mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-05-24, 21:38   #23
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

15F016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masser View Post
Sooo... you are telling me that I can shake my ...money-maker?
Sure, If you like. Just not in my direction thank you.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-24, 21:50   #24
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

73E16 Posts
Default

From a mathematical point of view a denomination structure based on binary values ($1, $2, $4, ...coinage) would be the optimally inefficient model.

What would be the most efficient?
On the second thought the most inefficient would be denomination of $1 only.

ETA Depending on how we define efficiency, it could be a coinage with denominations for every integer upto some anticipated maximum. That way there would be a single coin that world be equal to any value. So you could always (if you wanted to) carry around all your wealth as a single coin, regardless of how wealthy or poor you are.

Last fiddled with by a1call on 2019-05-24 at 22:30
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-24, 22:18   #25
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

908010 Posts
Default

Back in the USSR, we had 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15 (!!). 20, 50 cent coins and 1, 3 (!!), 5, 10. 25 (!!). 50, 100 roubles.

15 cent piece comes all the way back from Czarist Russia; there was even a word for it, a "pyatialtynnyj", where "altyn" is 3 cents (nobody has likely ever heard these words in modern Russia)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	15 kopeek.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	10.3 KB
ID:	20458  
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-24, 22:36   #26
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

22·2,851 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Back in the USSR, we had 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15 (!!). 20, 50 cent coins and 1, 3 (!!), 5, 10. 25 (!!). 50, 100 roubles.

15 cent piece comes all the way back from Czarist Russia; there was even a word for it, a "pyatialtynnyj", where "altyn" is 3 cents (nobody has likely ever heard these words in modern Russia)
Here's a pic of a 5-rouble from 1902:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	obv.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	963.6 KB
ID:	20459   Click image for larger version

Name:	rev.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	977.6 KB
ID:	20460  
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-25, 01:05   #27
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

2,579 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
From a mathematical point of view a denomination structure based on binary values ($1, $2, $4, ...coinage) would be the optimally inefficient model.

What would be the most efficient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Back in the USSR, we had 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15 (!!). 20, 50 cent coins and 1, 3 (!!), 5, 10. 25 (!!). 50, 100 roubles.
Apparently coins of powers of 3 would be the most efficient, in the sense of using the fewest coins to reach a total, assuming that your transaction counterpart also has coins to provide change. So the 3 rouble coin actually makes sense.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-25, 03:40   #28
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

23·5·227 Posts
Cool

Fiji has a 7 dollar bill.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	7-dollars-fiji.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	198.0 KB
ID:	20461  
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-26, 09:02   #29
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

206738 Posts
Default

The most efficient would be coins in golden ratio
This can be mathematically proven, hehe, but it would depend of how you define "efficient".

During our youth, under "commi" government, we had denominations similar to what Serge said, at the time you could still buy something (like a candy, a small copybook, a pretzel, a ballpoint pen refill tube, etc) with the "15 bani" - a value of 2-3 US cents in the '70s.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2019-05-26 at 09:02
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-26, 17:27   #30
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

237010 Posts
Default

should you use odd value only, it should be 1-3-7, the objective being using 3 denomination of the same order at max for all the value inside the range it. say, for example, you want a half of a baguette ( yes, i'm french) with exact change.It cost 48 cent(all taxes included) .

1-3-7
10+30+7+1 : 4 coins
1-2-5
5+2+1+20*2 : 5 coins
1-5-10-25-50
25+10+10+5+1*3 : 7 coins

1,2,3,5,10,15,20,50
3+10+15+20: 4 coins


now I know in N America, the price would be 50 cent, without taxes... but that is not the point ;p
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-26, 17:38   #31
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

24·33·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firejuggler View Post
now I know in N America, the price would be 50 cent, without taxes... but that is not the point ;p
Actually I think that might be the very point here. If you make the money too efficient then people couldn't justify adding those two more cents.

So to keep the profits rolling in we can add two cents and say we are helping the buyer to make life easier for them. It is totally for the buyers benefit, we promise. It isn't so we can make more profit. But if we have to suffer with more profit then okay we will do it if it helps the buyer.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-26, 18:38   #32
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

2×32×103 Posts
Default

You will not find any bakeries in my neck of the woods in N. America that will sell you half of a baguette. Judging by how much we weigh on average, that is no surprise.
It is difficult for me to formulate the constraints that would define an efficient denomination structure.
It should be something along the lines of:
* Minimum number of sub-dollar denominations that would allow you to have optimally minium number of coins, if you were to have the exact change for any value from 1¢ to 99¢.

ETA With the current North American structure you would need:
3x25¢+2x10¢+1x5¢+4x1¢
Total of 10 coins.

With a binary structure you would need:
1¢+2¢+4¢+8¢+16¢+32¢+64¢
Total of 7 coins.

With a 3 based structure you would need:
2x1¢+2x3¢+2x9¢+27¢+81¢
Total of 8 coins.

Last fiddled with by a1call on 2019-05-26 at 19:05
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 14:41   #33
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

22×3×277 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
So, aside from the lack of a US 2-cent coin and a 25-cent piece in lieu of a 20-center (both differences being at what we in the US call the "chump change" level) the systems are identical. You just answered your "where is the consist[e]ncy" question - it's where it always was, mostly running around in its favorite guise, as the "hobgoblin of small minds". :)
The proper quotation is from Ralph Waldo Emerson's 1841 essay "Self-Reliance:" A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Thus, a "foolish consistency" indicates an unwillingness or inability to learn, or to disregard new information for the sake of ideological purity.

Quote:
You wanna talk real differences, consider weights and measures - though as I've noted in at least one forum thread which I'm too lazy/busy to dig up, there the US system is mostly based on powers of 2 (e.g. for liquids: tablespoon = 1/2 fluid oz, cup = 8oz = 16 tbsp, pint = 2 cups, quart = 2 pints, gallon = 4 quarts, hogshead = 64gal, tun = 4 hogsheads and weighing 2^11 = 2048 lbs if filled with water at sea level), which should make it quite appealing to the computer science types.

Of course I'm glossing over various subtleties with regard to the different kinds of gallon... ;)
Once upon a time, long long ago, I compiled a rather lengthy list of units. Some of them were from a 19th Century arithmetic text.

I refer to it occasionally, as when someone invited me to have a "puncheon" of ale (probably meaning a "flagon"). Among the entries:

1 (U.S.) fluid ounce (fl oz) = 1.8046875 cubic inches (in^3)
1 (U.S.) fluid (liquid) pint (fl pt)= 16 fl oz = 28.875 in^3
1 (U.S.) fluid (liquid) quart (fl qt) = 2 fl pt = 57.75 in^3
1 (U.S.) gallon (gal) = 4 fl qt = 8 fl pt = 128 fl oz = 231 in^3

[Note: the gallon of 231 in^3 is the U.S. standard liquid measure.]

1 British or Imperial quart = 69.354 in^3 = 1.201 U.S. fl qt
1 British or Imperial gallon = 277.42 in^3 = 1.201 U.S. gal

[Note: A British or Imperial pint would be half an Imperial quart, so 1.201 U.S. fl pt, or about 19.2 fl oz. However, the British or Imperial fluid ounce is defined so that a British or Imperial gallon is 160 British or Imperial fluid ounces, as opposed to 128 U.S. fluid ounces in a U.S. gallon. Thus a British or Imperial pint would be 20 British or Imperial fluid ounces.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
APOTHECARIES' FLUID MEASURE:
The Apothecaries' fluid ounce, pint, quart and gallon are the same as for
U.S. liquid measure. However, the fluid ounce is subdivided as follows:
1 fluid dram = 60 minims = 1/8 fl oz
1 fl oz = 8 fl drs = 480 minims
Thus 1 fl pt = 128 fl drs and 1 gal = 1024 fl drs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINE OR LIQUID MEASURE -- used for all liquids except beer, ale and (formerly) milk.
The ounce, pint, quart and gallon are the same as for U.S. liquid measure.
1 gill = 4 oz; 1 pt = 4 gills (gi)
1 barrel (bl) = 31 & 1/2 gal
1 tierce (tr) = 42 gal
1 hogshead (hhd) = 2 bl = 63 gal
1 puncheon (pn) = 2 tr = 84 gal
1 pipe (p) = 2 hhd = 3 tr = 4 bl = 126 gal
1 tun (T) = 4 hhd = 8 bl = 252 gal [sometimes a tun is larger.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALE OR BEER MEASURE -- for beer and ale (and formerly milk also).
The BEER GALLON is 282 in^3, not the U.S. standard 231 in^3 gallon! It is
divided into 4 quarts, and the quart into 2 pints.
1 beer pint = 35.25 in^3
1 beer quart = 2 beer pints = 70.5 in^3
1 barrel = 36 beer gallons
1 hogshead = 54 beer gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS CUBIC MEASURES
1 teaspoon (tsp) = 1/6 fl oz, 5 ml approx
1 fifth = 1/5 gal = 46.2 in^3 [usually for distilled liquor]
1 Magnum = a 2-quart bottle of wine or champagne
1 acre-foot = 43560 cu ft (a volume of water 1 ft deep, covering 1 acre.)

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2019-05-29 at 14:47 Reason: Relocating a sentence
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[$]Recent-update-has-broken-the-dollar-sign[/$] NBtarheel_33 Forum Feedback 47 2016-10-11 09:43
A Dollar Urned davar55 Puzzles 29 2010-12-12 09:35
The missing dollar Andi47 Puzzles 4 2008-09-11 14:56

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:31.

Sun Aug 9 20:31:27 UTC 2020 up 23 days, 16:18, 3 users, load averages: 2.35, 2.02, 1.93

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.