The Metric System with Rounding is Garbage

Thank you for complimenting me. I appreciate your comment. Due to inexperience, I didn't understand the problem at first, but I do now. Now I will question your points. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The definition stated by the Webster's New World Basic Dictionary of American English is: flaw (flï¿½) n. 1. a break, scratch, crack, etc. that spoils something; blemish 2. any fault or error Based from these definitions, I am forced to conclude that an error is indeed a flaw. HOWEVER, I have to question you about your knowledge about perfection. Do you know that nobody or nothing is perfect? Don't you know that everyone makes mistakes? Did you know that things can be improved? Based on knowing that you consider an error to be a flaw, I have to conclude that mostly everything is flawed, right? So all my schoolwork that doesn't have a 100 on it is flawed? So everything everyone does is flawed? The Wikipedia's definition of perfection is: Perfection is, broadly, a state of completeness and flawlessness. 3 different types of perfection can be listed as: 1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts; 2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better; 3. which has attained its purpose. Therefore you can see that nothing is perfect. The paradox of perfection ,although I don't know if you ever heard of it, list that imperfection is perfect. It applies not only to human affairs, but to technology. Thus, irregularity in semiconductor crystals (an imperfection, in the form of contaminants) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of regularity, and that of utility. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now I must consider your questions: If work must be done to fix the result, the result is not wrong prior to the fix, because work must be done to create the system in the first place. There are no systems that you would not consider them to be "flawed", by your definition of flaw. Now if I multiply 1/3 by 3, I would get 1. 3* 1/3 = 1 Now if I divide 1 by 3, I would get 0.999… But don't you know that 0.999… = 1 In case you didn't know, In mathematics, the recurring decimal 0.999… denotes a real number equal to 1. In other words, the notations "0.999…" and "1" represent the same real number. The equality has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. Various proofs of this identity have been formulated with varying rigour, preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience. Proof: 1. Multiplication of 3 times 3 produces 9 in each digit, so 3 ï¿½ 0.333… equals 0.999…. And 3 ï¿½ 1⁄3 equals 1, so 0.999… = 1. 2. 1 = 9/9 = 9 x 1/9 = 9 x 0.111... = 0.999... Since both equations are valid, by the transitive property, 0.999… must equal 1. Similarly, 3/3 = 1, and 3/3 = 0.999…. So, 0.999… must equal 1. In case you want more proof, go to http://en.wikipedia.org... IEEE 754-1985 is the most widely-used standard for floating-point computation, and is followed by many CPU and FPU implementations. It has 4 rounding modes. Did you know that The IEEE floating point standard must round because the result of operations on floating point numbers are not always representable because of limitations in precision? So you call it as flawed? Nothing is perfect and will always need perfection. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... I agree with you the fact that cross-platform has problems. However, there are different ways of approaching the problem of writing a cross-platform application program. One such approach is simply to create multiple versions of the same program in different source trees—in other words, the Windows version of a program might have one set of source code files and the Macintosh version might have another, while a FOSS *nix system might have another. While this is a straightforward approach to the problem, it has the potential to be considerably more expensive in development cost, development time, or both, especially for the corporate entities. The idea behind this is to create more than two different programs that have the ability to behave similarly to each other. It is also possible that this means of developing a cross-platform application will result in more problems with bug tracking and fixing, because the two different source trees would have different programmers, and thus different defects in each version. The smaller the programming team, the quicker the bug fixes tend to be. Another approach that is used is to depend on pre-existing software that hides the differences between the platforms—called abstraction of the platform—such that the program itself is unaware of the platform it is running on. It could be said that such programs are platform agnostic. Programs that run on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) are built in this fashion. Some applications mix various methods of cross-platform programming to create the final application. An example of this is the Firefox web browser, which uses abstraction to build some of the lower-level components, separate source subtrees for implementing platform specific features (like the GUI), and the implementation of more than one scripting language to help facilitate ease of portability. Firefox implements XUL, CSS and JavaScript for extending the browser, in addition to classic Netscape-style browser plugins. Much of the browser itself is written in XUL, CSS, and JavaScript, as well. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, the rounding system is still not flawed just because of potential problems of cross-platform programming. I said "But the REAL problem was not with inaccuracy, but with inconsistency" Rounding causes problem with inaccuracy, but not with inconsistency. During one of the updates, Raytheon Labs, the developer of the patriot missile, had fixed the previously mentioned inaccuracy problem by creating code that used a pair of 24 bit registers to accurately make the time calculations. The problem was that that most, but not all of the time calculations made by the system were replaced by calls to the newer, more accurate function. So, the system was keeping track of the current time using a function that loses time in much the same way that a clock with a weak battery will gradually lose time. But, the system would track missiles, aim itself, and decide exactly when to launch it's own missiles using the internal clock, which was accurate. In effect, the system would use an accurate timepiece to decide where the missile is located and how fast it is moving, and when to fire the defensive missiles. But while waiting to fire the missiles, the system would use the less accurate clock to determine when it should fire. As you can see, rounding does not cause the problem with the Patriot Missile System. There are errors so small that we don't even notice it if our genes contain the slightest amount of error that it doesn't count toward genetic diseases. Only the major, more noticeable changes of genes would cause genetic disorders. DNA repair mechanisms are able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells. Therefore, we don't have flawed genes or DNA, otherwise we would be doomed. I conclude that the decimal/metric system with rounding is not flawed. Maybe it is imperfect, but it could be improved; just like everything else. I apologize that I can't post the next argument sooner due to school and sleep with homework involved. Thank you and good luck!