Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article's not claiming that the ratio of any two integers is √2, he's claiming that when the ratio of the lengths of the sides (the aspect ratio) is √2 that it's easy to keep that ratio with smaller pages by cutting the longer dimension in half. As for your equation above, A/√A != A x A / A, but I'm not seeing where in the article you got this either.
> The size is 210 mm × 297 mm and has a ratio of √2 (math!). That looks like a claim that the ratio of two integers is sqrt(2), but it's fairly obvious that he really means that it's very close.
Paper sizes
151–160 of 206 posts
Re: Paper sizes
#152I have to note that A4 (what goes in a standard printer) is just a shitty format for documents. There is no way to get a proper layout done, you basically need two columns to use a reasonable amount of space with regards to font size and text body layout, which leads to other problems. There is a very good reason you don't see any A4 books. A5 works OK for book layouts but still is too wide actually... A5 booklet pri…
> There is no way to get a proper layout done This is puzzling - how do you explain the abundance of people who seem to have no problem with this whatsoever? Finally: I have seen lots and lots of A4 books, but they're simply not as common. It probably does help to live in Europe in that regard.
Re: Paper sizes
#153Everyone who supports the A* sizes of paper (start with a square meter because it's nice and clean, then just declare that all other paper uses that humankind might ever need should be specific fractions of that square meter and no other sizes are ever needed) should also support Swatch time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time Alternately, if Swatch time seems dumb to you, then you might also accept th…
Re: Paper sizes
#154Re: Paper sizes
#155Why did Americans simplify and streamline the English Language, but they didn't bother with all of the systems of measurement?
English is far from being streamlined. In fact it's the only language I know that requires you to learn how to pronounce EACH word. Most languages only require learning how each letter sounds, and maybe a few dozen di/trigraphs, the rest is regular. Not so in English.
You only need to learn separate spelling and pronunciation rules for each of the languages English has evolved or stolen from.
The tough spellings usually come from Germanic roots via Old English and Middle English, whereas the French-Norman spellings are less difficult.
Greek-Latin spellings are markedly less confusing when you learn the transliterations of the Greek alphabet. Of course Philadephia is pronounced with fricative 'f' sounds instead of plosive 'p' sounds, because the Greek letter for that sound is 'phi'. Because of that, I dislike it when people pronounce the feathered dinosaur archaeopterix as [ar-key-OP-tur-iks] rather than [ar-KAY-o-(p)TEAR-iks]. It isn't incorrect either way, because in English, correct is whatever other people will understand. (Suck it, French.)
This is why I get sick of people complaining about "monolingual" English-speakers. The language has been glued together from Dutch-Germanic, North-Germanic, French-Norman, Greek, Latin, and centuries of absorbing and assimilating immigrant populations from all over the world.
You really only need to learn rules derived from four dissimilar languages to spell and pronounce almost everything in English without having a word-specific association. The remaining ten percent of words are correct when spelled and pronounced as in the native language or as anglicized renormalizations, even using the rules specific to unrelated languages. That is why the plural of octopus can be either octopodes or octopuses. Octopi is colloquially correct, but it is then acceptable to deliver a short lecture on Latinized Greek words. Similarly, the acceptable plurals of cactus are cactuses, cacti, or (los) cactus (pronounced as in Spanish). As Spanish has an increasingly large influence on American English, I have found it useful to know that it only has five vowel sounds, and knowing how to pronounce burrito and enchilada correctly gives you all five.
Despite what your elementary school teachers may have said to you, you are only incorrect in English if other people cannot understand what you are trying to communicate. Nevertheless, failure to be incorrect does not imply correctness, which is why grammar nazis exist.
Re: Paper sizes
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The base size A0 has an area of exactly 1 square meter. Which is still arbitrary :)
No, its the basis of paper weights too, which are measured in grams/m^2
Re: Paper sizes
#157This is one of those things that seems technically correct (the best kind of correct) but practically ... meh. The benefit exists but is barely enough to get anyone entrenched to actually change. Much like the common usage of the US Customary units, nothing is going to actually change.
Odd how every single country in the world has adopted it, except for the US and Canada. They all changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#The_international_s...
North America already as system in place. Switching from one to the other confers very little, if any, benefit.
Re: Paper sizes
#158Next step: metric measurement units everywhere. I've been waiting for that for decades. If "dozens" would die as well, even better.
Counting in base 12 is much better than base 10. 12 has prime factors {2,2,3}, so you get 2,3,4 and 6 as integer divisors, not just 2 and 5. That's why dozens stuck as a counting unit on so many things, namely time (all the way back from Egyptians). You can even count using your fingers. Just count using your thumb pointing at each of the finger joints and the finger tip (you have two joints and one tip per finger an…
Re: Paper sizes
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are. I can paraphrase your original comment like so: "I have tried in the past to explain how awesome the ratio is, but it didn't go well because of dumb people." You are correct that you're not blaming anyone for being dumb, but you are blaming others for the explanation not going well.
No, I'm not, and you're putting words in my mouth. This: > I have tried in the past to explain how awesome the ratio is, but it didn't go well because of dumb people. Does not mean the same thing as this: > I've tried in the past to explain how awesome the sqrt(2) ratio used as the basis of DIN/ISO page sizes is, but there are some very dumb people on HN.
The word 'tried' implies an attempt that failed. And in the phrase "I've tried... but...", the part after the but almost always implies causality.