AF 2. 79 * AAAA 3. 2179 / 9D2

Show your work.

--

Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

- posted on September 10, 2009, 1:12 am

David Nebenzahl wrote:

11 A09E + B1AF ----- 1524D

AAAA x 79 ----- 5FFFA 4AAA6 ------ 50AA5A

3.6894 ______ 9D2 | 2179 1D76 ----- 4030 3AEC ----- 5440 4E90 ---- 5B00 5862 ---- 29E0 2748 ---- 298

11 A09E + B1AF ----- 1524D

AAAA x 79 ----- 5FFFA 4AAA6 ------ 50AA5A

3.6894 ______ 9D2 | 2179 1D76 ----- 4030 3AEC ----- 5440 4E90 ---- 5B00 5862 ---- 29E0 2748 ---- 298

- posted on September 10, 2009, 2:00 am

David Nebenzahl wrote:

A09E +B1AF ----- 1524D

(79 * A = 4BA)

4BA 4BA 4BA 4BA ------ 50AA5A

(division by repeated subtraction)

2179 -9D2

A09E +B1AF ----- 1524D

(79 * A = 4BA)

4BA 4BA 4BA 4BA ------ 50AA5A

(division by repeated subtraction)

2179 -9D2

--

17A7

-9D2

17A7

-9D2

- posted on September 10, 2009, 4:05 am

wrote:

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary arithmetic and those who can't.

There are 10 types of people in this world; those who can do binary arithmetic and those who can't.

- posted on September 10, 2009, 5:55 pm

krw wrote:

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one arithmetic. :)

But there's really only one type of people, those who can't do base one arithmetic. :)

--

Morris Dovey

DeSoto Solar

Morris Dovey

DeSoto Solar

Click to see the full signature.

- posted on September 10, 2009, 9:01 pm

On 9/10/2009 10:55 AM Morris Dovey spake thus:

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Unless you could represent unary numbers by something like this:

1 111 11 1111

but of course you still have two possible symbols (call them a mark and a space).

Never thought about until now, but base 1 would be an impossibility, no? I'm sure it would take higher mathematics (or at least higher arithmetic, which does exist) to prove it, but my top-of-the-head guess is that it isn't possible because each position in a written number must have at least two possible symbols, as in binary.

Unless you could represent unary numbers by something like this:

1 111 11 1111

but of course you still have two possible symbols (call them a mark and a space).

--

Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

- posted on September 10, 2009, 9:06 pm

On 9/10/2009 2:01 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals the number of marks made.

Duh.

Ack! Total brain fart! Shoot me already.

Of course base 1 exists, and you've probably used it many times. Think of the typical tally system. It's simple: the number represented equals the number of marks made.

Duh.

--

Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

- posted on September 10, 2009, 9:14 pm

Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII

- posted on September 10, 2009, 10:24 pm

"IV" is a relatively recent invention.

- posted on September 11, 2009, 7:08 am

: Roman numerals are some sort of tally. And whoever thought that 4 = IV
: has never looked at a clock with roman numerals. IIII

The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad notation that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or multiply, for example. Or even a general method for adding and subtracting.

-- Andy Barss

The Roman system is an interesting example of an astonishly bad notation that arguably held the culture back. No way to divide or multiply, for example. Or even a general method for adding and subtracting.

-- Andy Barss

- OT: Robatoy Final Farewell
- - next thread in Woodworking Forum

- Why are trim screws so long?
- - previous thread in Woodworking Forum

- Woodpeckers isn't alone.
- - newest thread in Woodworking Forum

- band saw belts
- - last updated thread in Woodworking Forum

- can i connect a 240v to this?
- - the site's newest thread. Posted in Home Repair