Re: OT: coins and currency

>From: Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>
>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:07:23 -0500, Jefferson Wilson wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>There's a 15c coin?
12 rounds to 10, not 15. But also, 96 rounds to 95, not 100! :)
My favorite, the trinary series, also initially rounds to 1, 5, 10, 25. The
next ones (80, 245, 730...) aren't, however, particularily useful in a
decimal system.


>And, personally, I'd rather deal with a smaller number of coins per
>transaction (in both directions), provided the types of coins could be
>readily distinguished by fingertip touch while within my pocket or a cash
>register drawer. I guess that's largely a matter of taste, though, isn't
>it? It's the sort of thing that'd be hard to measure objectively, I
>imagine.
>
>I think spheres of radius "n" for a value of 2^n might be easily
>discernable.
They would also cover a hideous size range and be material inefficient
compared to discs. And the smallest ball-bearings would get lost rather
easily.


>What about polyhedra?
Same problems as above. For shape efficiency, I'd suggest triangles,
pentagons, discs, and rings of two sizes each, plus a rod or longish
rectangle.

John Vertical