| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:10 pm
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:13:28 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
"The world around,
A pint's a pound" -- not!
"A pint of water
Weighs a pound and a quarter" -- sometimes.
Imperial pint is 20 floz, US 16. The fluid ounces are the same.
A pint is 16 ounces. The British fluid ounce is larger than the US
one, which is why a pint of beer in America is smaller than a pint
of
beer over here.
|
I assure you that I wasn't wandering when I said an Imperial pint was
20 fluid ounces. It is. I didn't know the two flozzes were different
until this thread -- I think it's a matter of different standards
rather than different concepts, though, as I'm still pretty sure that
a floz of water is intended to weigh a sixteenth of a pound in both
jurisdictions.
| Quote: |
The
origin of the US "fifth" is that it's the nearest memorable
fraction
to the old-established standard wine-bottle of, I think, 76 cl. I
haven't looked closely, but I think the Euro-Antipond bottle is
now a
stingy 70 cl.
Huh? I thought a fifth has always been a fifth of a US gallon.
These
new, frigging metric units have nothing to do with it.
|
Not what I said. There has for maybe centuries been an ordinary
acceptation of the capacity of a wine-bottle: I have the impression
that it was a customary measure antedating the metric system. It
happened to be conveniently close to a fifth of a US gallon, that's
all.
In another message I accepted that the new 70-cl size seemed to be
used only for spirits; and it seems that a standard bottle is now
pegged at 750 ml. I still feel quite strongly that it used to be a
nominal 76 cl.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:40 pm
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:13:28 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
"The world around,
A pint's a pound" -- not!
"A pint of water
Weighs a pound and a quarter" -- sometimes.
Imperial pint is 20 floz, US 16. The fluid ounces are the same.
A pint is 16 ounces. The British fluid ounce is larger than the US
one, which is why a pint of beer in America is smaller than a pint
of
beer over here.
I assure you that I wasn't wandering when I said an Imperial pint was
20 fluid ounces. It is. I didn't know the two flozzes were different
until this thread -- I think it's a matter of different standards
rather than different concepts, though, as I'm still pretty sure that
a floz of water is intended to weigh a sixteenth of a pound in both
jurisdictions.
|
As has been shown, I needed to jog my memory but, indeed, a pint is 20
floz here. It is a major reason why our gallons are so different.
I don't think that the different floz is by deliberate design but just
drifting standards. I heard a story once that it was only during the
war that we discovered that the standards for an inch had drifted.
This caused a problem with parts shipped from the US to the UK. I have
not tried to verify this story. I think that the inch has been brought
into line. If my memory is still working (not certain) it is now
_defined_ as 25.4mm.
I discovered the floz discrepancy when I was trying to reconcile the
size of the two gallons. The floz in pint difference was not enough to
explain the gallon difference.
| Quote: | The
origin of the US "fifth" is that it's the nearest memorable
fraction
to the old-established standard wine-bottle of, I think, 76 cl. I
haven't looked closely, but I think the Euro-Antipond bottle is
now a
stingy 70 cl.
Huh? I thought a fifth has always been a fifth of a US gallon.
These
new, frigging metric units have nothing to do with it.
Not what I said. There has for maybe centuries been an ordinary
acceptation of the capacity of a wine-bottle: I have the impression
that it was a customary measure antedating the metric system. It
happened to be conveniently close to a fifth of a US gallon, that's
all.
|
acceptation?
I had not heard that. Because a gallon contains 8 pints and a US pint
16 floz which are both divisible by 4 but not 5, a fourth seemed likely
but a fifth seemed unlikely. I did not expect a measure of 1.6 pints.
So, I falsely remembered the phrase "a fourth of gin" rather than "a
fifth of gin".
| Quote: | In another message I accepted that the new 70-cl size seemed to be
used only for spirits; and it seems that a standard bottle is now
pegged at 750 ml. I still feel quite strongly that it used to be a
nominal 76 cl.
--
Mike.
|
I have no recollection of an earlier wine bottle standard. I am not
saying that there was not an earlier standard, just that 750ml has been
the standard as long as I can remember.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:14 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 14:18:59 -0800, "Seán O'Leathlóbhair"
<jwlawler@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I think that Australia started after us but they certainly completed
long before us. They appear to have been completely metric for a long
time. Can any Australians out there tell us when the transition
occurred and how long it took?
Officially 1971 to 1982, industry by industry. Metrification, it were |
called.
Before that, pharmaceuticals in 1965. The currency went metric on the
14th of February, 1966 (which every Australian alive at the time sings
to the tune of "Click go the shears".
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Ray Heindl <vortren-newsx@yaxhoo.com> writes:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Google ratio for "three quarters of":"three fourths of" is 6:1,
for what it's worth. Both sound equally normal to my USan ears; I
didn't expect such a high ratio.
|
I suspect that there's a fair amount of "three quarters of excellent
football" and the like.
Both sound normal to me. I think I'd be more likely to use quarters
in most contexts, but I would be surprised if "fourths" didn't pass my
lips, especially in sentences like "The task is three-fourths
preparation and one fourth execution". (Indeed, thinking about it,
"three fourths" seems to pair with "one fourth", but not "a fourth",
while "three quarters" can pair with either, but more likely "a quarter".)
As an absolute quantity, I think it's pretty much always "quarters"
for me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post
|the wrong information, and wait for
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in
(650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how
|wrong you are.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:23 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Ray Heindl <vortren-newsx@yaxhoo.com> writes:
| Quote: | Were liquid measures developed in anticipation of the binary computer
age? Starting with 1 tablespoon,
x 2 = 1 ounce
x 2^2 = 1 gill
x 2 = 1 cup
x 2 = 1 pint
x 2 = 1 quart
x 2^2 = 1 gallon
So in binary, 1 gallon = 100000000 tablespoons.
|
Nah. Start with a dram. A tablespoon is four drams, so a gallon is
10000000000 drams.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:35 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> writes:
| Quote: | I've seen liquor sold in fifths but never fourths.
|
Although the fifth is 750 ml these days. (An actual fifth is a
no-no.)
| Quote: | But I haven't been in a packie in a while. Pop is sold in two-liter
bottles,
|
Pepsi started doing so in 1970, Coke in 1977.
| Quote: | most everything else in British units.
|
Bottled water tends to be sold in liters and half-liters. All
alcoholic beverages except for "malt beverages" (which includes beer)
have to be sold in round metric quantities in the US. (For wine, 50
ml, 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 L, 1.5 L, or 3 L; for
distilled spirits, 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml, 330 ml (cans only), 375 ml,
750 ml, 1 L, or 1.75 L.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:52 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Nate Branscom wrote:
| Quote: | reiro wrote:
Could you please tell me how to read the fractions below.
Just the fractions? Okay.
1/2 - it's only possible to say half and not one second yes?
One half.
what about 3/4 - I think I've heard the two ways of reading it: three
thirds or three quarters. Which is more correct or more common especially
in GB?
Three quarters or three fourths.
72/2 - can I read it as seventy-two second? or just as thirty-six?
Um, seventy-two over two? I don't know of anybody that would use that
kind of fraction unless they were working a Math problem and hadn't
simplified it to thirty-six, yet.
|
My guess is that it would be "seventy-two over two" - that seems to be
the main way we say the more commonly used 3/2, 5/2, etc. (except in
racing circles). "Fourths" is fine, but I suppose we have problems with
"seconds" because of the multitude of meanings.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:54 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
| Quote: | reiro wrote:
Dnia Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:36:14 +0100, David Taylor
davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> napisa³:
72/2 - can I read it as seventy-two second? or just as thirty-six?
72 halves... perhaps... but I would never say that. Either 72 over 2,
or 36.
Is it possible to use this structure "nmber over number" to talk about
common fractions like 1/2- one over two or 3/4 as three over four?
In certain mathematical contexts yes. It would be common when
dictating an expression and it is also likely when explaining a
computation. Note that "one upon two" is also common.
|
I've never heard that "upon" usage. Which region is that common in?
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:58 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
reiro wrote:
| Quote: | Dnia Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:36:14 +0100, David Taylor
davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> napisa³:
72/2 - can I read it as seventy-two second? or just as thirty-six?
72 halves... perhaps... but I would never say that. Either 72 over 2,
or 36.
Is it possible to use this structure "nmber over number" to talk about
common fractions like 1/2- one over two or 3/4 as three over four?
Possible, but less likely. As I said in an earlier post, I think we are |
reluctant to use "seconds" because it means so many other things.
I note some Americans are happy with "three fourths" as a common variant
of "three quarters". I would say that for the non-AmE, "fourths" are
mainly used when talking maths. In other words, if you have been
discussing 7/4, 21/4, etc., then it's natural to continue with "three
fourths", but otherwise, I'm fairly sure we would stick to quarters.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:18 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Richard Bollard wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Nov 2005 14:18:59 -0800, "Seán O'Leathlóbhair"
jwlawler@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think that Australia started after us but they certainly completed
long before us. They appear to have been completely metric for a long
time. Can any Australians out there tell us when the transition
occurred and how long it took?
Officially 1971 to 1982, industry by industry. Metrification, it were
called.
Before that, pharmaceuticals in 1965. The currency went metric on the
14th of February, 1966 (which every Australian alive at the time sings
to the tune of "Click go the shears".
|
The odd thing is the reappearance of "pint" glasses over the last few
years. I'm not sure whether this stemmed from Guinness or from boutique
beers, but just about every trendy pub has pint glasses now. I did ask
my barmaid whether they were how many mils they were or whether they
were 20 oz, but as I'd had a few, I can't remember the answer.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:33 pm
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Richard Bollard wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Nov 2005 14:18:59 -0800, "Seán O'Leathlóbhair"
jwlawler@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think that Australia started after us but they certainly completed
long before us. They appear to have been completely metric for a long
time. Can any Australians out there tell us when the transition
occurred and how long it took?
Officially 1971 to 1982, industry by industry. Metrification, it were
called.
Before that, pharmaceuticals in 1965. The currency went metric on the
14th of February, 1966 (which every Australian alive at the time sings
to the tune of "Click go the shears".
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
|
I don't remember if there was an official start to our metrification
but it did begin in the early seventies. The start was very slow. The
pace has increased recently but there is still a long way to go. How
chaotic was the change? We fear changing to km on the roads since many
will probably go wild when they see a 110 sign.
You were a bit ahead on us on the currency but we did manage to
complete that one quite quickly.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:43 pm
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> writes:
I've seen liquor sold in fifths but never fourths.
Although the fifth is 750 ml these days. (An actual fifth is a
no-no.)
But I haven't been in a packie in a while. Pop is sold in two-liter
bottles,
Pepsi started doing so in 1970, Coke in 1977.
most everything else in British units.
Bottled water tends to be sold in liters and half-liters. All
alcoholic beverages except for "malt beverages" (which includes beer)
have to be sold in round metric quantities in the US. (For wine, 50
ml, 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 L, 1.5 L, or 3 L; for
distilled spirits, 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml, 330 ml (cans only), 375 ml,
750 ml, 1 L, or 1.75 L.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
|
That is a curious array of sizes. Industry may want to standardise for
efficiency reasons and these may not require neat sizes. Marketing may
even want unusual sizes. But, I would expect that the motive for
legislation would be to make it easy for consumers to compare the value
of products in different sizes. For this purpose, there should be a
simple relationship between the sizes.
Which is better value 100ml for $1.50 or 187ml for $2.80?
Pub measures of wine here have to be multiples of 125ml for this
reason. I had presumed, but not checked, that this applied outside the
pub. My own wine rack has just contradicted this. I found a 187.5ml
bottle. It looks like it came from a plane, maybe they have an
exemption. Someone in the airline may have calculated that one glass
(125ml) would look too mean but two glasses was unnecessarily generous.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:52 pm
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Robert Bannister wrote:
| Quote: | Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
reiro wrote:
Dnia Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:36:14 +0100, David Taylor
davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> napisa³:
72/2 - can I read it as seventy-two second? or just as thirty-six?
72 halves... perhaps... but I would never say that. Either 72 over 2,
or 36.
Is it possible to use this structure "nmber over number" to talk about
common fractions like 1/2- one over two or 3/4 as three over four?
In certain mathematical contexts yes. It would be common when
dictating an expression and it is also likely when explaining a
computation. Note that "one upon two" is also common.
I've never heard that "upon" usage. Which region is that common in?
--
Rob Bannister
|
I cannot pin it down to a geographical region any more accurately than
"The British Isles". It may be restricted to a mathematical context
but not necessarily a serious academic one. I would be least surprised
to hear it when reading out a mathematical expression. I would
normally user "over" myself but may use "upon" occasionally if I found
myself saying "over" too much.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:47 pm
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
"Seán O'Leathlóbhair" <jwlawler@yahoo.com> writes:
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
Bottled water tends to be sold in liters and half-liters. All
alcoholic beverages except for "malt beverages" (which includes
beer) have to be sold in round metric quantities in the US. (For
wine, 50 ml, 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 L, 1.5 L, or
3 L; for distilled spirits, 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml, 330 ml (cans
only), 375 ml, 750 ml, 1 L, or 1.75 L.)
That is a curious array of sizes. Industry may want to standardise
for efficiency reasons and these may not require neat sizes.
Marketing may even want unusual sizes. But, I would expect that the
motive for legislation would be to make it easy for consumers to
compare the value of products in different sizes. For this purpose,
there should be a simple relationship between the sizes.
|
There is. Or, rather, there are two such series. The standard
measure before metrification was the fifth (of a gallon, 757 ml),
which became 750 ml. So you have
187 ml ("split"), 375 ml ("tenth"), 750 ml ("fifth"), 1.5 L
("magnum"), 3 L ("double magnum" or "jeroboam")[1]
Then you have a series based on the liter:
50 ml, 100 ml, 500 ml, 1L
Sizes greater than 3 L have to be in even liters. (Interestingly,
this makes two liters the only even liter that isn't an "authorized
standard of fill".)
(This is 27 CFR 4.72, for anybody interested.)
| Quote: | Which is better value 100ml for $1.50 or 187ml for $2.80?
|
I don't think that it's likely that you'll see such a comparison
needed. Wine is typically encountered in 750 ml bottles (sometimes
375 ml), and if you were comparing to the second series, I'd guess
you'd probably be comparing to either 500 ml or 1 L, which isn't all
that hard.
| Quote: | Pub measures of wine here have to be multiples of 125ml for this
reason. I had presumed, but not checked, that this applied outside the
pub. My own wine rack has just contradicted this. I found a 187.5ml
bottle. It looks like it came from a plane, maybe they have an
exemption. Someone in the airline may have calculated that one glass
(125ml) would look too mean but two glasses was unnecessarily generous.
|
That's a "split".
[1] To forestall (or spur) discussion:
4.5 L ("rehoboam"), 6 L ("methuselah" or "imperial"), 9 L
("shalmaneser"), 12 L ("balthazar"), 15 L ("nebuchadnezzar").
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School.
(650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen
| Harvard Business School
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:08 am
Post subject: Re: reading fractions |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | "Seán O'Leathlóbhair" <jwlawler@yahoo.com> writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
Bottled water tends to be sold in liters and half-liters. All
alcoholic beverages except for "malt beverages" (which includes
beer) have to be sold in round metric quantities in the US. (For
wine, 50 ml, 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 L, 1.5 L, or
3 L; for distilled spirits, 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml, 330 ml (cans
only), 375 ml, 750 ml, 1 L, or 1.75 L.)
That is a curious array of sizes. Industry may want to standardise
for efficiency reasons and these may not require neat sizes.
Marketing may even want unusual sizes. But, I would expect that the
motive for legislation would be to make it easy for consumers to
compare the value of products in different sizes. For this purpose,
there should be a simple relationship between the sizes.
There is. Or, rather, there are two such series. The standard
measure before metrification was the fifth (of a gallon, 757 ml),
which became 750 ml. So you have
187 ml ("split"), 375 ml ("tenth"), 750 ml ("fifth"), 1.5 L
("magnum"), 3 L ("double magnum" or "jeroboam")[1]
Then you have a series based on the liter:
50 ml, 100 ml, 500 ml, 1L
Sizes greater than 3 L have to be in even liters. (Interestingly,
this makes two liters the only even liter that isn't an "authorized
standard of fill".)
|
That makes more sense, it was just presenting the two series together
which confused me.
| Quote: | (This is 27 CFR 4.72, for anybody interested.)
|
What's that? A reference to the legislation?
| Quote: | Which is better value 100ml for $1.50 or 187ml for $2.80?
I don't think that it's likely that you'll see such a comparison
needed. Wine is typically encountered in 750 ml bottles (sometimes
375 ml), and if you were comparing to the second series, I'd guess
you'd probably be comparing to either 500 ml or 1 L, which isn't all
that hard.
|
Here it may be required. As revealed elsewhere in the thread, milk is
sometimes imperial and sometimes metric.
One UK pint for 40p or 500ml for 35p?
Another real calculation that can be difficult is:
4 x 500ml of Coke for 4 x 50p = £2 or 1 x 2l for £1.50 but consider
that the 2l bottle probably won't be finished and the remainder will go
flat. If you use over 1.5l then you save with the 2l. Between 1 and
1.5 you break even. Below 1l you lose with the big bottle.
| Quote: | Pub measures of wine here have to be multiples of 125ml for this
reason. I had presumed, but not checked, that this applied outside the
pub. My own wine rack has just contradicted this. I found a 187.5ml
bottle. It looks like it came from a plane, maybe they have an
exemption. Someone in the airline may have calculated that one glass
(125ml) would look too mean but two glasses was unnecessarily generous.
That's a "split".
|
I recognise some of the bigger terms (e.g. magnum and jeroboam) but
none of the smaller ones. Are "fifth" and "tenth" US only?
| Quote: | [1] To forestall (or spur) discussion:
4.5 L ("rehoboam"), 6 L ("methuselah" or "imperial"), 9 L
("shalmaneser"), 12 L ("balthazar"), 15 L ("nebuchadnezzar").
|
Was Nebuchadnezzar a heavy wine drinker?
| Quote: | --
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School.
(650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen
| Harvard Business School
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
|
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in