Isekai no Binbou Nouka ni Tensei Shita Node, Renga wo Tsukutte Shiro wo Tateru Koto ni Shimashita - Vol. 5 Ch. 17.2

[versub]

You can't post that page and not provide a sauce to go with it.

It's from Revenge of the pigs/Buta no Fukushuu

 

[HDMI1]

Nevermind.

 

[Wyrm]

It's actually not that reasonable in this context. Go grab a random object and try dividing into tenths without using any sort of measuring implement, it's almost impossible to do accurately. Now try dividing it into twelfths instead, it is significantly easier, and if you aren't stuck on the the idea of any specific base then you can introduce intermediary units that make conversion possible for people that aren't as educated.
Metric works because there were already established measures with which they could scale the units; these people don't have any of that, so they're going to end up having to create an intermediary set of measures anyway. If Ars isn't carefully insistent about the units and providing a proper education, he's going to be the only one using Metric while everyone else is using those intermediary units that are easier for them to work with.

The problem with the US system is not that it uses a number different than 10.
The problem is that it uses a whole slew of numbers different than 10. Different ones for different units conversions, even in the same dimension you're measuring.
Which compounds when you convert related units like distances, areas and volumes since you have to square and cube these numbers. Even worse when your volume units are not related at all to your distance units. (e.g. ounces to inches/feet/yards)
Then again, 10 might not be the best one if your mathematical system is in a different base. The reason 10 is chosen is because we're using base-10 mathematics, not because it was chosen arbitrarily. This way you can make conversions just by switching the numbers by a few zeroes. Let's say that world counts in base 12, then it would become reasonable to divide or multiply by 12 instead. Which is not particularly easier than 10, contrary to your claim.

Also, as long as you want to make accurate measures, you will need a measuring implement. The difference is that all your implements will be made using the same logic in the metric system.

Finally, I'll have one last serious point: I don't believe for a second that the reason people are using non-metric units because it's objectively easier. It's because they grew up with it and are resistant to change. It's subjectively easier. Anyone from a country that uses the metric system on a daily basis will tell you that they find this easier than the "whatever conversion" the US or imperial system use. Heck, these are not even consistent at times, as a land mile is not even the same as a nautical mile for example.
So a change is possible, if there is a will. The people would definitely adapt eventually. But I agree it wouldn't be trivial because there would be costs associated with it. (Changing packages, public signs, etc.) But that's the cost of a long time of stubbornness.

All that said, I'll end with a funny note: there is one measure that is not based on a simple factor of 10 even in the metric system. Time. 60s to a minute. 60m to an hour. 24h to a day. 7 days to a week. Whatever days/week to a month (from 28 to 31 days, depending on the month). 365 days to a year... plus a day of adjustment once in a while. Nobody is completely safe from insane conversions.

 

[popinloopy]

Thank you for the update!

 

[StealthAria]

The problem with the US system is not that it uses a number different than 10.
The problem is that it uses a whole slew of numbers different than 10. Different ones for different units conversions, even in the same dimension you're measuring.
Which compounds when you convert related units like distances, areas and volumes since you have to square and cube these numbers. Even worse when your volume units are not related at all to your distance units. (e.g. ounces to inches/feet/yards)
Then again, 10 might not be the best one if your mathematical system is in a different base. The reason 10 is chosen is because we're using base-10 mathematics, not because it was chosen arbitrarily. This way you can make conversions just by switching the numbers by a few zeroes. Let's say that world counts in base 12, then it would become reasonable to divide or multiply by 12 instead. Which is not particularly easier than 10, contrary to your claim.

Also, as long as you want to make accurate measures, you will need a measuring implement. The difference is that all your implements will be made using the same logic in the metric system.

Finally, I'll have one last serious point: I don't believe for a second that the reason people are using non-metric units because it's objectively easier. It's because they grew up with it and are resistant to change. It's subjectively easier. Anyone from a country that uses the metric system on a daily basis will tell you that they find this easier than the "whatever conversion" the US or imperial system use. Heck, these are not even consistent at times, as a land mile is not even the same as a nautical mile for example.
So a change is possible, if there is a will. The people would definitely adapt eventually. But I agree it wouldn't be trivial because there would be costs associated with it. (Changing packages, public signs, etc.) But that's the cost of a long time of stubbornness.

All that said, I'll end with a funny note: there is one measure that is not based on a simple factor of 10 even in the metric system. Time. 60s to a minute. 60m to an hour. 24h to a day. 7 days to a week. Whatever days/week to a month (from 28 to 31 days, depending on the month). 365 days to a year... plus a day of adjustment once in a while. Nobody is completely safe from insane conversions.

Don't forget that Metric does use the universal constants as units, even though none of them actually fit into the metric conversions. Metric does have it's own time system though, 100 seconds to a minute and 100 minutes to the hour, it's just no one uses it because making the switch is more hassle than it is worth. Metric only ever came about because every country in Europe had their own systems of measures and none of them matched even if some of them shared names, so when some enterprising Frenchman created a "new" system based on the French Common measures and started shilling it, it was quickly adopted to facilitate trade. That's right, Metric is just your dreaded "Imperial" system in a new coat of paint; even the ability to convert length measures into volume and weight is nothing new, and Imperial made it even simpler, 1fl oz of water weighs 1oz and occupies 2cu in (at least before 2023)

Metric is only superior inside equations, and even then it has shortcomings. In actual usage, traditional units are always more practical; they came about and persisted because they were practical. Dividing things into tenths is not easy to do without some kind of tool to measure with, but anyone can easily divide a given measure into halves or thirds with nothing more than their eyes and brain, and from there they can further divide things into any fraction except multiples of fifths. As much as you might complain about conversions, the people that actually use those measurement systems never have any more trouble converting the units then you do with metric, the only reason you have problems is because you only touch the units to make fun of them.

 

[kikix12]

"Half, half, third" makes one twelfth, and the steps can be arranged in whichever order is easiest to measure. The full "Imperial" system (I'll be referencing the US Customary system; different measures, same names, and same conversions except for fluid volume) actually has (or had) units for those steps as well, though some of the names have been lost to time as the units themselves fell out of use; of the ones that remain for length, a "hand" is 4 inches or 1/3 foot, a "short-span" is 6 inches or 1/2 foot, a "span" is 9 inches or 3/4 foot, and a "palm" is 3 inches or 1/4 foot. Going up from the foot there are more similarly spaced units, though beyond the pace, yard and fathom you are mostly left with abandoned Imperial units that got dragged over for surveying and converted to US Customary which left us with some ugly conversions, the "league" even gained a second definition as a length of 3 miles when it was originally a length of 1/2 mile.

And I love how you then go on to just confirm exactly what I said: you need some intermediary unit in order to easily divide a length into tenths. If Ars doesn't intervene by providing actual measuring tools and constantly teaching them the metric system, the people are just going to end up creating and using their own system of measures based on those intermediary units instead.

"Half, half, third" makes one twelfth, and the steps can be arranged in whichever order is easiest to measure.

Sooo...how is it easier? You do realize that both 5 and 3 are odd number (and prime besides) and therefore they are as difficult to divide into equal parts as each other without tools, right? Of course you don't, hence why you think this is an explanation.

Just to get that out there...'less steps' (which I admit, 10 takes more of than 12 if you don't cheat and say '1/5' as a second step) is not 'easier'.

The units in any imperial system have literally zero to do with this discussion, so spare me that drivel.

And I love how you then go on to just confirm exactly what I said: you need some intermediary unit in order to easily divide a length into tenths.

I neither proved your point, nor did I mention need for any 'intermediary'. as relevant to this discussion.

First...If you want to divide larger dimension into smaller dimension, NO MATTER WHAT, you need something smaller to fill it with. It's the same for 10, 12 and even 2. If you want it to be accurate, you cannot even divide 2 without something, the unquestionably easiest number to divide.

Second, you are talking about measuring tools when you say 'intermediary', going by your first post (otherwise the entire paragraph would make zero logical sense). Except...measuring tools have a known dimension/weight/whatever they measure. I've never spoken of a known dimension, did I? Of course not. It makes no sense to speak of a known smaller dimension since if you know them...you would just raise them up rather than divide the larger dimension.

people are just going to end up creating and using their own system of measures based on those intermediary units instead

This makes no sense. Do you expect them to divide the dimension themselves each and every single time?! Seriously?! Can you divide 10 or 12 into 1 nowadays, fully understanding the units and living with them since infancy?! Of course not. Measuring tools are obviously mandatory in any measurement system.
I was under the assumption of you talking about the logical step of deriving the smaller units from the larger unit before the measurement tools are made. It's nonsensical to speak of people deriving the smaller units on their own each and every single time.

 

[StealthAria]

Sooo...how is it easier? You do realize that both 5 and 3 are odd number (and prime besides) and therefore they are as difficult to divide into equal parts as each other without tools, right? Of course you don't, hence why you think this is an explanation.

Just to get that out there...'less steps' (which I admit, 10 takes more of than 12 if you don't cheat and say '1/5' as a second step) is not 'easier'.

The units in any imperial system have literally zero to do with this discussion, so spare me that drivel.


I neither proved your point, nor did I mention need for any 'intermediary'. as relevant to this discussion.

First...If you want to divide larger dimension into smaller dimension, NO MATTER WHAT, you need something smaller to fill it with. It's the same for 10, 12 and even 2. If you want it to be accurate, you cannot even divide 2 without something, the unquestionably easiest number to divide.

Second, you are talking about measuring tools when you say 'intermediary', going by your first post (otherwise the entire paragraph would make zero logical sense). Except...measuring tools have a known dimension/weight/whatever they measure. I've never spoken of a known dimension, did I? Of course not. It makes no sense to speak of a known smaller dimension since if you know them...you would just raise them up rather than divide the larger dimension.


This makes no sense. Do you expect them to divide the dimension themselves each and every single time?! Seriously?! Can you divide 10 or 12 into 1 nowadays, fully understanding the units and living with them since infancy?! Of course not. Measuring tools are obviously mandatory in any measurement system.
I was under the assumption of you talking about the logical step of deriving the smaller units from the larger unit before the measurement tools are made. It's nonsensical to speak of people deriving the smaller units on their own each and every single time.

Do I have to explain this to you like you're a toddler? Look at a line in front of you, now raise your hands in front of it, how many segments do you have in that line now? Three, and look, you can move your hands around until all three segments are the same size. Ooh. And then, you can move that over to another object and mark yourself a reference to use for other things.
Now tell me, how do you evenly split something into 5 without some intermediary? If it's something smaller than a foot then you can use your fingers, but they're not working with anything nearly that small, they're starting with a reference object appropriately 331 feet long on all sides. Use a bunch of other objects and keep moving them around until the spacing is even? Create an elaborate setup like a survey team and have a group of people marking everything out while one person stands around staring at their fingers? Why, when you could use just 2 objects (your hands) against the reference to mark out all the way down to whatever smallest unit you want?

Let's make something perfectly clear here: THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY MEASURING SYSTEM, THEY ARE CREATING ONE. They have no actual implement with which to measure yet, they are creating a system of measures by dividing up the size of a common object. (Kinda resembles Imperial there, now doesn't it?) You're going on and on about how you think Metric is superior because you can drag the decimal around to change units and make math easier, but none of that matters to any of the characters right now; they need some practical standard with which to measure, and right now, Metric is  not practical for ANY of them.

 

[kikix12]

Do I have to explain this to you like you're a toddler?

Explaining it like it would make sense would be preferred. Though I know it is a high ordeal, cause...

Look at a line in front of you, now raise your hands in front of it, how many segments do you have in that line now? Three, and look, you can move your hands around until all three segments are the same size.

...this makes no sense. Dividing something with this level of accuracy is utterly useless for making measurements. I could just as easily divide something into five parts while maintaining this 'accuracy'.

Show me how dividing into three is easier while BEING ACCURATE, because for now, the method I've given (which makes no difference between how many parts you divide into) is still the better option in that.

Now tell me, how do you evenly split something into 5 without some intermediary?

You're seriously implying that 'eyeing it' is 'dividing it'? It's not.

If it's something smaller than a foot then you can use your fingers, but they're not working with anything nearly that small, they're starting with a reference object appropriately 331 feet long on all sides.

Approximation is useless in making measurements. You're literally doing the very same thing that people in the past did, that causes world-wide headaches that CAUSED the meter to be invented in the first place. In other words, you just don't learn from the past.

Let's make something perfectly clear here: THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY MEASURING SYSTEM, THEY ARE CREATING ONE.

Yeah, and?! I'd like to remind you that YOU are the one that proposes inacurate method of dividing something into smaller chunks, while I offered the (more) accurate one. So who's the one that needs a reminder here that they're trying to create a measurement? Me, that wants them to do it right, or you that just wants them to 'eye' it?

Kinda resembles Imperial there, now doesn't it?

Dividing an item is bread and butter of 'measurement'. It has nothing to do with imperial.
The reason why they are using it for a specific item is because, guess what...the main character had made it with a specific METRIC dimension, so it's already available.

You're going on and on about how you think Metric is superior because you can drag the decimal around to change units and make math easier, but none of that matters to any of the characters right now; they need some practical standard with which to measure, and right now, Metric is  not practical for ANY of them.

It is practical for all of them. You're just ignorant.

No measurement makes sense unless you standardize it. That means that before it would be used, tools for accurately representing it would be made.

Seeing as only a limited few and for a limited short time would actually need to worry about the division, going with a more difficult system to learn is just plain idiocy when an easier system to learn is readily available. Everyone else would already be using accurate measuring tools for that.

If they went with the more difficult system, they'd learn it, start working with it...and then what?! Relearn it and change everything to fit it?! Nonsense. It's a dead-end street. Why do you think there are only three countries that still largely use imperial, and out of these three countries, only one actually has a significant economy. And even this one country, for any bigger project and every international project actually uses METRIC system nowadays, because of the massive catastrophies their use of imperial had caused in the past.

Imperial system is objectively worse. It is good enough for a lot of general uses, don't get me wrong. But that's only because in most projects, any measuring system is good enough as long as you remain consistent throughout. However, it simply has neither the advantage in ease of learning, ease of use nor in accuracy.

 

[morichiro]

Everyone here talking about imperial vs metric... meanwhile the world made it's choice (except the US, well NASA and bullets use metric so...)

 

[StealthAria]

Everyone here talking about imperial vs metric... meanwhile the world made it's choice (except the US, well NASA and bullets use metric so...)

The people of the world made a choice, and the universe disagrees with it. Have you ever looked at the definitions? The numbers are a mess and the math is a nightmare. And as much as everyone sings praises for their precious Metric system, US Customary actually has (rather, had, they slightly changed the measures to simplify the conversions to and from Metric while redefining SI) cleaner numbers when defined directly by the universal constants and ends up having easier math when you don't insist on changing units mid-equation only to change them back for the answer.
BTW, the reason why NASA uses SI is because they have foreign collaborators, and those collaborators have a proven track record of using Metric base units instead of the clearly labeled US Customary units while often leaving off the unit labels from their own math. Meanwhile, bullets are only given a Metric designation when they originate from outside the US when the military is proposing a caliber for NATO adoption, or if the creator of the caliber just thinks metric designations sound cooler. (The lattermost case usually involves the designation not matching the actual bullet diameter)

That's not really the issue though. The issue, which the Metric-obsessed side prefers to ignore, is that Metric (Système international) was only able to be created because the was an already existing system of natural measures, whose units were co-opted into a "new" system, and a solid framework of education. The world in this story does not have any system of measures (that they've cared to explain, anyway) which is going to make this implementation of Metric significantly more difficult, especially since it was simultaneously brought up that almost none of them know even basic math beyond what is explicitly needed for their job. Ars needs a working measurement standard now, not 4 generations from now, so Metric makes no sense in this context. He might as well be telling them how to build a cold-fusion reactor or Dyson sphere, for all the good it'll do them.

 

[llde]

cleaner numbers when defined directly by the universal constants and ends up having easier math when you don't insist on changing units mid-equation only to change them back for the answer.

you claimed this, but I'm unable to find proofs, in contrary I found that most sciences fields people prefers to use metric and SI (SI being a superset of metric, and not all units have us customary or imperial units), but not engineering, that is more a mixed bag
The only exception, but not always us related but more worldwide, is my own field, computer science, where SI define power of 10 based units for computer space (byte related), while we use power of 2 based units. However these are not us customary as well

Ars needs a working measurement standard now, not 4 generations from now, so Metric makes no sense in this context

Moot point, no standardized unit system will be flawless and working in with a from scratch implementation.
Even US customary and imperial units were modified multiple times, even before the redefinition in meter and grams in 1893. Pre-metric system units as well, albeit is more difficult to track it as often there was no defined standard

 

[StealthAria]

you claimed this, but I'm unable to find proofs, in contrary I found that most sciences fields people prefers to use metric and SI (SI being a superset of metric, and not all units have us customary or imperial units), but not engineering, that is more a mixed bag
The only exception, but not always us related but more worldwide, is my own field, computer science, where SI define power of 10 based units for computer space (byte related), while we use power of 2 based units. However these are not us customary as well



Moot point, no standardized unit system will be flawless and working in with a from scratch implementation.
Even US customary and imperial units were modified multiple times, even before the redefinition in meter and grams in 1893. Pre-metric system units as well, albeit is more difficult to track it as often there was no defined standard

Metric and SI are the same system, neither is a subset of the other, unless you want to get technical with 'Metric' just meaning a system of measures which would also make Imperial, US Customary, and all those other depreciated measurement systems be Metric as well. The reason why science fields prefer Metric/SI is because that is precisely the reason it was adopted; a meter is a meter everywhere you go, but a foot in America is not the same as a foot in Britain, and someone using Egypt's measures wouldn't have any idea what a 'foot' even is as a unit.
Also, on the topic of computer science, the units you use actually are based around the powers of 10 in the most stupid way. You might think that a kilobyte is 1024 bytes, and that used to actually be the standard, but then the Metric idiots got their hands on it and forced the 1000 bytes to a kilobyte for consistency which is now causing endless confusion for everyone with similarly named units meaning completely different amounts of storage and bandwidth.


When establishing a new system of measures from nothing, especially with uneducated people, you need a system that is practical and easy to keep track of. If you go back and look at old systems of measure you'll find that basically no one used base-10 for their measures even if their counting was base-10 because base-10 is actually pretty hard to work with unless you have a good understanding of fractions and decimals; the more factors a number has relative to itself, the easier it ends up being to work with without an education.

 

[rgkaw]

The Japanese Imperialism is starting. Next comes onsen, kotatsu, miso, soy sauce, kewpie mayo, and...

sauce?