Using base-ten units, you can divide precisely by only 2 and 5. Not only are 1/3 and 2/3 not integer subdivisions of ten, they're not even precise decimals, but asre repeating.
Under base 12, there are precise subdivisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 units. Under base 30 you can evenly divide by these as well as 10 and 15.
Under base 60 (a commonly used measurement base, a usage example will come to you in time), subdivisions are the above, plus 12, 20, and 30.
For practical use and arrangement, these can be highly useful capabilities.
In angular measure (base 360, 60*4), there are divisions which relate to trigonometric functions but not decimal scales. And to truly transcent the rational there are radian measures based on pi.
Under metric, you can still come up with precise divisibility, but only by disposing of the base-ten rationality. E.g., using 60cm or 60kg as a division basis.
Ultimately, base ten is an arbitrary anatomical accident.
Yeah, I know. That's hat I see in any discussion about SI with Americans, along with "a table spoon makes more sense as a unit because I've got one in my kitchen drawer".
But why does it matter? Why do you need 1/3 of a metre, and in which context would the 0.333...cm difference with 33 cm matter? This is smaller than the measurement error with common instruments we are likely to use in our daily lives. And there's nothing special about 1/3 m as a physical length, there's no reason why 1/3 m would be more useful than 0.30 m. I am not trying to be flippant, but I never got an answer to that question.
Also, the conversion factor matters only when you actually convert values, not when you measure them. Again, there is nothing stopping anyone from using 1/3 m, or 1/42 m, or 1/π m as units, or even giving them fancy names. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what you do when you use an inch: by definition 1 in = 127/5 m.
In practice the number of dividers is utterly insignificant, because using all the multiples of a centimetre (and millimetres if you're pushing it) is trivial. So getting a feeling for the difference between 32cm, 33cm and 34cm is very easy, and you end up with much better accuracy than if you limit yourself to eights, sixths and quarters.
It's also the same scale down from sub-atomic scales all the way to the whole planet (I understand the use of AU, light-years and parsecs, as the SI prefixes tend to become ridiculous at these scales).
To be sure, counting in base 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 would be a bit cumbersome.
After some reflection, I was actually thinking we should maybe use base 100!π³ just in case people end up working with spherical volumes. Open to suggestions.
Using base-ten units, you can divide precisely by only 2 and 5. Not only are 1/3 and 2/3 not integer subdivisions of ten, they're not even precise decimals, but asre repeating.
Under base 12, there are precise subdivisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 units. Under base 30 you can evenly divide by these as well as 10 and 15.
Under base 60 (a commonly used measurement base, a usage example will come to you in time), subdivisions are the above, plus 12, 20, and 30.
For practical use and arrangement, these can be highly useful capabilities.
In angular measure (base 360, 60*4), there are divisions which relate to trigonometric functions but not decimal scales. And to truly transcent the rational there are radian measures based on pi.
Under metric, you can still come up with precise divisibility, but only by disposing of the base-ten rationality. E.g., using 60cm or 60kg as a division basis.
Ultimately, base ten is an arbitrary anatomical accident.