**Next message:**Christopher John Fynn: "Re: Vulgar fractions"**Previous message:**Michael Everson: "Re: 8859-1, 8859-15, 1252 and Euro"**Maybe in reply to:**Otto Stolz: "Vulgar fractions (was: 8859-1, 8859-15, 1252 and Euro)"**Next in thread:**Hohberger, Clive: "RE: Vulgar fractions (was: 8859-1, 8859-15, 1252 and Euro)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 03:24:08 -0800 (PST), Peter Westlake

<peter@harlequin.co.uk> wrote:

*>>Am 2000-02-10 um 15:07 h (PST) hat Paul Keinanen geschrieben:
*

*>>> These fractions might be usable in countries using "Imperial" units,
*

*>>> but as far as I know, there are only a few countries still using
*

*>>> "Imperial" units :-).
*

Please note that I was originally talking about the coding of certain

rational numbers with a special character code, not the usability of

the rational numbers as a whole. While the rational number consists of

two integers and since the number of integers is infinite, so must the

number of rational numbers also be. Thus, I do not see the point of

encoding some selected fractions with special character codes. Even

with integers, I do not know of any writing system that would have a

special symbol for say, 17384, but it is composed of a limited number

of component, quite often (but not always) based on some kind of the

base 10 positional system.

*>Why are fractions only usable with Imperial units? Do ISO standards
*

*>forbid metric units to be written as fractions?
*

While it makes sense to say that one third of six eggs is two eggs,

however, when making measurements, we are always talking about

approximations that are made at some precision. The number of

significant digits in a decimal number is a convenient way of giving

an indication at what precision the measurement has been made without

explicitly specifying the error limits. On the other hand a statement

like "the length of the pole was measured as 22/7 meters" does not

make much sense, since that would indicate an exact entity which would

remain true no matter what precision is available in later

measurements.

*>Also, not everything
*

*>is a unit; fractions are very useful in mathematical formulae,
*

*> and for numbers in general.
*

No argument about that, since the argument was assigning character

code points to some selected rational numbers.

Paul

**Next message:**Christopher John Fynn: "Re: Vulgar fractions"**Previous message:**Michael Everson: "Re: 8859-1, 8859-15, 1252 and Euro"**Maybe in reply to:**Otto Stolz: "Vulgar fractions (was: 8859-1, 8859-15, 1252 and Euro)"**Next in thread:**Hohberger, Clive: "RE: Vulgar fractions (was: 8859-1, 8859-15, 1252 and Euro)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT
*