Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37377 > unrolled thread

Is there already an easy fit algorithm?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 05:05 -0700
    Is there already an easy fit algorithm? lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-09-08 07:38 -0700
      Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:34 -0700
      Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 11:36 -0700
        Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2017-09-10 22:52 -0400
          Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-09-11 20:24 -0700
            Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 05:05 -0700
            Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 05:11 -0700
              Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 10:31 -0700
                Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 10:52 -0700
                  Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 12:43 -0700
                    Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 13:02 -0700
                      Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-09-12 17:08 -0400
                        Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 05:21 -0700
                          Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-09-13 12:49 -0400
                            Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 11:13 -0700
                          Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-09-13 14:24 -0700
                            Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-09-13 20:35 -0400
                              Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 11:26 -0700
                                Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 11:53 -0700
                                  Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-09-14 19:49 +0000
                                  Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 14:38 -0700
                                    Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-09-14 20:34 -0400
                                      Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-09-15 09:22 +0000
                                        Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-09-15 20:03 -0400
                                      Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-09-19 21:16 -0700
                                        Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-09-20 08:58 -0400
                                Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? leif.roar@dimnakorr.com - 2017-09-18 04:14 -0500
                      Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-09-12 21:50 +0000
                        Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 05:12 -0700
                          Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-09-13 13:07 +0000
                            Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 06:33 -0700
                              Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-09-13 16:37 +0000
                                Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 10:36 -0700
                                  Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-09-13 18:54 +0000
              Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-09-19 21:21 -0700
            Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 07:32 -0700
              Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:02 -0700
    Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-09-12 11:47 -0400
    Re: Is there already an easy fit algorithm? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-09-15 10:27 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#37377 — Is there already an easy fit algorithm?

Before I reinvent another wheel...
We have a fixed amount of cubes we know can fit in a truck.  We have a variable amount of products, each with a variable amount of cubes, which may require more than one truck.  Is there a simple way to select which products should go in a truck to come as close to the cubes amount without going over?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37379

This is one variant of the "Knapsack Problem", which is well documented. How simple your variant is depends on things like whether the cubes are al the same size, whether there's an emphasis on not splitting loads for a particular product, whether the profit differs between products, whether they all go to the same destination, ... You haven't told us the details.

Research it. It's a standard problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37380

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 10:38:42 AM UTC-4, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is one variant of the "Knapsack Problem", which is well documented. How simple your variant is depends on things like whether the cubes are al the same size, whether there's an emphasis on not splitting loads for a particular product, whether the profit differs between products, whether they all go to the same destination, ... You haven't told us the details.
> 
> Research it. It's a standard problem.

A cube is a standard measurement.
At this point we don't care which products end up on which truck.  It's a load.  If it takes multiple trucks they are going the same place.

Thanks for naming it though, this may help find a wheel before reinventing it.  I hadn't heard this specific name but knew it sounded like a problem someone would have already solved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37381

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 10:38:42 AM UTC-4, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is one variant of the "Knapsack Problem", which is well documented. How simple your variant is depends on things like whether the cubes are al the same size, whether there's an emphasis on not splitting loads for a particular product, whether the profit differs between products, whether they all go to the same destination, ... You haven't told us the details.
> 
> Research it. It's a standard problem.

ok, I think I got a version that works.

public class Knapsack {

     private final float[] arr;
     private final ArrayList<Float> retArr = new ArrayList<>();

     public Knapsack(final float[] cubes) {
          arr = cubes;
     }

     public boolean fitsOnTruck(final float truckCubes, final int pick) {
          if (pick == arr.length) {
               return true;
          }
          if (arr[pick] < truckCubes) {
               final boolean r = fitsOnTruck(truckCubes - arr[pick], pick + 1);
               if (!r) {
                    return fitsOnTruck(truckCubes, pick + 1);
               } else {
                    retArr.add(arr[pick]);
                    return true;
               }
          } else if (arr[pick] > truckCubes) {
               return fitsOnTruck(truckCubes, pick + 1);
          } else {
               retArr.add(arr[pick]);
               return true;
          }
     }

     public static void main(final String[] args) {
          final Knapsack rk = new Knapsack(new float[] { 16.5f, 15.1f, 2.6f, 2.6f });
          if (rk.fitsOnTruck(35f, 0)) {
               System.out.println("Success ");
               for (int i = 0; i < rk.retArr.size(); i++) {
                    System.out.println(rk.retArr.get(i));
               }
          }
          
     }
}

Now I believe the cubes need to be input sorted largest to smallest so I'll need to ensure that, and I need to update it for dynamic input to handle a variable number of items with quantities and cubes, matching up to the dynamic output to tell which items were selected rather than just their cubes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37383

On 9/8/2017 2:36 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> Now I believe the cubes need to be input sorted largest to smallest
> so I'll need to ensure that, and I need to update it for dynamic
> input to handle a variable number of items with quantities and cubes,
> matching up to the dynamic output to tell which items were selected
> rather than just their cubes.

Integer knapsack is NP-complete. The greedy algorithm doesn't work. 
Imagine your capacity is 10 units, and you have cubes of size 7, 6, and 
4. Your algorithm says you can only fit the 7 cube, but you can fit 
cubes 6 and 4.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37387

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:52:14 -0400, Joshua Cranmer ?
<Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote:

>On 9/8/2017 2:36 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>> Now I believe the cubes need to be input sorted largest to smallest
>> so I'll need to ensure that, and I need to update it for dynamic
>> input to handle a variable number of items with quantities and cubes,
>> matching up to the dynamic output to tell which items were selected
>> rather than just their cubes.
>
>Integer knapsack is NP-complete. The greedy algorithm doesn't work. 
>Imagine your capacity is 10 units, and you have cubes of size 7, 6, and 
>4. Your algorithm says you can only fit the 7 cube, but you can fit 
>cubes 6 and 4.

     Bad example since the second truck will get 6 and 4.  The
solution is optimum though accidentally so.

     Here is an example that illustrates the point:

     Capacity is 10.  You have units 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2.

     Greedy gets [5, 4] then [3, 3, 3] then [2] requiring 3 loads.

     Better is [5, 3, 2] then [4, 3, 3] requiring 2 loads.


     Your use of the term "cubes" is unclear.  Do you mean the
gemoetric object or cubic units of measure?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37388

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:25:05 PM UTC-4, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >Integer knapsack is NP-complete. The greedy algorithm doesn't work. 
> >Imagine your capacity is 10 units, and you have cubes of size 7, 6, and 
> >4. Your algorithm says you can only fit the 7 cube, but you can fit 
> >cubes 6 and 4.
> 
>      Bad example since the second truck will get 6 and 4.  The
> solution is optimum though accidentally so.
> 
>      Here is an example that illustrates the point:
> 
>      Capacity is 10.  You have units 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2.
> 
>      Greedy gets [5, 4] then [3, 3, 3] then [2] requiring 3 loads.
> 
>      Better is [5, 3, 2] then [4, 3, 3] requiring 2 loads.
> 
> 
>      Your use of the term "cubes" is unclear.  Do you mean the
> gemoetric object or cubic units of measure?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

My final algorithm puts those in 3 buckets.  The first gets 4 and 5, second gets 3, 3, 3, third gets 2.  While ultimately they should fit in 2 buckets with a 5, 3, 2 and a 4, 3, 3, it is close.  If your fit is not exact it may end up needing 3 buckets anyhow.  Unless your size numbers are significantly larger than your items or your items are some kind of liquid/gel, it'll be hard to get exact fit..

Of course in real world it also helps that the bucket is much larger than 10.  You're fitting numbers of 10 to 350 into buckets of 2800..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37389

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:25:05 PM UTC-4, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>      Bad example since the second truck will get 6 and 4.  The
> solution is optimum though accidentally so.
> 
>      Here is an example that illustrates the point:
> 
>      Capacity is 10.  You have units 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2.
> 
>      Greedy gets [5, 4] then [3, 3, 3] then [2] requiring 3 loads.
> 
>      Better is [5, 3, 2] then [4, 3, 3] requiring 2 loads.
> 
> 
>      Your use of the term "cubes" is unclear.  Do you mean the
> gemoetric object or cubic units of measure?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

This sounds tricky to get an extra recursive loop in the algorithm.
Does the 5 fit in the bucket? yes
Does the 4 fit in the bucket? yes
Does the 3 now fit in the bucket? no
Does the next 3, 3, 2? no
If we take out the 4 does the next item fit in the bucket with something else and get us closer to the total? ...
Then you have to remember which combinations you've tried and if there was room left in the bucket to eventually figure out the 5 can go with a 3 and a 2?

By cubes I mean actual cubes, as in the writing you see on the back of a truck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37395

What writing on the backs of what trucks talk about "actual cubes"? I myself have never seen any writing on any part of any truck that referred to cubes, and I have seen many trucks.

If you have a container that measures 10x10x10 for a volume of 1000 units, and two shipping cubes each measuring 6x6x6 for a volume of 216 units apiece, then even though the total of 532 is under 1000 the cubes won't fit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37396

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 1:32:12 PM UTC-4, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
> What writing on the backs of what trucks talk about "actual cubes"? I myself have never seen any writing on any part of any truck that referred to cubes, and I have seen many trucks.
> 

You don't do much highway driving?  It's not on, or not obvious on every truck but it looks like this.
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/dailyrecordnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/a3/da3383eb-e7c0-5903-a4fb-4e1d10aae679/5888dd26333d0.image.jpg

> If you have a container that measures 10x10x10 for a volume of 1000 units, and two shipping cubes each measuring 6x6x6 for a volume of 216 units apiece, then even though the total of 532 is under 1000 the cubes won't fit.

I don't know how generously they calculate the cubes in our system.  For our first attempt I think we make a best fit guess and someone in traffic manually reviews each.  If you want to be exact it would take a lot more calculation, to know actual heights/widths/depths of the items and the containers, which way the items may be turned, if the items are boxed, which if any items may be placed on top of other items.... if we could guarantee all that, we could draw them the diagram showing how the items should fit.  At this point it seems like detail is more trouble than it's worth and we should leave them ways to manually adjust.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37397

That "high-cube" designation doesn't indicate an "actual cube" at all. "Cube" there is not a noun or a unit but part of an adjectival phrase meaning that the container has a high cubic capacity. There is no particular "cube" implied. It doesn't represent a particular measure, and high-cube containers are not themselves cubes in shape.

So what is an "actual cube"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37398

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 3:43:34 PM UTC-4, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
> That "high-cube" designation doesn't indicate an "actual cube" at all. "Cube" there is not a noun or a unit but part of an adjectival phrase meaning that the container has a high cubic capacity. There is no particular "cube" implied. It doesn't represent a particular measure, and high-cube containers are not themselves cubes in shape.
> 
> So what is an "actual cube"?

Actual cube meaning the cube that is used to measure all truck trailers.  I'm guessing that means cubic feet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37399

On 9/12/2017 4:02 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 3:43:34 PM UTC-4, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> That "high-cube" designation doesn't indicate an "actual cube" at all. "Cube" there is not a noun or a unit but part of an adjectival phrase meaning that the container has a high cubic capacity. There is no particular "cube" implied. It doesn't represent a particular measure, and high-cube containers are not themselves cubes in shape.
>>
>> So what is an "actual cube"?
> 
> Actual cube meaning the cube that is used to measure all truck trailers.  I'm guessing that means cubic feet.

     Good guess.  Completely wrong, but hey -- for a guess, pretty good.

http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/containe/arten/highcube/highcube.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications
http://www.oocl.com/eng/ourservices/containers/containerspecifications/Pages/highcube.aspx

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
Twelve hundred twenty-six days to go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37404

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
> > Actual cube meaning the cube that is used to measure all truck trailers.  I'm guessing that means cubic feet.
> 
>      Good guess.  Completely wrong, but hey -- for a guess, pretty good.
> 
> http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/containe/arten/highcube/highcube.htm
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications
> http://www.oocl.com/eng/ourservices/containers/containerspecifications/Pages/highcube.aspx
> 

Well your link shows cube is cubic feet (imperial).  I don't know exactly how traffic determines now what fits on a truck, just something with a spreadsheet.. I just know our system freight calculation is based on full truck 2800 cubes which doesn't exactly match any of the specs in your links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37409

On 9/13/2017 8:21 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>> Actual cube meaning the cube that is used to measure all truck trailers.  I'm guessing that means cubic feet.
>>
>>       Good guess.  Completely wrong, but hey -- for a guess, pretty good.
>>
>> http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/containe/arten/highcube/highcube.htm
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications
>> http://www.oocl.com/eng/ourservices/containers/containerspecifications/Pages/highcube.aspx
>>
> 
> Well your link shows cube is cubic feet (imperial).

     No, it shows that "high cube" is a standardized multi-modal
shipping container designation.  "High cube" containers come in
a few different (standardized) lengths.

> I don't know exactly how traffic determines now what fits on a truck, just something with a spreadsheet..

     Then you're probably not the right person to computerize the
calculation.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
Twelve hundred twenty-five days to go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37411

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 12:49:43 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
> > Well your link shows cube is cubic feet (imperial).
> 
>      No, it shows that "high cube" is a standardized multi-modal
> shipping container designation.  "High cube" containers come in
> a few different (standardized) lengths.
> 

I don't know what the trailers we use are called but I'm guessing they are high cube.  All I know so far is freight dollars are calculated based on the total number of cubes for the order and how many trucks it takes up given 2800 cubes per truck.  The TIS website says a high cube 40' truck is 12024/2350/2697 mm which is just over 2691 cubic feet, the closest number I can see to 2800 as a total truck size.

> > I don't know exactly how traffic determines now what fits on a truck, just something with a spreadsheet..
> 
>      Then you're probably not the right person to computerize the
> calculation.
> 

baby steps. We're going from a traffic manager somehow figuring every truck layout manually with spreadsheets to a GUI screen that shows them the items of every order where they can select which truck(s) to put the items on.  If an order takes less than 1 truck, the whole order should go in 1 truck.  Some orders take 3 or more trucks.  We'll want to start with a button to auto assign those orders to trucks, then they can adjust to how the items actually fit.  Eventually it would be nice to have every possible variable in the system to require little if any human interaction but that will take time.  This isn't UPS.  Sometimes items are in boxes, often not.  Trucks are sent from one facility all over the country with destinations that must be hit within a range of dates, and for extra fun the new system is attempting to determine what goes on the trucks before the items are manufactured.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37413

Eric Douglas wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
...
> > http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/containe/arten/highcube/highcube.htm
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications
> > http://www.oocl.com/eng/ourservices/containers/containerspecifications/Pages/highcube.aspx

> Well your link shows cube is cubic feet (imperial).

What's the difference between "cubic feet (imperial)" and any other cubic feet? (Hint: the difference is that there's no such thing as "cubic feet (imperial)".)

And Eric Sosman's links don't show that a "cube" is anything. In fact, 
http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/containe/arten/highcube/highcube.htm
uses metric units and not cubic feet at all. None of them define a "cube". 

(For reference, a cube is a geometric solid comprising six square faces.)

> I don't know exactly how traffic determines now what fits on a truck, just something with a spreadsheet.. I just know our system freight calculation is based on full truck 2800 cubes which doesn't exactly match any of the specs in your links.

Do you mean "2800 cubic feet"? Or do you mean 2800 items each one cubic foot in volume, shaped as cubes each 1 foot on a side?

I've almost given up on asking you this because so far you have managed not to answer the question, but I figured one more try wouldn't hurt.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37414

On 9/13/2017 5:24 PM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric Douglas wrote:
>> Well your link shows cube is cubic feet (imperial).
> 
> What's the difference between "cubic feet (imperial)" and any other
> cubic feet? (Hint: the difference is that there's no such thing as
> "cubic feet (imperial)".)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_foot

<quote>
The cubic foot is an imperial and US customary (non-metric) unit of 
volume, used in the United States, and partially in Canada, and the 
United Kingdom.
</quote>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units

<quote>
The system of imperial units or the imperial system (also known as 
British Imperial or Exchequer Standards of 1825) is the system of units 
first defined in the British Weights and Measures Act of 1824, which was 
later refined and reduced. The Imperial units replaced the Winchester 
Standards, which were in effect from 1588 to 1825. The system came into 
official use across the British Empire. By the late 20th century, most 
nations of the former empire had officially adopted the metric system as 
their main system of measurement, although some imperial units are still 
used in the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries formerly part of 
the British Empire. The imperial system developed from what were first 
known as English units, as did the related system of United States 
customary units.
</quote>

http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/workshop/volume.htm

There is definitely something imperial cubic feet.

The imperial (=US customary) foot is the only foot in use
today AFAIK, but previously many different foot units existed.

See:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37418

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> lewbloch wrote:
> > Eric Douglas wrote:
> >> Well your link shows cube is cubic feet (imperial).
> > 
> > What's the difference between "cubic feet (imperial)" and any other
> > cubic feet? (Hint: the difference is that there's no such thing as
> > "cubic feet (imperial)".)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_foot
> 
> <quote>
> The cubic foot is an imperial and US customary (non-metric) unit of 
> volume, used in the United States, and partially in Canada, and the 
> United Kingdom.
> </quote>
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units
> 
> <quote>
> The system of imperial units or the imperial system (also known as 
> British Imperial or Exchequer Standards of 1825) is the system of units 
> first defined in the British Weights and Measures Act of 1824, which was 
> later refined and reduced. The Imperial units replaced the Winchester 
> Standards, which were in effect from 1588 to 1825. The system came into 
> official use across the British Empire. By the late 20th century, most 
> nations of the former empire had officially adopted the metric system as 
> their main system of measurement, although some imperial units are still 
> used in the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries formerly part of 
> the British Empire. The imperial system developed from what were first 
> known as English units, as did the related system of United States 
> customary units.
> </quote>
> 
> http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/workshop/volume.htm
> 
> There is definitely something imperial cubic feet.
> 
> The imperial (=US customary) foot is the only foot in use
> today AFAIK, but previously many different foot units existed.
> 
> See:
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)

It is an imperial *and* a US measure, but calling it out as if these are separate definitions of "foot" is ludicrous. No one says "imperial foot". No one says "imperial inch". No one says "imperial mile" (though there is "nautical mile"). It just isn't a distinction. 

A cubic foot is a cubic foot is a cubic foot. You don't say "cubic feet (imperial)".

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37419

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, lewb...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> It is an imperial *and* a US measure, but calling it out as if these are separate definitions of "foot" is ludicrous. No one says "imperial foot". No one says "imperial inch". No one says "imperial mile" (though there is "nautical mile"). It just isn't a distinction. 
> 
> A cubic foot is a cubic foot is a cubic foot. You don't say "cubic feet (imperial)".
> 
> -- 
> Lew

That is just a proper word wikipedia used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units) to describe it, "British Imperial" meaning the same as what we know as the English measurement system.
There is only one unit of measurement known as a foot that I'm aware of, though as you mentioned there's something called a nautical mile and I don't know much about measurement systems besides English and Metric.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web