Talk:History of measurement/Archive 7

Disputed

See User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Articles_under_attack -- Egil 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Egil has made a list of articles which have anything to do with measurement and gone around and put a disputed tag on each. If you go to his sandbox and look there is nothing there but kitty litter. If Egil had a point to make it could be argued or debated but he doesn't. For those reasons the tag should be removed. Anyone who has further questions can check his list of user contributions. There are tags on dozens of articles and none of them have any substance.

69.164.70.243 12:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's fair to say Egil does not argue or debate his point. He does: look at these talk pages. Nor does it further you case, Rktect, to get about slinging childish dirty language like kitty litter. Jimp 31Aug05

I was trying to be polite but suspect my true opinion is not well hidden from you. Also though I know that you claim Egil has had no contact with you but for what its worth I think he has, so I take your response to him into account in evaluating your POV.

Pseudoscientific metrology Inspired by some of the last few weeks incidents, I've collected various material on Pseudoscientific metrology. I'd appreciate it if you would review it. -- Egil 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)I've also posted this request Wikipedia :AMA_Requests_for_Assistance #Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A pseudoscientific attack: that's exactly what seems to be happening here. I'll have a look at your page. Splitting Ancient weights and measures article was a good idea. I'd been thinking of doing that myself. Jimp 8Aug05 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimp"

No, I think your true opinion, Rktect, is none too well hidden from me.

I don't recall ever making the claim that Egil has had no contact with me. You can see for yourself the contact he's had on my talk page. I know you've been there for you're taking such delight in copying and pasting all about as if it proves some point or other.

I'm at a loss though as to what point it proves. Inspite of the fact that Egil has written me a little note, I am still able to think for myself. What I deny is that there is this conspiracy against you. Contact is not conspiracy.

No, of course, "Standards of measure are not pseudoscience, nor are they original research." However, this is not the point. The question is whether certain contributions are pseudoscientific or are original research.

I think Egil has put his point across in an adequately substantive way. Don't restrict your view only to his pages but look at this talk page and its archives. There is a dispute.

You say Egil is "false claims about what my articles are saying characterising them improperly." Then my question is "What lead him to these 'false claims'?" Might it not be your contributions?

Let me tell you what you actually say. You claim that "The same system of measures has been used throughout History." Do you stick by this thesis? Isn't this the theme of your edits?

You write "I say the measures of the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks Persians and Romans were related having not said that about India, China, Oceanasia, Africa and the Americas". Then what was your point when you posted this table?

Region	Foot Name	Foot Measure
China	che	333.45 mm
Japan	shaku	303.02 mm
Korea	chok	303.02 mm
Costa Rica	tercia	278.64 mm
Aztex Mexico	pie	278.89 mm
Ecuador -El Salvador	tercia	304.8 mm
Paraguay	pie	288.8 mm
Tasmania	foot	304.8 mm

What has resistance towards metrication got to do with the price of cheese? A lot actually. That's a point of view.

I don't agree that Egil is attacking the articles. It seems to me that all his is doing is trying to keep them factual. Jimp 6sep05

Metrification

Some people don't happen to believe metrification is our manifest destiny or that resistence is futile. That could be considered healthy skepticism rather than a POV unless you hold an opposing POV.. but there is also the fact that in many ways metrification is like the urban renewal of the sixties, tearing down neighborhoods full of beautiful old landmarks in the name of progress so there is also the historic preservation aspect to consider.

The way to keep them factual is to go look up the references. Many people have difficulty with that because if you don't happen to have all the relevant source material sitting on a shelf in front of you or piled up on your desk it often involves a trip to the library. If you don't happen to be near a university you may have to request sources from an inter-library loan program or go on ebay to try and buy the book just to settle a point which will be mute by the time you get what you need to make your case. I sympathise with that but perhaps a better way to handle it than to make charges of original research and cite whatever you find on the internet, whether you understand it fully or not, would be to acknowledge that the guy that has spent 30 years accumulating the desk full of references evidences a substantive interest and might be a good person to ask. Rktect 10:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Look, Rktect, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone. It's just that when claims like "One and the very same system of measurement and only this system has been used by each and every civilisation since the dawn of history." alarm bells start to ring in my head. This is simply not true. Is this not what you're saying? Isn't that what you set out to prove some time back?

I can sympathise with the "historic preservation" argument against the metric system. There are other good arguments besides this that strike a chord with me. However, for me, none of these arguments are enough to turn me anti-metric. No, I'm still very much for the metric system and very much for full World-wide metrification.

This is not to say that "metrification is our manifest destiny or that resistence is futile" nor do I think this. No, full global metrification may never be achived. Those opposing it may indeed have some success. Not that I wish them any luck.

Actually what I'd consider the best compromise would be some system of metrified traditional units. Of course, this is my POV. I'm making not attempt to push it in the articles of this encyclopædia.

Resistance may not be futile but the articles are not the place for it. Note: I'm not accusing you of to fight metrification in the articles. I'm just trying to explain what it's all got to with how much cheese costs. Jimp 8Sep05

Discussing not fighting

We are discussing, not fighting. I'm hearing what you are saying as an expression of cognative dissonance. "The alarm bells go off in your head because what you think you know is being challenged.

Lets break down your statement

"One - Yes

and the very same - No there are variations

system of measurement - Yes

and only this system - No there are variations

has been used - Yes

by each and every civilisation - No (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Persia, Rome, Europe)

mayby the Punics and India, depends on when you are talking).

since the dawn of history." - (written history anyway)

The system combines two earlier systems, body measures of length and agricultural measures of distance in a system of lengths related to areas related to volumes in integral unit fractions designed to facilitate commercial calculations that begin as sexigesimal factors in Mesopotamia and become septenary unit fractions in Egypt.

Its used architecturally in the Greek orders of architecture of which the first proto-doric example would be the columns of the arcade of Hatsehpsets second mortuary chaple. The same system is present in Egyptian inscription grids and the canon of ptoportions for drawing the human form. its discussed by Vitruvious, Andreas, Palladio, Rembrandt, Leonardo and many many others. Its used in terms of the sort of practical solutions to the classical problems of Greek antiquity that can be achieved if a ruler is substituted for a straightedge. Its used by Marinus and Ptolomey in a very similar manner to the way its used in the Rhind papyrus.

Its ok for you to have that POV, but please don't try to force it on me.

The reason the metric system fails is that it isn't part of the system. It doesn't have the right modules of multiplication and division (proportions) to relate to human beings needs. People relate better to fingers, thumbs, palms, hands, spans, quarters, feet, remen, cubits, long cubits nibw, yards, paces, fathoms than they do meters and mm because there are more unity fraction factors, or more ways you can relate something to the scale you actually need to work with, particularly when it comes to making an area or volume have a unit of length side such that they aproximately double the cube, square the circle or trisect the angle.

If you go into a bar and get a shot of scotch, if its cheap scotch it comes in a doubler and if its a malt it comes in a snifter. The doubler measures oz by fingers. (1/6 gill) Three fingers is an oz, four fingers is a double. (1.8 oz = 1 cu in, 1 shot = 1.25 oz, = 3 fingers 2 shots = 2.5 oz = 4 fingers. The snifter is designed so that if you hold it horizontal an oz won't quite splash over the rim. That's the way people like their measures.

That actually was the system in Mesopotamia and Egypt. 100 mm = 1 hand, 300 mm = 1 foot, 500 mm = 1 ordinary cubit, 600 mm = 1 great cubit. In Egypt where measures were septenary rather than sexigesimal they substituted palms for hands so 4 palms = 3 hands = 1 foot = 300 mm. 8 palms = 1 nibw (double foot or elle) = 600 mm.

Forget about metrification, its a fad, about as historically significant as the length you wore your hair in the sixties.

The historical preservation is the real issue. Wikipedia is a good place for people who have an interest in the historic preservation of standards of measure to do so. Probably the best way is to use the old names like fote and Myle so people looking for an article on the foot or the mile don't have to wade through a bunch of history they don't care about, and people who really want to know how the length of a perche in 1581 compared to the length of a rode in 1500 and a pole in 1593 can find out. Rktect 04:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Establishing the dialectic

Yes, discussing not fighting, good to hear it. I'm not trying to force my POV on you. What would the point of that be? All I say is "Let's keep both of our points of view out of the articles." Whether our POV is pro-metrification or pro-historic-preservation let's keep it in the Talk pages where it belongs. I'm sure you can cop that.

I think my alarm bells ring because of the language you've used. In any encyclopædia wouldn't it be preferable to use clear language? Thus refrain from calling things "the same" when there are these variations. Refrain also from vague terms like "theme". Put the facts in straight-forward language.

Go to a bar in Australia and order a scotch and you'll get 30 ml (one nip). Order a double and you'll get 60 ml. Also the bottles are usually 750 ml so you've got 25 nips to the bottle. All very clear and easy. That's the way Aussies like their measures.

Metrification is a fad, ay? Well time will tell but I get the feeling that it'll prove you wrong. The World has gone metric with the exception of the US. I'd hardly call that a failure. That the metric system isn't part of what you call "the system" isn't enough to make it fail. It needn't be part of the system: it's its own system.

The odd thing is that you say it's not part of the system then go on to say that it is. You can't have it both ways. If it's not part of the system then there is a system of units that has been used which is not that one system.

People relate best to whatever they're used to. I'm used to the metric system. It serves my needs perfectly. It's easy to use with all mutiples being powers of ten fitting in with the base ten system we use for counting (in all modern languages that I know of). Units fit together: one mililitre equals one cubic centimetre, a litre of water has a mass of one kilogram.

How many cubic inches in a gallon? Easy: 231 ... if it's a wet US gallon; not so simple otherwise. And 231 what kind of a number is that? Isn't 10x10x10 more useful than 11x7x3? Did the ancients choose 11x3x7? How many pounds does a gallon of water weigh? Easy: 10 ... if it's an Imperial gallon.

Can you give me some examples of how to make "an area or volume have a unit of length side such that they aproximately double the cube, square the circle or trisect the angle." in the Imperial or US customary system? I'm curious. Can America boast as useful a system of paper sizes as the one used by the rest of the World (except Canada)? Jimp 9Sep05

Classical problems

What makes the problems irrational is the requirement to use an unmarked straightedge, using a marked straightedge such as a ruler they are trivial. You can google some of the online java that shows mechanical constructions such as those used by Pythagoras, Plato and Eratosthenes.

[odometer solution]

[pytqagoras]

[rhind papyrus]

[circle squaring]

[trisecting]

"In the Rhind papyrus Ahmes gives a rule to construct a square of area nearly equal to that of a circle. The rule is to cut 1/9 off the circle's diameter and to construct a square on the remainder. Although this is not really a geometrical construction as such it does show that the problem of constructing a square of area equal to that of a circle goes back to the beginnings of mathematics. This is quite a good approximation, corresponding to a value of 3.1605, (256/81 expressed as unit fractions) rather than 3.14159, for pi."

For the doubling the cube problems try setting the sides or cubes at the standard unit measures of the various participants in the system. its not "exact" but its close enough as a "rule of thumb" to be of substantive assistance to anyone working with commercial calculations. The division of cubic feet into cubic fingers, palms, hands, spans etc; relates to board measure.

1 cu ft = 1728 cu in = side 12" = 64 cubic palms of 3"

1 cu remen = 3375 cu in = side 15" = 2 cu ft = 125 cubic palms of 3"

1 cu Roman cubit = 5184 cu in = side 17.3" = 3 cu ft = 125 cubic hands of 3.46"

1 cu Egyptian cubit = 5428.68 cu in = side 17.58 = pi cu ft

(nice for circular graineries, baskets, barrels,and amphorae.

1 English cubit "(the diamond on the Stanley tape measure = 6912 cu in

1 Biblical cubit = 5832 cu in = side 18" = 3.375 cu ft = 216 cubic palms of 3"

1 English cubit = side 19.05" = 4 cu ft = 8 cubic spans of 9.52" (now 9.25")

1 cu royal cubit = 8640 cu in = side 20.5" = 5 cu ft = 512 cubic palms of 2.57"

1 Mesopotamian barley kus (30 Roman digits) = 10368 cu in = side 21.8" = 6 cu ft

1 Mesopotamian wheat kus = 10852.6 cu in = side 22.14" = 2 pi cu ft.

1 = 12096 cu in = side 23" = 7 cu ft

1 nibw or elle = 13824 cu in = side 24" = 8 cu ft

These are still used in board measure and computing the number of cords of wood in a tree

[forestry]

The Greeks copied the problems from the Egyptians everyday math, but made them more rigorous and general (and irrational) by requiring the use of the straightegdge.Rktect 10:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The doubling system of the British Imperial System begins with the Horus eye fractions such as the divisions of the Hekat into unit fractions ro '2,'4,'8,'16,'32,'64,'128,'256 etc; then continues with the Biblical Bath and Metrets systems, barrel measure, cloth yards, Stecchini is actually quite good at explaining this and adds in units brutto and netto, trimmed units, the artaba and quedet, profane and sacred Mina and shekle with the built in tithing, variations on the British and American System after 1816, and then there is

Does rktect really believe that repeated binary division is so hard that it was only invented once?!? Septentrionalis 19:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that a doubling system that was even integral multiples of an Egyptian system was independently invented. If you think differently see if you can explain the coincidence. Rktect 01:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[barley mow song] (alternate words for the gill divisions include nip, niperkin, quite a few more listed in Klein)Rktect 14:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

How many cubic inches in any Imperial unit is just a matter of doubling the last cube

drachm fluid British .023281 cu in (24/2024 cu in)unit netto

drachm fluid US .024233 cu in (25/2024 cu in)unit brutto

noggin British 8.669 cu in

quartern = 1/2 Imperial gallon = 138.71 cu in cube with side 5.18"

bucket = 4 Imperial gallons = 1,109.7 cu in cube with side 10.35" 1/8 crc (Old English fote)

bushel (dry)= 2219.3 cu in = 1/4 cubic royal cubit, cube with side of 13"

strike 2 bushels (dry)= 4438.6 cu in = 1/2 crc cube with side of 16.43"

bag or sock = 3 bushels (dry)= 6657.9 cu in = 3/4 crc cube with side of 18.81"

coomb (cubit) = 4 bushels (dry) = 8877.2 = crc with side 20.7" = 32 Imperial gallons

barrel (dry = 36 Imperial gallons =9987.01704 cu in with side 21.53"

seam or quarter = 8 bushels (dry)=17,754.4 cu in with side 26"

butt = 126 Imperial gallons = 34,954.9 cu in with side 32.7"

chaldron = 32 bushels (dry)= 71,017.6 cu in with side 41.4"

wey = 40 bushels = 88,772 cu in with side 44.6"

puncheon = 70 imperial gallons = 155,351 cu in with side 53.76"

register ton = 100 cubic feet = 172,800 cu in with side 55.7"

last British = 80 bushels (dry) = 177,544 cubic in with side 56.2"

rod British = 1000 cubic feet = 1,728,000 cu in with side 120"

Interesting but ...

Rktect,

So you've shown that five cubed is approximately equal to twice four cubed. Hence if only we could find units of length in the ratio of 4:5. And so we have them. Four remen equals five feet. The problem, though, is, of course, that nobody uses remen these days.

"Can you give me some examples of how to make 'an area or volume have a unit of length side such that they aproximately double the cube ...' in the Imperial or US customary system?' I asked (emphasis added). There are no remen in either of these systems. You mustn't over look the importance of this with respect to the issue of metrification. It's SI verses Imperial/US customary not SI verses the Ancient Greek system.

Still, 4:5, is interesting but since remen are all but forgotten you might as well go for 4 to 5 inches, feet ... or even metres. Now they may use something of these in the US deforestation industry but these are not mainstream units. I'm sure they've got similar solutions to the same problems in the deforestation industries of metric countries.

As to doubling in of volumes well two is a factor of ten so you can halve a whole number of kilolitres, litres, millilitres, etc. and end up with a whole number of kilolitres, litres, millilitres, etc. it might not be quite as nice a number but divide pint by 25.

"How many cubic inches in any Imperial unit is just a matter of doubling the last cube ..." yeah, only problem is that there is no simple ratio between cubic inches and the volume of this "last cube" either. Whereas in the metric system cube and length unit and you get a unit of volume.

Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that binary division/multiplication was independently discovered. By the way, do you know what "irrational" means in mathematics? Jimp 20Sep05

Do we really require the disputed tag?

Does anyone object to removing the disputed tag from this article? So far I have seen no demonstration that there is a fact in the article which isn't demonstrably true. If there is a specific statement which needs more clarification or references lets provide them and move on. Rktect 18:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

We need to remove the unsourced conjecture that constitutes the prose of the article. We also need to have a (separate) section on Gilling's system, which explains it without advocacy. I should be able to do that by the end of the week. Septentrionalis 01:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the present text leaves no room for dispute; and I would join a consensus removing the disputed tag. Septentrionalis 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Septentrionalis Pmanderson, the present text does leave no room for dispute; seeing as you've removed all text. Perhap, though, it's best this way ... maybe. Jimp 14Sep05

If we can keep it as it is now, there is no reason to keep the 'dispute' tag. A small introductory text would have been nice, but that may wait untill the outcome of the arbitration is clear. -- Egil 08:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I said If we can keep it as it is now. That didn't happen, so I am adding the tag. The unsourced claims and statements now seem to be back. -- Egil 11:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What unsourced statement do you refer to? Read the discussion first, then try and be specific. Rktect 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

historic weights and measures

Historical weights and measures need at a minimum to be organized according to their historic developments. Any history book would look at any subject as having ancient, classical, medeival and modern forms, thats what having a history means, that you can track how things evolved. There is no unsourced conjecture in the article, all of it is pretty mainstream history, but if there is a fact you dispute why not mention it on the discussion page and find out more about it before reducing the whole article to nonsense. As to Gilling's, who is the author of "Mathematics in the time of the Pharoah's" and probably pretty academic and dry for most tastes, you can buy his book in paperback for $9.50 from ABE books.Rktect 19:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

how many?

how many furlongs are in a league? Ana

8 furlongs to a mile & 3 miles to a league makes 24. Jimp 20Sep05