The biggest source of communication issues around these unit systems is that in metric, you're supposed to reach for decimals when working with the units, and in imperial, you're supposed to reach for fractions when working with the units.
Which is why the imperial lovers all cry out about their fractions not "working" in metric. Yes, exactly, that is the point. They don't understand that they're reaching for a tool they shouldn't be reaching for, and then they blame the unit system for it.
It's pretty relevant with computers. If we were used to working in base-8 or base-16 in everyday life, numerous aspects of programming would be simplified.
Except now you can't divide accurately by 5. Or 10.
You're making an argument from familiarity. Yes, a 12-base system using fractions works very neatly in a small human-sized domain, but it disintegrates into complete uselessness outside that domain. That's why you get ridiculousness as things being 13/64th of an inch, or that there's 63360 inches in a mile. It's unworkable for very large distances and very small distances. With a metre and standard prefixes, you don't need any conversion factors, and you can represent any distance at any scale with a single unit.
> That's why you get ridiculousness as things being 13/64th of an inch
Such fractions are very rarely used, you're more likely to use mils (1/1000 of an inch) at that scale.
> or that there's 63360 inches in a mile.
Likewise, something that will probably never come up in your life. Inches/feet/yards and miles just remain separate things, never mixed.
> With a metre and standard prefixes, you don't need any conversion factors, and you can represent any distance at any scale with a single unit.
There's no intuition for them. Knowing what a meter is does not help with getting a feel for a kilometer. They might as well be as separate as feet and miles at that scale.
> Quick, what's 11/64" + 3/8"?
That one's not even hard, it's just a fraction. 35/64"
> Quick, which weight is bigger: 0.6lbs or 10oz?
Another arbitrary problem that will probably never come up, but to entertain you: since 0.5 lbs is 8oz, adding 1.6oz to that (another tenth of a lbs) results in 9.6oz. 10oz is bigger than 0.6 lbs. Not hard, but at least mildly harder than the first question.
None of this really had to do with the convenience highlighted initially: 12 inches in a foot and 3 feet in a yard make extremely convenient divisible factors. You can trivially divide things by 2, 3, 4, and 6 and keep with whole integer values. The same definitely cannot be said of metric.
Are you purposely doing this? That is obviously not what I meant. Nobody says "3 miles, 500 feet", they say "3.1 miles". Effectively two systems of distance measurement: inches/feet/yards (near scale), and miles (distant scale).
"5 feet 10 inches" is completely normal and fine.
> This requires you to start with 12 inches. If you're making a cupboard to fit in an 18¾" (476mm) space, it's no use, or is only randomly useful.
So you cut the cupboard to fit a 18¾" space, no big deal. Same as anything else, and just as random as 476mm.
Typically they come in (integer!) 12-inch, 24-inch, 36-inch, or 48-inch variants.
They are talking past each other. One is saying, "metric is better than imperial", the other is saying "imperial works". Neither claim is relevant to the other.
Obviously, the base should be the same for units as it is for numbers in general, but there are good arguments in favor of using 12 for both. Then all your examples become as simple as division by 5 is in decimal.
5 and 10 are arbitrary numbers though. Halving and doubling are really the only special operations, and base-8 or base-16 would be superior to 10 or 12 for those.
The topic of this thread is why the base 10 number system is less than optimal, and a different base would be better. Obviously having to convert to other bases when we use a base 10 system normally is inconvenient, but that's not the point.
Irrelevant with a decimal system.