Slashdot Mirror


The Logic Behind Metric Paper Sizes

Oily Pakora writes "Those of us in the United States are so used to our Letter and Legal paper sizes. We've seen the A4 paper size option in our printer trays and in printer preference menus. Metric sizes used almost everywhere in the world, save for the US and Canada. Here is an interesting article that discusses all of the aspects of metric paper. For those who enjoy a bit of math, did you know that in the Metric paper system, the height-to-width ratio of all pages is the square root of 2? This means that you can place two sheets of A4 side-by-side and they will equal an A3 sheet exactly, and two sheets of A3 will equal an A2."

23 of 1,461 comments (clear)

  1. 2 x A4 = A3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News?

    1. Re:2 x A4 = A3 by boaworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole thing reminds me of a thing Jerry Seinfeld did, making fun of chinese people eating with sticks. He said something about that he could not understand why they kept eating with sticks, since "they have seen the fork".

      It feels just like that hearing about "US Letter", Yards, Pounds, Stones, Miles et al. YOU HAVE SEEN THE METRIC SYSTEM ;-)!

      (btw, thanks France!)

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    2. Re:2 x A4 = A3 by jorlando · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can use the same cold salt water, inside my mout is 36 fold it six times and have the same (lack of) precision in Celsius... so???

      The Celsius scale was created using certaind standards: water, level sea.

      proceding: measure the temperature when the water is freezing and call taht 0 degrees

      measure the water again when it's boiling. let's call that point 100 degrees

      divide with evenly spaced scales these two points in the termometer.

      AFAIR the Farenheit scale was made the same way, the 0 being the freezing point of water and some salt and the 212 point water boiling. but the distance betwenn the water (without salt) freezing and boiling should be separated by 180 points

      every scale is arbitrary. the only absolute is the measurement, that must be consistent among different scales. the resources to build a scale are the same, be it F, C, K or some funny scale that you seem fit for your purposes.

    3. Re:2 x A4 = A3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cold salt water is 0 degrees. Inside of your mouth is 96. Make those marks on a piece of paper with whatever you're using (assuming you have the tools to make a thermomemter), and fold it in half (five times over if you can). You'll now have a thermometer with nice whole numbers where the folds are (0, 3, 6...)

      In the highly inprobable case I needed a thermometer on a desert island, I would need a narow glass tube that is equally wide throughout the whole length. Ok, now assume the even more improbable case that I had this tube.

      I can measure the temperature of cold non-salty water and mark a 0 (after all you HAVE to have some non-salty water with you, or else any thermometer won't save your life). I can measure my body temperature and mark 36.3 (it's 36.7, but to hell with precision). Now I'll fold the paper 10 times and get 3.63 C-grades. Add one of these 3.63 to the whole 36.3 scale, make a mark and write 40 there (36.3 + 3.63 = cca 39.93). Take the scale from 0 to 39.93, fold it four times, then each part 10 times and you get 1C. Done.

      Now, this is clearly somewhat more complex then yout Fahrenheit case. So be it, each time you have to recreate a C thermometer on a desert island (with sand, a palm and a convenient glass tube), it will take you a few minutes longer. On the other hand, NOT using the metric system means that you have to convert feet to inches to yards to betelgeusian miles almost every time you add two lengths together. Now I find it more convenient for a system of measurements to be optimised for the latter case, but perhaps I just do not shipwreck as often as you do.

    4. Re:2 x A4 = A3 by jrq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought not being on the metric system had already cost many millions of dollars, in destroyed Mars probes.

      --
      My UID is prime!
    5. Re:2 x A4 = A3 by perky · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We don't give a shit.
      On the contrary - you've spent over 100 billion dollars in the last year showing just how much you hate other people doing things differently.

      ;)

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  2. Re:Psst. by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come-on really, Do I want to measure a piece of paper using the square root of two?

    No, but it's very pleasant that an A3 page folded in half is exactly the same size as an A4 page. root-two is just the mathematical means to that end.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  3. Yet another reason for the US to switch to metric by miketang16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We claim to be one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world, but we can't adopt a useful standard that the _rest_ of the scientific community uses. Seriously, what is the problem with metric? I find it so much easier to use than the English system. Our government should at least make the attempt to switch over.

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
  4. Re:Oooo.... root 2! by jdavidb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't get it. It keeps going, recursively. Two A4's equal an A3, and two A3's equal an A2, and so on. The deal is that the paper is in such proportion that all A* papers are in the exact same proportion. That's not true if you double a 8 1/2 by 11. The proportion there is .77272, while the proportion for a doubled sheet, 11x17 is .647059.

    I'm betting the Golden Ratio comes into A4 paper somehow; anyone want to comment?

  5. Yes... it's your damn fault! by Cloud+K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those of us living in A4-using lands, it's a real pain in the arse trying to set everything (especially in Windows) from Letter to A4! Then you think you have it susses and sure enough... "PC Load Letter" - aaargh!

    Do you have any idea how much trouble and stress you've caused by making Letter the default even with UK set as the country? ;)

  6. Re:Oooo.... root 2! by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Constant aspect ratio. You don't have to remake your posters/flyers depending on what sheet you intend to print on. 11/17 != 8.5/11. It also makes shipping easier. Basically the only reason to stick with imperial measurements is inertia, as always.

  7. Re:Side-by-sideness by srussell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, but the metric system is designed so that this ratio applies all the way from the smallest size up to the largest. So, two A4 is one A3, two A3 is one A2, two A2 is one A1.

    Putting them side-by-side isn't as interesting as cutting them in half, though. I discovered this when I started printing photos from my inkjet. Photo paper is generally available in the stores in limited sizes. I can buy a bunch of A4, and cut it in half, and I have two A5s. Do it again, and I have A6s, which is nearly a 4x6. Best of all, these paper sizes are all standard, which is good, because my printer doesn't like me to define my own paper sizes. With the American system, I have to measure and cut, which is more difficult.

    When you discuss the advantages of metric, it really is about convenience[1]. There's nothing that you can do with metric that you can't with the English system; it is just, generally, more difficult to do with the English system. If you don't care about convenience, and you live in the USA, then you probably don't have any reason to use metric.

    [1] Of course, using metric in the US imposes a certain amount of inconvenience from compatability issues, but that's another argument.

  8. Re:And this is superior why? by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because you can scale an A4 page down to A5 size and print two of them on each A4 sheet and they fit *exactly*. Saves paper.

    If you are a *real* skinflint and have good eyes you can scale down to A6 and print double sided. It works quite well with a decent laser printer.

    The reverse is true obviously if you want to scale up. You can tape (A4 usually because it's the most common) pages together to make A3, A2 and A1 sheets and it all fits together exactly.

    Having said that, I kind of assumed that the same thing applied to US paper sizes. Surprised it doesn't.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  9. Ratio Not Only Factor by SlipJig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The height-to-width ratio of the pages isn't solely responsible for the fact that metric pages "add up" when placed side-by-side. They also have to be the right size, and that has nothing to do with the metric system. I could design any arbitrary measurement system, and a paper standard based on it that would have the same properties.

    On an unrelated note, one benefit of the English system is that measurements tend to be divisible in more ways. For example, 10 is evenly divisible by 1, 2 and 5. 12 (upon which much of the English system is based) is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

    Not that I think that's a reason not to switch over :)

    --
    Read my keyboard review.
    1. Re:Ratio Not Only Factor by Medevo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, things like 10/3 and 10/6 are ugly and repeating, but they aren't that hard to thing about (1 or 2 thirds).

      But there is always 12/9... 1 and 1/3

      Metric when divided by the numbers below results in 3 whole numbers, 2 simple fractions (10/4 = 2.5), 3 nice repeating fractions, and 1 ugly fraction (10/7)

      Imperial results in 5 whole numbers, 3 simple fractions, 1 nice repeating fraction, and 2 ugly fractions

      While Imperial has a higher ratio of nice clean whole numbers when divided, can you tell me 12/7 or 12/11 without a calculator, 10/7? Isn't nice either but all you can really glean from this is that there will always be ugly numbers no matter what system you use.

      Metric has a huge advantage with units and scientific notation, how many inches are in a light-year? With metric turning light-years into cm is a lot easier.

      At the end of the day though, most of the advantages or disadvantages of using either are nullified by using technology. Creating a worldwide standard system is more important to remove issues in calculations between the two systems.

      They are all relative systems as well, as long as unless one system has some "magic relationship" with nature I haven't heard of (metric is based off natural things yes, but water was a bad choice) its simply a choice and a system of standards.

      Medevo

  10. Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BTW the metric system sucks for times when you really do want to use fractions

    Can you describe a few of these times? I'm being serious... as a novice work worker and DIY home improvement and maintenance guy, I find using mixed fractions very annoying. Yes, you get accustomed to them, but I hardly say that makes it acceptable (hey, people get accustomed to Windows crashing, and find it acceptable to have to reboot or reinstall - I'm not one of them).

    Besides, it's not like you can't use fraction in metrics, either - so you say 1/2 cm instead of 5 mm, if it floats your boat.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  11. Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What if you have to divide by 5? or 8? How heavy is each patty then?

    It's easy to pick the numbers you like. There are always numbers a given multiplier won't divide nicely to.

  12. Re:Yet another reason for the US to switch to metr by madman101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO, the metric system is doomed in the US because it's not American. That's not meant to be funny, sarcastic, or anything other than a simple fact. Well, perhaps it's meant to be a comment on the American psyche...

  13. Metric & The US by bobej1977 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I used to support using the metric system in the US after going through converting the different units in physics during high school and college, but I've since reconsidered.

    I was once talking with some of family and I happened to say something like: 'It was 2 meters from me...' Immediately, one of my uncles interjected a joking comment about how I was the 'product' of the 'new' Math. We then proceeded to go off on a tangent about the merits of the two systems and how expensive it would be to switch to metric.

    At that point though, I was struck by how his comment was loaded with negative connotation, which obviously did not stem simply from an aversion to the cost of a hypothetical switch to metric. I realized that the source of his distaste for metric was really just the instinctive reaction social animals use to build communities. The 'Us Vs. Them' filter that we all use to clump ourselves into social groups.

    From this perspective, a human perspective, it makes complete sense to have differing systems of measurement. There would be obvious advantages if we all spoke the same language, but no one is proposing that we make everyone learn Chinese (quit being ethnocentric!). Even if everyone DID speak Chinese, people would still use their native languages at home, en familia. Why? Because the stratification of languages helps us to identify our social groups. In this way, we're 'The people who use miles', and they're/you're 'The people who use kilometers'. Communities, when you come down to it, are just sets of these bifurcations.

    Taking all that into consideration, I've thrown in with the english system curmudgeons. Why? For the same reason I'm in favor of driver's tests in 16 languages. Because being human ain't about being efficient, it's about communities.

    --
    The meek shall inherit the earth, in 3 by 6 plots. - Lazerus Long
  14. Re:oops by edalytical · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but skinnier is easier to read. That's why newspapers are split into columns. It's easier to move to the next line if your eyes don't have to trace back 8 1/2 inches. Although, I don't think A4 is skinny enough to make a difference.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
  15. The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US by bob_shoggoth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US is that A4 doesn't fit in our file cabinets! We'd have to get rid of our file cabinets and folders and get new ones. Any A4 papers I have get all messed up in my filing cabinet as they don't fit!

    As an American physicist, I use SI units for work, but happily use US units for everything else. I don't know why it just pisses off the rest of the world that we like Farenheit, inches, etc. WHO CARES! Why doesn't Europe get ONE FREAKING TYPE OF ELECTRICAL PLUG!

    I found it funny that the article predicted the US switching, as I really don't see it happening.

    Can anyone tell me why any A4 paper I get in Europe has a purple tinge to it? I find that very annoying.

    1. Re:The simplest reason A4 won't take off in the US by Jott42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are kidding, right?
      You know, ther is this nice thing called decimals. So the temperature goes from 0.5 degreed Celcius to 4.5 degrees Celsius. With a resolution of half a degree, which is standard, you get 200 steps from ice to boiling. But that comparison is meaningless, as you could just as easily add resolution to the Fahrenheit scale.

  16. Re:Side-by-sideness by SamSim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would have infinitely greater respect for the Imperial system if all of it did indeed work in twelves, like with feet and inches. But inches are not divided into twelfths but sixteenths. Then there are three feet in a yard, 5.5 yards in a rod, 40 rods in a furlong, 8 furlongs (or a nice round 1760 yards) in a mile. 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone, 2000 pounds in a ton. Don't get me started on liquid measure. And ultimately, you have to measure so closely that you *have* to use decimal places of the smallest unit (like 11.6 inches or whatever) - which means tens all round.

    Remind me again what makes it easier to use?

    Just go with tens. Tens are simple.