2 Shillings 1901

[Red Riley 2]

I'm not sure that anyone has ever suggested base 100? You would need 100 different symbols just to count! Base 16 (hexadecimal with symbols '0' to 'F') is the norm in the world of computing but this is an just a handy way of reducing the length of numbers in the base 2 binary system and is otherwise not workable. Mathmeticians generally feel base 12 would have been the best choice, simply because in day to day use, halving, dividing by three and quartering are the most common operations. Dividing by 10 is not in the least bit common, except in the invented world of base 10. In base 12, dividing by 12 would be the equivalent and just as simple operation.

But you would then have to invent a new counting system with the zero being employed after 16 and that's not the way anybody counts, so far as I am aware. Computers may do it that way, but hey, I'm not a computer.

[Rob 3,152]

If you are numerate it doesn't matter what base you count in.

[Accumulator 52]

I know this is a purely academic mathematical point but base 10 has no more legitimacy than base 12 or indeed any other number that might have been chosen historically. 10 was only ever adopted by custom (because we have 10 fingers). All I'm saying is it wasn't a particularly good choice given it's lack of divisibility. I'm certainly not saying we, or anyone else, should or could change now but it's interesting to reflect on nevertheless.

[Red Riley 2]

I know this is a purely academic mathematical point but base 10 has no more legitimacy than base 12 or indeed any other number that might have been chosen historically. 10 was only ever adopted by custom (because we have 10 fingers). All I'm saying is it wasn't a particularly good choice given it's lack of divisibility. I'm certainly not saying we, or anyone else, should or could change now but it's interesting to reflect on nevertheless.

Yes, I see your point but it's rather like the Irishman (I use an Irishman because I can get away with it, being part Irish!) asked how to get to Dublin, to which his reply was, 'Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here'.

[Accumulator 52]

Yes, I see your point but it's rather like the Irishman (I use an Irishman because I can get away with it, being part Irish!) asked how to get to Dublin, to which his reply was, 'Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here'.

Sometimes thinking outside the box is worthwhile. It's not a new idea... here's the Wikipedia entry: My link

[RobJ 0]

I do think something that should be taken into account is that the Decimal System for counting is not a new thing, not by any standards.

Chinese Mathematicians were using a Decimal System over 2000 years ago in the form of 'Counting Rods.' This in turn eventually developed into the Abacus.

Also if you think that Base 10 System is inappropriate for counting, spare a thought for the Mayans as they used a Base 20 System.

And the Babylonians had it even worse as they used base 60 System!

I tend to agree with Rob on this, as long as you are numerate the system that you use is irrelevant.

Some Systems will be easier to understand than others, some Systems will be more complex than others. In the end I do not think that it really matters as in 100 years time, we may all be using a different System for counting anyway. lol

I do however agree with Accumulator, in that it does make for interesting discussion.

[Peter 615]

I'm not trying to Hijack this topic but at the age of 7 I knew all my tables to 12....my kids haven't a clue and they are teenagers.

The tables were drummed into me together with the alphabet,fractions,%'s...basics of getting along.

[RobJ 0]

I'm not trying to Hijack this topic but at the age of 7 I knew all my tables to 12....my kids haven't a clue and they are teenagers.

The tables were drummed into me together with the alphabet,fractions,%'s...basics of getting along.

When I was at School we used to 'Sing' our Times Tables three times a week. Then on a Friday at the end of the final lesson, we all had to stand up and the Teacher would ask us a Multiplication question.

If we answered correctly then we were free to go home, if not, then we had to sit down and wait until everyone else had answered their questions. Then we were asked questions until we got one correct before we could leave. lol

Thinking back it was quite harsh, perhaps even slightly Draconian, but we all knew our Times Tables. lol

[Peckris 579]

I disagree strongly. In base 12, there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself. Division isn't the only way people count!

[Accumulator 52]

I disagree strongly. In base 12, there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself. Division isn't the only way people count!

You only disagree strongly Peckris, because you haven't grasped the principle of bases other than 10 and don't understand the maths:

In base 12, advancing in units of 12 gives you 10, 20, 30, 40... Advancing in units of 6 gives you 6, 10, 16, 20, 26, 30.... What could be simpler?

Check the Wikipedia link above to help you out.

[Accumulator 52]

Alternatively, Google "Duodecimal System" for a great deal more information.

[Peckris 579]

I disagree strongly. In base 12, there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself. Division isn't the only way people count!

You only disagree strongly Peckris, because you haven't grasped the principle of bases other than 10 and don't understand the maths:

In base 12, advancing in units of 12 gives you 10, 20, 30, 40... Advancing in units of 6 gives you 6, 10, 16, 20, 26, 30.... What could be simpler?

Check the Wikipedia link above to help you out.

Don't patronise me Accumulator. I was taught base 12 at school along with everyone else of my generation, plus I've done computing professionally and understand binary and hexadecimal. I suggest you go back and read what I said. Then go off to bed.

[Accumulator 52]

I disagree strongly. In base 12, there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself. Division isn't the only way people count!

You only disagree strongly Peckris, because you haven't grasped the principle of bases other than 10 and don't understand the maths:

In base 12, advancing in units of 12 gives you 10, 20, 30, 40... Advancing in units of 6 gives you 6, 10, 16, 20, 26, 30.... What could be simpler?

Check the Wikipedia link above to help you out.

Don't patronise me Accumulator. I was taught base 12 at school along with everyone else of my generation, plus I've done computing professionally and understand binary and hexadecimal. I suggest you go back and read what I said. Then go off to bed.

Ok, if you understand base 12, please explain your statement that "there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself"?

[Peckris 579]

I disagree strongly. In base 12, there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself. Division isn't the only way people count!

You only disagree strongly Peckris, because you haven't grasped the principle of bases other than 10 and don't understand the maths:

In base 12, advancing in units of 12 gives you 10, 20, 30, 40... Advancing in units of 6 gives you 6, 10, 16, 20, 26, 30.... What could be simpler?

Check the Wikipedia link above to help you out.

Don't patronise me Accumulator. I was taught base 12 at school along with everyone else of my generation, plus I've done computing professionally and understand binary and hexadecimal. I suggest you go back and read what I said. Then go off to bed.

Ok, if you understand base 12, please explain your statement that "there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself"?

Now you're just being pedantic. We were talking about £sd versus decimal currency if you can be bothered to read back that far.

[Accumulator 52]

I disagree strongly. In base 12, there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself. Division isn't the only way people count!

You only disagree strongly Peckris, because you haven't grasped the principle of bases other than 10 and don't understand the maths:

In base 12, advancing in units of 12 gives you 10, 20, 30, 40... Advancing in units of 6 gives you 6, 10, 16, 20, 26, 30.... What could be simpler?

Check the Wikipedia link above to help you out.

Don't patronise me Accumulator. I was taught base 12 at school along with everyone else of my generation, plus I've done computing professionally and understand binary and hexadecimal. I suggest you go back and read what I said. Then go off to bed.

Ok, if you understand base 12, please explain your statement that "there's no quick way of advancing in units of 12, or even half units of 6. Yet counting up in 5s or 10s, or multiplying, is simplicity itself"?

Now you're just being pedantic. We were talking about £sd versus decimal currency if you can be bothered to read back that far.

No, I stated clearly that I was talking about base 12 versus base 10 as a method of counting generally, as were several other contributors to the discussion. I also supplied links (and there are many out there) to support my thoughts and those of many eminent mathematicians. It's very clear you hadn't got your head around base 12, or the duodecimal system, when you made your comments about "no quick way of advancing in units of 12" but you're obviously not going to admit that. Your subsequent comments about my being "pedantic", suggesting I "go off to bed", telling me you've "done computing professionally" and were "taught base 12 at school" don't alter the facts, but I'm sure you understand that.

For the record, and as an entirely different point, I certainly wouldn't suggest that Lsd is a better system than Lp.

[Accumulator 52]

Anyway Peckris, I notice you're a Forum God and this is clearly your home territory. I'm also certain that you know a great deal about coins and that's why I came to this forum so I'll stop giving you a hard time.

[HistoryTreasures 0]

I've neevr heard of the expression "To have a crush on Victorian coins" before, how quaint!!

[RobJ 0]

There is a rather interesting artice in the latest issue of 'Coin News' on the Decimalisation of British Coinage.

It covers the history and the first attempts to decimalise British Coins right up to when it actually happend.

I found it most informative and interesting.

Edited February 5, 2011 by RobJ