OT: Mathematical Conundrum II

*Were* named differently. Modern coins just say "One Penny", "Two Pence" etc. That's all "silver" coins, because the old ones were withdrawn from circulation when the new, smaller ones were introduced; and most "copper" ones through natural wastage even though they are the same size as the original 1p and 2p coins.

formatting link
says the word "new" was dropped from name stamped on the coins as long ago as 1982. I hadn't realised that the 5p. 10p and 50 coins were introduced *before* decimalisation, in 1968 (5p and 10p) and 1969 (50p) - I'd assumed that the existing-size silver coins were first minted in 1971 at the same time as the brand new copper coins.

Shame we didn't change to decimal coins years earlier - I have nothing but loathing for *any* measurement system which doesn't use base 10 (we have 10 fingers/thumbs and count in base 10), unless there is a very good scientific reason for using any other base (eg 2 and powers of 2 such as 16 for computers). There is a lot of sense in base 12 as a unit for packaging, since a 4x3 group of tin cans etc makes a squarer package than 5x2, but if we'd wanted to use base 12 it should have been universal for all measurement systems and we should have learned to count in base 12, with two extra single-character symbols to denote 10 and 11. Whatever we did should have been consistent; it is the lack of consistency which is the non-metric system's fatal flaw. Sorry, rant over :-)

Reply to
NY
Loading thread data ...

Decimalisation was the worst thing that we ever did for numeracy skills. Pre-decimal currency was also brilliant for confusing foreigners who lacked our numeracy skills. Alas, we've all dumbed down to the same level.

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

With apologies to Brian, My late mater would have enjoyed your idea.

Reply to
Nick

Snap.

Reply to
Albert Zweistein

All bases are '10'

Avpx

Reply to
The Nomad

Damn it, Tim. You beat me to it! And it's the same thing with modern textbooks. Any technical subjects (not still under development) I find far more accessible and readily understandable in older reference books written prior to 1960. They have a precision and clarity of language that clearly eludes modern writers, sadly. And they're dirt cheap to acquire!

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Yeah but you know what we meant.

Reply to
Albert Zweistein

:-)

Avpx

Reply to
The Nomad

Kenyans for a start.

Reply to
Tim Streater

It was always two bob. And a shilling was always a bob. Why d'ye think it was called "Bob-a-job", eh?

Reply to
Tim Streater

I am perhaps one of that small subset. I was taught at school, beginning nearly 60 years ago, the English currency system. Also taught how to multiply and divide and generally work with the old ?sd. There were no electronic calculators at that time. Certainly not to impecunious schoolboys anyway. For instance: 17 Pounds 4 Shillings and 8 Pennies, divide by 3 or 17 Pounds

4 Shillings and 8 pennies, multiply by 5. (round down to nearest penny). Such were routine to me. Absolutely useless today of course. However, I can still do such simple calcs in my head. In decimal currency this is much more simple.

I do not cling to the old money system but the maths that I learned has been, and is, invaluable to me for quick and accurate calculation. At times this can be extremely important.

Reply to
Nick

I'm *almost* be tempted to convert to decimal currency, do the division and then convert back again :-) Or at least convert it all to (old) pence, do the division and then divide it back into £sd.

As I said earlier, why teach people proficiency in multiple bases (even within the same quantity - it's not even as if there are 12 pence in a shilling and then 12 shillings in a pound - they are two different bases).

£17 4s 8d / 3 - help. I could do it, but it would be tedious. And given that I find mental arithmetic a challenge at the best of times, I'd *certainly* have to use a pen and paper.

Division

£17/3 is 5 remainder 2.

Carry that £2 to the shillings column as 40s and add to the 4s already there

44s / 3 is 14 remainder 2

Carry that 2s to the pence column as 24d and add to the 8d already there

32d / 3 is 10 remainder 2

The

So the answer is £5 14s 10 to the nearest penny.

Multiplication

8d * 3 is 24d which is 2s 0d

4s * 3 is 12s, plus the 2s carried from the pence column = 14s

£17 * 3 is £51

So the answer is £51 14s 0d

Now Nick will tell us a much easier way of doing it and I'll feel really humble :-)

Reply to
NY

Look at your coins. They haven't been called new pence for years.

Reply to
Bob Eager

Not any more. And we are discussing this now, not years ago.

Do keep up.

Reply to
Bob Eager

I could do it, even though I was born (just) after decimalisation.

What I really don't have the first clue about is when people start to go on about the strange denominations. Groats, fartings, crowns - that sort of bollocks. I have NEVER EVER had the slightest need to know that. Yet some people... "Ooh, half a tanner" No. Fuck off back to your rose-tinted memories of some utopia that really consisted of Victorian slums and rationing...

Reply to
Adrian

I'm not the one that's confused.

Reply to
dennis

What's wrong with base two, you can count up to 31 on one hand.

Reply to
dennis

Or a florin.

Reply to
polygonum

Actually, to the nearest penny, 11d.

Reply to
Tim Streater

The florin was actually introduced as an early attempt at decimalisation.

Reply to
Tim Streater

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.