Well technically speaking maybe there is no difference in accuracy. Except if my math is still fresh i still think one unit is more accurate than one unit with period. Ex: 1.2 vs 1.292839999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999 ---> inf. 9 (aka period 9).

But in real life it's easier to use 268 mm opposed to 10.5591(9) inches. Picture this in a "very techy workplace": Say what Bob? How long does the laser has to cut? Billy replies: Exactly 268 mm....(or scenario 2 "exactly" 10.55919999999999999999999999999 heck make it 10.5592 inches). That's pretty much accurate Bob. The electrons will not be disturbed whatsoever

 

In fact i've been thinking over and it is more accurate. Why? Because any unit that allows as multiple subunits as possible with as many common divisors as possible has to have the best accuracy in pointing out or measuring a particular entity.

It's like saying you're going 60ish mile per hour which can be 61, 62 heck 68 mph, or maybe 57mph. Translate that in a comparison with the absolute value of the speed of light and you would get a wider space tolerance then you would get in case someone would say he/she was traveling at 60ish km/h (or to make it fair the equivalent of 100km/h-ish).

That's why even American companies like Intel choose to use metric units when it comes to dealing with very low measuring like the 45nm cpus or 60nm cpus.

 

I think that's still talking descriptive ease of reference rather than absolute accuracy. The properties of what you measure aren't impacted by how you measure it. I agree with you that metric is typically easier to use and generally easier to simplify down to smaller units, but that in itself won't necessarily have any impact on accuracy.

 

just admit it, youre wrong
268 millimeters, or simply 2.68 centimeters is ALOT more accurate than 1.292839999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999(9) inches because it is a simple measurement which is less prone to being mistaken wrong, i.e. ACCURATE

 

Not at all. The metric system may be more understandable, but it is not, by definition any more accurate than an imperial measurement. Both are simply scales of measurement used to describe something whose properties are not impacted by how it is measured. What you are describing in your post above is ease of use, which in itself is independent of accuracy.

That said, your own example isn't necessarily helpful to the specific point you were struggling to make. In your example, it is perfectly possible that the imperial measurement you posted is indeed more accurate than your approximate metric equivalent - due simply to its greater mathematical precision.

Furthermore, in light of your laudable quest for accuracy, I do feel compelled to point out that 268 millimeters doesn't simplify to 2.68 centimeters... Now, what was that about the metric system being "less prone to being mistaken wrong"?

 

i think that was a typo!

Please admit that the smaller you go in quantity the less accurate the imperial system becomes. The same goes for weight.

This will be my last example:

A single hair (length 9.5 cm; diameter 100 mm; weight 0.77 mg)

If we were to expess those in Imperial system then we get the weight in ounces (1 ounce = 28 349.5231 milligrams). A human hair weighs 0.00002716095 ounces. Or it weighs 0.01188271604 grains (whatever that is ). Mind though that my calculator is limited @ only 12 digits. Considering this and the possibility of period results, you still think that the metrical system is not more accurate than the imperial system? Seriously it's like saying measuring time in decades is not less accurate than measuring it in milliseconds.

 

The reason it stuck in some places in the UK was because the legislators mandated it, they tried teaching in schools but it did not take 'cos parents carried on talking 'old' measures. The only items that were not legally required to be changed were the slow turnover items and permanent fixtures such as road signs.

But beware... If we were to change the roadsigns to Km in the UK it would be the start of a cunning plan to change the side of the road we drive on at midnight on the 1st April - switch from right to left..

 

I think this debate has been very fascinating to watch/read, but this pretty much sums up what you two are going back and forth regarding. The dictionary (at least the one I use) defines the term "accuracy" as "free from error" and/or "conforming exactly to truth or to a standard."

Under that definition, it doesn't matter whether it is 1 cm or 1.249382093 inches, so long as they are both "free from error" and "conform to the truth" then they both are equally accurate. Another concept is the idea of having "degrees" of accuracy, such that some argue that one method is "more accurate" than another. From the definition, however, whether something is accurate is a yes/no proposition (it is free from error or it is not... it conforms to the standard or it does not). Something can be more likely to be accurate, but that does not make it more accurate. I think this concept has been lost in the back and forth as well.

I would actually agree that dealing with more precise numbers rather than fractions, decimals and repeating remainders makes something more likely to be accurate (i.e., less likely to be erroneous), but at the end of the day, they both are accurate ways to measure something.

 

It isn't - they can be absolutely identical. Just different units of measure describing the same things. I already agreed many posts back that the metric system is more user friendly but there is no scientific or logical reason for one to be any more or any less accurate than the other. Ten decades translates to an exact number of milliseconds, and vice versa. It may be more readable, but it is not necessarily any more accurate.

 

Absolutely, you've captured the exact points I've been trying to make.