Re: OT: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)

Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:11:15 -0500, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
> wrote:
>
>> In US currency, for instance, there are essentially 4 sub-dollar
>> denominations (1, 5, 10, 25), since half dolalrs are very rare.  As a
>> result, some values require up to 9 coins (e.g. 94¢ and 99¢).
>> Reintroduction of a commonly-circulated half-dollar would cut that
>> down by one coin; a two-cent piece would reduce it by two more.  That
>> would yield six denominations and a maximum minimum (:)) of six coins
>> per value.
>
>
> I'm sure you're aware of the British system, which is partitioned 1, 2,
> 5,  10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, etc. I have a gut feeling that it's more
> optimal than the US system of (essentially) 1, 5, 10, 25, 100, 500,
> 1000,  2000, which strikes me as more organic but less wieldy.
>
> Of course, it shouldn't take much math to prove that the most optimal
> system would have units of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc., provided of course
> that the general populace could be made sufficiently familiar with the
> concept.
Depends on whether you want the lowest number of _coins_ or the
lowest number of _types_.  Binary is good for the former, but for
the latter you get the series: 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, etc.  (Something
to keep in mind for those of us with duodecimal numbering systems
I think.)  Hmmm, take this series up to 96, round each value to
the nearest number divisible by 5, and you have the American
coinage system.

--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~

Replies