# I don't get it, why is metric better?

wrote:

You're wrong.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
krw wrote:

Hmm.. The reason calculators don't use binary is because the translation from decimal to binary to do a calculation, and then convert to decimal output again is generally less efficient than using BCD. Just saying...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
wrote:

As I said, you're wrong. Conversion is a trivial matter (modulo divide by "10" and post the answer to the display - repeat). The problem is adding 1/3 + 2/3. People understand that .3333333333 is 1/3 and .666666666 is 2/3 but they don't like the answer to be .999999999. The logic to make it "right" in every case wasn't trivial for early calculators.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
wrote:

Of course but because machines like binary and we don't, doesn't mean it's the only use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
4ax.com:

If we'd simply stop counting our thumbs and use them as status bits instead, binary would come a whole lot more naturally. Teach your kids to count properly: One, two, three, four, overflow, sign, five, six, seven, eight.
The status bits might need a bit more thought.
Puckdropper
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 17 Sep 2016 11:43:21 GMT, Puckdropper

How about using them for hexadecimal. It might take some Vulcan coordination, however.

Status bits seem pretty simple, at least for your base-8. Increment right to left, decrement left to right. Overflow then becomes the count after either pinkie (pinkie and ring change together) and sign becomes a decrement or increment past zero.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Only on the old BCD mainframes was any form of base-16 used, and there, values of A-F weren't available for use (they were called undigits on the Burroughs systems and would cause a fault if used in an arithmetic operation - integer, fixed-point or floating point.
All modern processors do arithmetic in binary[*]. Don't confuse the storage format with the human representation of the storage when printed.
[*] IBM's Power processors also support decimal floating point (a la BCD).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:02:10 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Huh? How can you have base-16 arithmetic and not use A-F? That paragraph makes no sense.

It depends on how you look at it. The hardware uses binary logic, sure, but the arithmetic is purely hexadecimal. Normalization is done in hexadecimal digits and the "binary point" is actually a "hexadecimal point", for instance.

Again, who was talking about BCD?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in

You are exactly correct - computers use base 2 because of the hardware, it has nothing to do with arithmetic (some early computers used base 3, which is easy to implement in an analog computer and does make some arithmetic easier).
Programmers use hex (base 16) because it's easier than a whole bunch of 1s and 0s. Experienced programmers can do basic math in hex in their head, whereas no-one can do math in their head with binary numbers bigger than a few digits (other than multiply/divide by 2, of course).
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
John McCoy wrote:

Or we can quickly convert binary to decimal, perform the operation and convert back! : ) No prob.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:40:49 -0700,

In most of life, close enough is, well, close enough.

But no one can decide what the base unit should be. Some like microns (micrometers), others use angstroms. That's just the tip of the iceberg, too.

When I'm measuring, I avoid the bookkeeping by deciding on my result ion and then calculate using just the numerator. For instance, if 1/32" is "good enough", I don't use 1/2" or 1/4", rather 16(/32) or 8(/32).

<...>

They taught us arithmetic in different bases, up to base-32 (and, of course conversion between them) in fifth and sixth grade.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 8/5/2016 3:16 PM, Leon wrote:

Those fractions are probably due to conversion from Imperial Measure. I've seen analogous measurements in cookbooks for the US market where they have obviously converted metric to imperial weights and measurements. For example, I've seen a recipe asking for 1.76oz instead of the original 50g. Honestly, metric is MUCH easier if you work in it from scratch. Graham
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 8/5/2016 5:23 PM, graham wrote:

That would be a logical explanation but they the Leigh Jig and the slides are manufactured in a metric country and the slide have measurements that are clearly even number mm's and are made to the 35mm system. And the measuring of the holes on the slides don't really need to be any specific measurement at all.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 8/5/2016 7:54 PM, Leon wrote:

It depends on when it was made. Graham
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 8/5/2016 9:24 PM, graham wrote:

October 14, 2014. ;~) Does that shed more light? LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 8/5/2016 8:33 PM, Leon wrote:

They've been on the market for over 30 years. I would imagine he hasn't bothered to retool.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

No, that's not it. That is how to up grade the fingers of your DT jig to a later version past the D4. You can buy the new set of fingers that are identical in size and shape, except for the extra holes in the set or you can make yours the same by drilling the hikes in those odd sizes and locations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

That was my first thought, because that's a common problem. The examples Leon gives don't seem to translate to any sensible fraction of an Imperial unit. 3.57mm isn't one of the letter/number system of drill sizes either, altho it's a little bigger than a #28.
Possibly the odd values are accumulated rounding error, due to going metric to imperial and back to metric.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On 08/06/2016 9:47 AM, John McCoy wrote:

...
As I showed earlier, it's 9/64"...
9/64*25.4 = 3.571875000...
The other is 7/64"; both are common pilot-hole drill sizes...
--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Yeah, I read Graham's post before yours.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

## Site Timeline

• ### Snap-Check Setup Tool - Opinions Wanted

• - last updated thread in Woodworking Forum
• ### Drainage layer behind new retaining wall: RCA vs. gravel

• - the site's newest thread. Posted in Home Repair
• Share To

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.