Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

The metre originated in the French Revolution

az09mugen

Another fun fact dating from French revolution is the 10 hour-day, each hour had 100 minutes and each minutes 100 seconds : https://historyfacts.com/world-history/fact/france-had-a-cal...

paulorlando

Fun fact... or not so fun?

For 12 years of the revolutionary era, France did use decimal time. And the calendar and clocks were organized around a 10 day week and a 10 hour day. But those changes, coupled with the loss of Sunday worship, had other effects on the population.

Here’s an assessment of what was really meant and then lost by the elimination of Sunday:

“‘The elderly ladies took advantage of the long journey (to church) to exchange old stories with other old gossips … they met friends and relatives on the way, or when they reached the county town, whom they enjoyed seeing … there then followed a meal or perhaps a reciprocal invitation, which led to one relative or another….’ But if that was the way it was for the old ladies, what did Sunday mean to ‘young girls, whose blood throbbed with the sweetest desire of nature!’ We can well understand their impatience, ‘they waited for each other at the start of the road they shared,’ they danced.

“Now, however, when the Tenth Day came around, ‘the men were left to the devices they always had:’ the old men went to the tavern, and they bargained. The young men drank and, deprived of their ‘lovely village girls’, they quarrelled. As for the women, they had nothing left to do in village. The mothers were miserable in their little hamlets, the daughters too, and out of this came their need to gather together in crowds. If the need for recreation is necessary because of moral forces… there is absolutely no doubt that village girls find it very hard to bear privations which are likely to prolong their unmarried state: ‘in all regions the pleasure of love is the greatest pleasure.'”

– from The Revolution Against the Church, From Reason to the Supreme Being, by Michel Vovelle, pp 158-159.

thrance

I know the real goal of the republican calendar was to undermine the Church's power by making it so Sundays would fall at random days of the week, and also screw over the workers by leaving them with a worse weekend-to-week ratio.

However, all I ever read about this part of the revolution seems to indicate that people just didn't comply and went to church anyway on Sundays, and also didn't work that day. On that account, I feel likr your quote is kind of partisan. People wouldn't have been left lost and aimlessly drinking on their tenth day because of a lack of God, because they never quit going to church!

paulorlando

Not sure I understand what you mean. At least, I thought that (most? all?) the churches were closed for the worst part of the French Revolution aftermath.

For example, the new state transformed Notre Dame and other Catholic churches into Temples of Reason, from which the new state religion, the Cult of Reason, would be celebrated. It didn't last long. Hard to create a new religion quickly. Maybe some echoes of recent history there.

ashoeafoot

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sowjetischer_Revolutionskale... did the divide and conquer of people better by asigning them non overlapping weekends by colour

kitten_mittens_

If you’re interested in a what an analog clock in decimal time might look like: https://decimal-time.netlify.app/

timewizard

The USPS uses decimal time for it's time keeping system. It serves almost no functional advantage.

http://www.nalc3825.com/ETC_clockring_entries.pdf

userbinator

Decimal minutes instead of seconds, to be precise.

null

[deleted]

thrance

Slightly unnerving seeing seconds pass by 15.74% faster.

pavlov

Feels like living in the future. Progress marches on faster than ever.

Honestly a brilliant marketing move by the French revolutionaries, just a few hundred years too early.

HPsquared

Uncanny valley. Never seen a clock do it before.

az09mugen

Ahah nice one, thanks for sharing !

cafard

As I habitually mention when the revolutionary calendar comes up, emacs calendar mode will give you the date with p-f. For what it's worth, today is Quartidi 4 Prairial an 233 de la Révolution, jour de l'Angélique. (Prairial I had heard of, jour de l'Angélique is news to me.)

[edit: corrected spelling of Quartidi]

linguistbreaker

I hadn't heard of this and it's fun to think about.

It's 100,000 s/day as opposed to our current 86,400 s/day which is not far off.

Hours, however, were twice as long.

They had time pieces that displayed both together.

Swenrekcah

Their seconds must have been about 864ms though, otherwise they day is more than 3 hours too long which would be very annoying for any kind of scheduling I’d imagine.

bonzini

It also messes up the original proposal for defining the meter, which predated the revolution and was "the length of a pendulum with a period of 2 seconds" (i.e. the pendulum would be at its lowest point once per second). Which is ironic considering that the meter was also adopted during the revolution, though with a definition not based on the length of a pendulum).

IAmBroom

Yes. Obviously.

Or more to the point: since they had no use for milliseconds at that time, their milliseconds would have been 86.4% of standard milliseconds.

hilbert42

What about 90° per right angle and not 100°?

It made sense to keep some things like angle measurement and time as disruption was too great for very little practical benefit.

IAmBroom

It's called a "gradian", and it's 1% of a right angle.

It's still used in some industries, where convenient.

az09mugen

Still France and French revolution context : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradian

GuB-42

Another "fun fact" somewhat more relevant to the article is the gradient (aka. grad, or gon), it is a unit of angle equal to 1/400 of a turn, slightly smaller than a degree.

It goes well with the metre because 1 km is 1/100 grad of latitude on earth. It mirrors the nautical mile in that 1 nautical mile is 1/60 degree (1 arcminute) of latitude on earth.

The grad is almost never used on a day to day basis, even in France. It is still used in specialized fields, like surveying.

lxgr

I believe it was one out of three possible options (other than degrees and radians) to represent angles on my high school scientific calculator.

Accidentally staying in "grad" mode when cycling through them (DEG -> RAD -> GRAD) was always a concern, especially since the difference between RAD and GRAD was easy to miss on the small LCD display (the indicator was via partial selection of the letters within a mask spelling "DEGRAD").

vidarh

In some languages, e.g. Norwegian, grad means degree.

lxgr

Ah, this brings back fond memories of Swatch's attempt [1] at a decimal division of the day at the height of the dotcom boom.

I still must have one of these digital wristwatches in some box in a closet, with a big button that starts a glorious monochrome LCD animation of "going online" (while of course the watch stayed as offline as any other Quartz watch).

The thought of a watch that could actually go online seemed ridiculously utopian back then, even when everybody was otherwise dreaming of cyberspace. But only a few weeks ago, in a moment of closure spanning a quarter of a century, I finally downloaded a "Swatch Internet Time" complication – from the Internet, directly onto my wristwatch.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time

nancyminusone

Sadly, the 100 day year never worked quite right.

thrance

No but they had a clean year of 12 months, 30 days each (3 ten-day weeks) plus 5/6 holiday days at the end of the calendar (around the September equinox).

Also, the months were given names by a Poet, and the days had minerals, vertues or plants instead of Saints. The calendar itself was pretty cool.

Honestly, if they had 5 weeks of 6 days each instead of the 3 weeks of 10 days, I'd even call it the perfect calendar.

tempestn

Better would be an even more fundamental change: instead of trying to standardize everything on base 10, recognize that base 8 or 16 is much more convenient in both computing and everyday life, and standardize around that.

Snow_Falls

Might I introduce you to visions of what could have been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform

ucarion

And every other month was named after a coup d'etat!

skrebbel

> (It was later found the astronomers were a bit off in their calculations, and the metre as we know it is 0.2 millimetres shorter than it should've been.)

That's actually impressively good accuracy for the time! Hats off to the astronomers.

hilbert42

I was just about to post same quote but you beat me to it.

I'd go further, I think their work was a remarkable feat for the late 1790s. That they achieved that accuracy given the primitive equipment of the day says much for their abilities and understanding.

Also at the time France was in turmoil, numbers of its scientists were victims of the French Revolution—Antoine Lavoisier, probably the greatest chemist of his time—was beheaded by guillotine in 1794, so the political environment was anything but stable.

Look back 225+ years ago: there was no electricity, no material science to speak of to make precision instrumentation—journal bearings on lathes, etc. couldn't be made with the accuracy of today, backlash would have been a constant worry. All instrumentation would have been crafted by hand.

And the old French pre-metric system of units was an imperial system similar to the British (France even had an inch that was similar in length to British Imperial unit). All instrumentation up to that point would have relied on the less precise standards of that old system.

Traveling was by horse and sailing ship, and so on. Surveying would have been difficult. There wasn't even the electric telegraph, only the crude optical Chappe telegraph, and even then it was only invented in the 1790s and wasn't fully implemented during the survey.

They did a truly excellent job without any of today's high tech infrastructure but they made up for all these limitations by being brilliant.

In today's modern world we often underestimate how inventive our forefathers were.

selkin

The pre-metric measurements in France weren’t imperial, but local: units had the same name, but different cities defined them differently. A livre[0] in one village was almost, but not quite, the livre used by the one only a couple toise[1] away.

[0] about a modern pound, depending where you were. Toulouse’s livre was almost 1.3 modern pounds, for example.

[1] about 13853/27000 meter.

hilbert42

You're right, I should have put 'imperial' in quotes as it's not the same as the British Imperial measurement. You'll note however I did distinguish the French system from the British one by referring to it in lowercase, that was intentional.

The issue came up in a round about way on HN several weeks ago and I should have been more careful here because I wasn't precise enough in my comment then. As I inferred in that post 'imperial' nomenclature is used rather loosely to refer to measurement and coinage/currency as they're often closely linked (in the sense that the 'Crown' once regulated both).

Pre-revolution French coinage used the same 1/12/20 number divisions as did the old English LSD and currencies in other parts of Europe, and that system is often referred to as 'imperial' coinage which likely goes back to Roman Imperial Coinage — but to confuse matters it was decimal.

One can't cover the long historical lineage here except to mention the sign for the Roman [decimal] denarius is 'd' which is also used for the LSD penny, 12 of which make the shilling (£=240d).

So for various reasons both 'old' physical measurement and 'old' coinage are often referred to as (I)imperial. To add to the confusion, modern currencies when converting from LSD/1/12/20 to metric and '1/12… measurement' are often done around the same time. Nomenclature overlaps.

For example, I'm in Australia and the 1966 conversion from LSD to metrified coinage occurred shortly before the metrication of measurement. It was all lumped together as Imperial (note u/c) to Metric (that's how the public perceived it). The Government staged both changeovers close enough so that the reeducation of the citizenry wasn't forgotten by the time the measurement program started.

For the record here's part of length in the old French measurement system:

"Pied du Roi (foot) ≈ 32.48 cm (Slightly longer than an English foot, which is about 30.48 cm.)

Pouce (inch) = 1/12 of a pied ≈ 2.707 cm

Ligne = 1/12 of a pouce ≈ 2.256 mm

Toise ≈ 1.949 metres (A toise is 6 pieds.) <...>"

The other units can be found on the same site: https://interessia.com/medieval-french-measurements/

ahazred8ta

There was a 12:1 ratio between the foot ' inch '' line ''' and point '''' in pre-decimal engineering. Yes, they used triple prime marks. The typographic point was originally 1/144th of an inch. Watches are typically measued in french pointes.

batisteo

Have you read the novel Le rendez-vous de Vénus by Jean-Pierre Luminet? If not you might love ite

nartho

I always think about what a cool adventure it must have been, for Pierre Méchain and Jean-Baptiste Delambre to roam for 7 years, go wherever they need thanks to an official letter, make calculations and come back successful to Paris. To think that they were only off by .2mm !

selkin

“The Measure of All Things” by Ken Adler[0] is a good, extremely readable book about their adventure, which was indeed wild.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-349-...

frasermarlow

Yes, this is a brilliant book, and well worth reading. Another other one in the same vein is "Longitude" by Dava Sobel: https://www.amazon.com/Longitude-Genius-Greatest-Scientific-...

bambax

Here's a completely random anecdote: my mother often told me that her father, my grandfather, born in France in 1899, sculptor, draftsman and general maker of things, had a strong dislike of the metric system. He complained continuously that anything with round metric ratios was "ugly" and that beauty could only be found in more ancient measuring systems.

He died when I was 4 so it's not a first hand account, I'm not sure how much of it is true or what he really thought, but somehow it feels right.

The metric system is incredibly useful and practical (of course) but there's something rigid and unpleasant about it.

IAmBroom

I know modern craftsmen* who lament the same. Being able to divide things in 2, 3, 4, 6, or 12 is mechanically more useful than 2/5/10 (the former being achievable by drafting tools more easily).

*Yes, it should be craftspeople, but that doesn't exactly sound like the same thing, and anyway all of them happen to be men.

claudex

Nohting prevent you to use the metric system and use 60cm (for example) as a base unit for your construction. So you can easily divide it by 12 if you want.

rags2riches

Just one example I'm familiar with. Drywall typically comes in widths of 1200 mm and are mounted on studs 600 mm c/c.

Svip

Nothing's stopping you from defining beautiful ratios and express the result in metric units, like ISO 216.[0] It feels like an odd complaint about the utility of the metric system, as if it is the only system; ratios aren't even units themselves!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216

nancyminusone

Things that annoy me about the metric system: base-10 numbering system, a liter is not a cubic meter, and 'kilogram' is the base unit, not 'gram'.

That last one is what I have the biggest problem with. When you are doing anything with derived units, 'kilo' suddenly disappears.

kergonath

> base-10 numbering system

Having decimal numbers, it’s the best solution. Otherwise you’re bound to make mistakes scaling things up or down.

> a liter is not a cubic meter

Well, it’s a dm^3, close enough ;) Conversion is trivial, 1 m^3 is 1000 l. A cubic metre is a bit large for everyday use, but it makes sense e.g. when measuring water consumption or larger volumes. The litre also had the advantage of being close to 2 pints, so it already made sense as a unit when it was introduced. Contrary to hours with 100s.

> 'kilogram' is the base unit, not 'gram'

Yeah, this one is perplexing. It’s an annoying inconsistency on an otherwise beautifully regular system.

GlobalFrog

I don't understand your issue between gram and kilo gram: gram is the base unit and the prefix kilo, meaning one thousand just says that 1 kg = 1000 grams. It is exactly the same as meters and kilometers: meters is the base unit and 1 km = 1000 meters.

DavidSJ

In SI, kg is the base unit, and g is a derived unit.

tokai

I think they mean that the gram is defined as 1/1000 of a kilogram. With a kilogram having a definition based on physical constants.

ahartmetz

Reportedly, the kg was going to be called "grav", but it sounded too similar to "Graf", a German feudal rank, and these guys really hated feudalism.

cryptonector

Er, `gram` most definitely is the base unit. Kilogram is what's handy for humans given how light a gram is.

EDIT: Yes, yes, SI defines the kg and then the g by reference to kg, but so what, notionally it's still the gram that's the base unit.

Ekaros

Not adopting grav is my biggest hate with SI system...

jl6

Why is base 10 annoying?

nancyminusone

Too few divisors of place values. The idea you would pick something that isn't evenly divisible by at least 3 or 4 was a mistake.

This one isn't metric's fault to be fair. That's just what you get for inventing numbers before inventing math.

Makes me wonder what would have happened if 'French numbers' in base 12, 36 or 60 were introduced at the same time.

People got used to working in octal.or hexadecimal in the past for computers, doesn't seem like it would have been as big of a change as you think.

tokai

>evenly divisible by at least 3 or 4

Irrelevant with a decimal system.

forty

Don't you think base 10 was used simply because it conveniently matches the number of fingers of Humans?

chthonicdaemon

I think there is true utility in choosing a unit scheme that matches your number scheme. So we use decimal numbers, makes sense to use decimal units. It seems you're arguing that the real mistake is using decimal numbers to begin with?

empath75

There's two reasons to use a measurement system -- one of those is for sort of every day work -- cooking, home carpentry and the like, and in that case, having something like the imperial system is nice, because you can divide things usefully.

The _other_ reason to use a measurement system is for doing _science_, and for that, having everything in base ten makes things _immensely_ easier, especially if you're working the math out by hand

foobiekr

Base 60 is genuinely the best option.

laacz

This is weird. I always thought that not astronomers, but two blokes named Delambre and Méchain were responsible for this [1].

> The arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain was a geodetic survey carried out by Jean-Baptiste Delambre and Pierre Méchain in 1792–1798 to measure an arc section of the Paris meridian between Dunkirk and Barcelona. This arc measurement served as the basis for the original definition of the metre.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_measurement_of_Delambre_an...

willsoon

10 days a week? Why. Because we have ten fingers, oc. 13 months was a year in the matriarchy, the lunar months... 12 was the monarchy and the church. We are back to 12 bc it is divisible for more numbers. But the metre was the great FR's legacy. It is under a dome, and you pay if you want a copy of fraternity. A inch does not exists. It's a just a fraction of the Paris' metre.

rippeltippel

> From 1983, a metre was considered the distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second (because light travels 299,792,458 metres per second).

So the speed of light was calculated using a previous definition of metre, and that magic number was used to upgrade its own definition? That's a tautology, sounds wrong to me.

grey413

There's a consistent effort to make all the SI metric units based off of discreet measurements of physical constants. The speed of light is a constant, and the SI second is "defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ΔνCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, to be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^–1"

mitthrowaway2

It's a way of expressing the backwards compatibility of the new definition, set to match the old one so that everybody's distance measures remain usable when the definition changes.

n1b0m

“It fell to a pair of astronomers to calculate this distance, and after seven years, in 1799, they presented their final measurement to the French Academy of Sciences which made a "Metre of the Archives" in the form of a platinum bar.”

What unit did they use to measure the length of the platinum bar?

atvcatole

I believe they used Parisian variants of the french units.

They measured the distance between the Mediterranean Sea and the North Sea through Paris with platinum rulers measuring 2 Toise de Paris.

The toise was different in different parts of France, so it was specifically the Paris one they used, and the goal was to get rid of local variants of the same units with vague definitions like toise, point, line, inch, feet, mil(e) etc.

Once they had the distance in Toise de Paris and did some math they could define the circumference of the earth and define the meter at 1/40 000 000 of that.

That length was 443.44 Lignes de Paris where a ligne is 1/864 toise.

Xmd5a

The meter wasn't invented during the French Revolution, it evolved from ancient measurement systems based on the golden ratio.

Traditional body measurements (thumb, palm, span, foot, cubit) follow a Fibonacci-like progression where each unit ≈ φ times the previous one. If we consider the Egyptian cubit as π/6 meters (which matches historical measurements), here's a possible insight:

Draw a circle with diameter 1 meter. Remove 1/6 of the perimeter (π/6), subtract the diameter (1), and you get ≈1.618 – essentially φ. This geometric construction lets you build an entire measurement system using just a stick and basic geometry. Once you have any two consecutive units, you can generate the entire sequence by addition (palm + span = foot) or subtraction (span – palm = thumb's breadth).

In the pre-metric French system, a span was exactly 20cm. When you scale 0.2 × φ² you get π/6 with 4-digit precision. But here's what's interesting: using our geometric approximation φ ≈ 5π/6 – 1, the equation 0.2 × φ² = π/6 works out *exactly*. The "approximation error" in φ perfectly cancels out due to φ² = φ + 1, making 0.2 × (5π/6 - 1 + 1) = π/6.

Here's another "coincidence": Multiple 17th-century scientists (Mersenne, Huygens, Wilkins) proposed defining a universal unit as the length of a pendulum with a half-period of 1 second. Tito Livio Burattini, inspired by his travels in Egypt, formalized this in his "Misura Universale" (1675), measuring this pendulum length at 0.9939 meters - essentially our modern meter.

The "revolutionary" meter system was really just formalizing measurement relationships that builders had been using for millennia. The French didn't invent it - they just gave ancient φ-based measurements a decimal makeover.

cooljoseph

It is possible to construct φ exactly with a straight-edge and compass. Would the approximation of 5π/6 - 1 be used because it's easier to calculate quickly?

Xmd5a

Yes φ is a constructible number and more generally an algebraic number, solution of the polynomial equation x^2 = x + 1. However π is not, and so is my approximation of φ as 5π/6 - 1. Here non-constructibility (in the mathematical sense) translates to the fact there is no method to "straighten" an arc into a segment using a compass and a ruler. But bear with me because the 5π/6 - 1 approximation of phi has more to say.

First, the "conspiracy theory" that the meter is linked to Earth's dimensions and harmonizes with ancient measurement units through a shared reference actually predates the meter's definition. This idea was a thread of interest among the scientists who developed a universal measurement system – one that could be derived anywhere on the planet.

>One can well sense that it can only be through comparisons of measurements made in ancient times & in our days on monuments still existing, that I can determine to how many of our toises the Geometers of antiquity would have evaluated a degree of Meridian. Now I find, 1st. that the side of the base of the great pyramid of Egypt taken five hundred times; 2nd. that the cubit of the Nilometer taken two hundred thousand times; 3rd. that a stadium existing & measured at Laodicea in Asia Minor, by Mr. Smith, & taken five hundred times; I find, I say, that these three products are each of the same value, & that each in particular is precisely the same measure of a degree [of a Meridian], which has been determined by our modern Geometers.

Alexis-Jean-Pierre Paucton, Metrology, or Treatise on measures, weights and currencies, of the ancients and the moderns, 1780

more context: https://anonpaste.pw/v/71abb0f8-5a03-4cb5-879a-d4f44ad6d57c#...

original: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k55491755/f126.item

>Newton was trying to uncover the unit of measurement used by those constructing the pyramids. He thought it was likely that the ancient Egyptians had been able to measure the Earth and that, by unlocking the cubit of the Great Pyramid, he too would be able to measure the circumference of the Earth.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/dec/06/revealed-isa...

Having said that(-1 downvotes!), let's recap:

This is how we can construct a royal cubit from a circle of diameter = 1m:

https://imgur.com/a/HmnfDKR

φ = 2cos(π/5) lead us to this construction around a pentagon from which we can derive the "pige" or "quine" of cathedral builders (for now consider this is historically true) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pige_(mesure)

https://imgur.com/a/ZqprfAd

What I mentioned earlier was that using a circle-based construction(diameter = 1m), one can derive a non-constructible approximation of φ, namely φ̃ = 5π/6 – 1, with the remarkable property that 0.2 × φ̃² = π/6, thanks to φ² = φ + 1.

But what’s truly elegant is that this process has a symmetric counterpart, where we approximate π using φ. This time, we begin with a constructible triangle, sometimes called the triangle of the builders (1, 2, √5), whose perimeter is:

    t = (1 + 2 + √5)/10
This value is fully constructible with compass and straightedge, and numerically it approximates π/6 to four digits. If we treat this `t` as a stand-in for π/6 in the previous formula:

    φ = 5t – 1
we recover the *exact golden ratio*:

    φ = (5 × (3 + √5)/10) – 1 = (1 + √5)/2
And then, going full circle:

    0.2 × φ² = t again
In both directions, 0.2 (i.e., 1/5) emerges as the key scaling factor, bridging the decimal system, φ, and π through geometry. It ties together:

    - the constructible (t from the triangle),
    - the transcendental (π/6 from the circle), and
    - the algebraic (φ² = φ + 1)

^this is a new result I just found.

For the historically conservative, arguments can be made that these considerations are pseudo-historical, that the "quine of cathedral builders" is an unsubstantiated myth. See the wikipedia link above for the "pige"

or this recent article: https://classiques-garnier.com/aedificare-2021-2-revue-inter...

this one too: http://compagnonsdudevoir.fr/?p=790

>This greatly saddens those who have built an entire "operative" narrative around this kind of knowledge supposedly passed down in secret among the compagnons of the Tour de France for centuries… and have made it their pedestal. The question of how "tradition" is constructed among the compagnons (and incidentally among the Freemasons) remains a taboo that absolutely needs to be broken — and not just for the sake of advancing historical knowledge.

Also this blog post traces the confabulation of the quine to Le Corbusier's Modulor system based on the golden ratio: https://blogruz.blogspot.com/2007/12/en-qui-quine.html

>Le Corbusier considered various sets of proportions, notably using a human height of 1.75 meters, before settling in 1947 on a single set based on a height of 1.83 meters. He chose this because the associated Modulor measurement of 226 cm corresponds to within less than a millimeter of 89 inches — 89 being a number in the Fibonacci sequence that provides some of the best approximations of the golden ratio.

>This system was intended to unite all nations around a universal standard, effectively casting aside the metric system, if not the decimal system entirely. We know how that turned out: the Modulor was essentially used for only one major creation — albeit a significant one — the Cité Radieuse in Marseille, completed in 1952, where all dimensions, down to the built-in furniture, are derived from the Modulor.

Makes you think... The fact we don't have documents isn't surprising given that the campagnons (or later freemasons) communicated practical (then mystical) knowledge esoterically for political reasons (See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnonnage).

Nonetheless, the same motivations and the same quest for harmony (in the obsessive, symbolic sense) can be observed in Le Corbusier. As if the situation follows a geometric progression: in this sense, the "ancients" were as puzzled as we are by unexpected harmonies and actively sought them, and if you look at the historical sequence that lead to the definition of the meter, this is what you find.

Compare the length of a greek foot with a roman foot: 30.87cm vs 29.62cm. The ratio matches 24/25 with 3 nines of precision. 24•25•7 forms a pythagorean triangle. As if the definition of some measurement units were retrofitted to facilitate conversion. If this kind of behavior leads to the formation of a strange graph of quasi-conversions or numerical coincidences, then maybe we could explain the emergence of patterns such as the 5π/6 - 1 approximation of φ without needing to argue for (or against) someone's intention behind what appears as a design choice.

Alternatively the measures of the tools or geometric constructs that drive these conversions are idealized/approximated with a ratio, hence the delusion of the conspiracy theorists. But as I said, "ancients" had the same attitude, in particular with irrational numbers they wished to express as a ratio. Imagine the kind of problem the pseudo-phi <-> pseudo-π/6 complex I desribed above posed to people who where attempting to construct a straight line of length pi using only a compass and a straight-edge and establishing mathematics more rigorously. That's quite a nasty trap. Surely they found themselves in a mindstate that must not be that different from ours. Put in other words, the situation is hyperstionnal, and if we want to understand what is happening (whether this is an illusion or not) I think we should try to tackle this from a cognitive angle and model surprise explicitly.

Some more links:

https://www.messagedelanuitdestemps.org/les-principales-unit...

https://martouf.ch/2021/03/le-metre-une-matrice-universelle-...

metalman

it could actualy be phrased the other way.... "the lack of a meter caused the french revolution" ok, no, but it most definetly contributed to the revolution, as France was a maze of competing local measurement "standards" that caused a lot of problems and expense in business and trade, some of it wildly subjective, like an acre of land was not an area measurement, but was based on how much grain a given piece of land could grow.......and at one point before the revolution, there had begun a highly contentious attempt to straiten the whole mess out

BitwiseFool

As an American, I finally relented and purchased a Metric measuring tape after the ordeal of trying to measure the dimensions of the rooms in my house. When it comes to interior decorating, trying to figure out how to evenly space items that are sized in feet, inches, and fractional inches is a nightmare. Imagine trying to space objects 2 feet 7½ inches long against a wall that is 13 feet 2 inches long. Now imagine this task with 80 centimeter long objects and a ~400 centimeter wall.

I am angry that IKEA's localization does not allow Americans to view dimensions in metric site-wide. You can still see dimensions in metric but those only appear on the pictures of some items. The webpage still converts all textual measurements to Imperial. You can't sort and search using metric values. IKEA designs everything in metric, using nice, even, whole numbers. Please let me see those. Seeing them converted to the nearest 32nd of an inch feels like vandalism.

Snild

It seems the Canadian site gives both sets of units: https://www.ikea.com/ca/en/p/brimnes-cabinet-with-doors-whit...

I guess they thought the mere sight of metric would offend the Americans. :)

Maybe the product ranges between the countries is close enough that the Canadian site is an alternative?

nautilius

To be fair, Americans use decimal already where it’s dearest to the heart: money, ammunition, and filling gasoline.

ThinkingGuy

Don't forget prescription drugs (mg).

WillPostForFood

Imagine trying to space objects 2 feet 7½ inches long against a wall that is 13 feet 2 inches long. Now imagine this task with 80 centimeter long objects and a ~400 centimeter wall.

You've made an artificially hard example (Ikea doesn't separate units, it is just inches).

What's harder, a 24" object on a 160" wall, or a 59cm object on a 4m 3cm wall?

Or to compare like for like (rounding & unified units), a 24" object on a 160" wall vs a 60cm object on a 400cm wall? Seems the same.

justinrubek

That's part of the point, though. Ikea might not do separate units, but this is not an uncommon practice elsewhere. In the metric example I don't need rounding because I can trivially see 4m 3cm and know it's 403cm. With inches I'd have to do multiplication to handle mixed units.

hungryhobo

but you have to do math to convert 13 foot 4 inches to 160 inches vs just moving decimals

lysace

> Seeing them converted to the nearest 32nd of an inch feels like vandalism.

Malicious compliance.

As a non-American: I love it. ;)

bowsamic

I don’t understand why American things absolutely never have dual measurements. I’ve been reading books on pregnancy and newborns written in the US but available across the world and every table is in only US units

ThePowerOfFuet

>I am angry that IKEA's localization does not allow Americans to view dimensions in metric site-wide.

Change to the IKEA site of a different country (via what comes immediately after `ikea.com/`).

lostlogin

> I am angry that IKEA's localization does not allow Americans to view dimensions in metric

I’m not American and laughed at this.

Welcome to the other side. Also, here in New Zealand people seem to do everything in metric, except their height and the weight of their baby. Why?

remram

As a Frenchman living in the US, my favorite Imperial units are the hand (3 hands to a foot) and the poppyseed (4 poppyseeds to a barleycorn, the shoe-size unit; 3 barleycorns to an inch). 10cm and 2mm.

People stop asking me to convert to Imperial pretty quick.

BitwiseFool

Save your sanity, don't bother learning the conversion factors. Did you know that most of us don't even know how to convert between our own units? I invite you to go around and ask 'how many pints are in a gallon?'.

It took me an embarrassingly long amount of time to realize that there are four quarts in a gallon...

I have no such trouble with any SI unit. So with that, I will leave you with this!

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'The French were right again!'"

dragonwriter

The US uses the US customary system, not Imperial. [0] US customary and Imperial share some units, and, confusingly, share even more unit names, but they are different systems.

[0] well, really, it uses metric with a redefined version of the old US customary system layered over it to prevent people from noticing, but...

geoffmunn

I am 100% convinced that the baby weight thing is because grandparents love to compare newborns with their own experiences, and they were on the cusp of the metric conversion in the 60s. In a decade or two, this will vanish.

Imperial height is because 6 feet is the generic height of a "tall person" - we get so much of our sporting news from overseas and no one bothers to convert it.

nancyminusone

The US doesn't and never has used the imperial system, as it did not participate in the unit reforms of 1824.

5 us gallons is about 4 imperial gallons.

ahazred8ta

In 1776 everyone was still using the Winchester System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_measure The UK didn't adopt the Imperial system until 1824-1826. Us Yanks have to suffer the indignity of our meager 473 mililitre pints.

saalweachter

5 m = 1 rod; 5 furlong = 1 km.

Also, the US doesn't use imperial, dammit. It uses US customary units. They're related but different systems with radically different definitions on many units.

null

[deleted]

null

[deleted]