Coin without any number/figure?

Those small stones... As said in one of previous post in page#8, they were taken here from http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm of webpage of archaeology prof Donald. I sent him an email with a link to this thread, but, I've not got any reply, maybe, he is busy in the ruins. Maybe, he is viewing this thread and he can make clear why he called them "counting tokens", however, he already wrote that they were used to count properties (cattles, grains, etc) and there is another stone inscription on his that page where we can see similar inciseds&groves, it is a clay with more detail, dated around 4000BC, that is the last centuries of 60,000 years of stone age and that inscripted clay stone is 3000 years younger than those "counting tokens" dated around 7000BC. Since this webpage of prof Donald is about history of "writing", he doesn't tell much about "counting", the term he used there. But, it seems that there is a link between those older small stones and younger clay stone with some abstract writings and their common link is inciseds/groves which were most likely for "counting" also as he said.

However, those old small stones with inciseds could be some game pieces as well as "Sallent" said. Maybe so, but, this is another discussion related to "what makes a thing money" that is also related to this thread, but, first, we need to see "counting" before questioning "what they were counting, were they counting grain or were they counting game winnings or somethings else" because "counting" was in the basic basis of money in those old days and is still so even though nowadays we usually miss this because, after settlement, we have become more and more lazy (for ex, look at this small local grocery owner who is sick of counting coins in his shop everyday and instead of counting one by one, he is counting coins now by weighing them http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/parayi-tartarak-hesapliyor-40558302. I am sure he does not have a one 1kurus coin in his pocket, because he is lazy.)

Anyway, I brought those ancient stone coins with inciseds here to this thread because "counting" is the most important property of the money itself, mathematically so. Its function of money (exchanging whatevers) is related to the economy more rather than the money itself more. Questioning money's function before learning what the money really is is another tall leap and this has been done for centuries. With political figures values, with material values, with economy/business connections, etc which all can be considered as "games" as well, we have been missing a thing (countability) about the money and the result is we don't have 1cent coin (or, equivalents such as 1kurus/1penny/1agora/etc) in our pockets.

Now, maybe it is time for questioning this: What are we exchanging by using the money/coin actually? In other words, for ex, when we are giving 5cent (nickel) to a grocery, say, to get a chewing gum, what are we exchanging? Answer is simple of course, but, what are we counting actually? What is that "5" on the "nickel" coin for?, What are we counting by that "5"? In this example, lets say, we counted "whatever" for chewing gum. 9,000 years ago, by using "IIIII" inciseds instead of "5", maybe, they were counting "whatever" for "chowong gom". Does it matter? It doesn't. "Chowong gom" might have changed to "chewing gum", but, the principle in the money (whether it is "IIIII" or "5") has been same throughout the all history. That's why I am saying here "when I have 1cent coin in my pocket it means I also have 9,000 years old coin" as "1" or "I" is the counting basic. In those very old days, they might have not known millions (1000000..) that we know today, but, they too knew "1" as "I" that we too know today, that's, it is our common property with our very old ancestors since the beginning of counting&money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can't imagine why!!!

 

I do have to say "Thank You"...that is awesome. Have you ever put it on the Ancients Forum? If not, I think it would be appreciated.

 

His that post is totally relevant to this topic in this thread. Upon your saying "none of them (ancient Greek coins) had ANY numbers on them at all. Our ancestors must have been really smart to have sorted out all these denominations without having numbers on the coins...", he (Sailent) mentioned how they (ancient Greeks) were "counting" their coins, i.e. by weighing them...

In this thread, any coins, from 10000... years old to 1 day old, can be mentioned here, historically/linguistically/mathematically/engineeringly/economically/etc as long as it is about "numbers/counting", that's the heart of the money/coin...

Perhaps, because he (that archaeology prof) couldn't have found any coin in the ruins? or because I have not sent any coin to him? When you had mentioned "incomprehensibility in my English" in some of your previous posts I had questioned "how much money or how many money" by staying in the topic and I'd got a reply from the math prof who had said these:

***

Erol,

I have never heard the “how much” verses “how many” distinction before, it is not a standard way of differentiating the two.

Typically countable, which can be infinite, means it can be counted (matched up to correspond to the natural numbers). Uncountable would involve what cannot be matched up to the natural numbers. All integers are countable, but all the numbers between 0 and 1 are uncountable.

In Statistics we deal with the topics of discrete and continuous which all seem to relate to your question. Discrete means the data is countable while continuous means that the data is uncountable. All currency would be considered countable. In the U.S. while we have dollars, every amount can be counted in terms of cents. While other variables, like a person’s weight at a given instance, is continuous. We record weight as a discrete value, say 183 pounds, but a more precise measurement would give a more precise answer. We could measure weight to a tenth of a pound, a hundredth of a pound, or a thousandth of a pound which would give a more precise answer. But with currency, once we reach the smallest denomination used for that type of currency, more precise measurements do not produce a more precise number.

xxxx
(name closed by Erol)

***

So, he sent a reply. Can you imagine why!!!

A part in his this email should be highlighted: "... All currency would be considered countable. In the U.S. while we have dollars, every amount can be counted in terms of cents... "

So, it is not "how much currency", but, it should (have) be(en) "how many currency"... So, "Kentucky", learn English first before posting irrelevant off-topic posts here in this "online academical research study in progress" thread.

 

"... There's a tiny island called Yap out in the Pacific Ocean. Economists love it because it helps answer this really basic question: What is money? ... " is the first paragraph of article about the giant stone money of the island "Yap":
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-island-of-stone-money

My comment: rather than answering "what is money?", it helps answer "what is major money / major currency?"
By analogy, if we call this giant stone coin
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2010/12/09/yap-3de5582da4f8b2e30812beb5aee6e672d3edde00-s800-c85.jpg
as "dollar", then, this http://www.historian.net/images/token1.gif is "minor currency", i.e. "cent".

Like every amount of "dollar" can be counted in terms of "cent", these "major stone coins" can be counted in terms of "minor stone coin". And, Yap people had smaller stone coins also beside these big stone coins.

PS: this post is to make the major and the minor currencies clear. Most of coins including ancient Greek and Roman ancient coins being shown on this CT forum, also Lydian gold lion coin, can be called "major coins" as they had smaller denominations. But, their smallest denominations (minor coins) of those old major coins are being mentioned much less here on this CT forum as far as I've seen, though minor coins are more important than major coins as minor coins are used in every day daily life. In other words, the target is to own "major coin" which is the total wealth, the work/effort/labor to reach that target is related to the "minor coin".

 

No

 

@Kentucky,

What is this video about? What do you mean by embedding it here? What do you imply by it? (I've not been watching any films/movies/seriels/etc for decades. Upon your post, I just checked on the net what/who "Dudley Dursley" is. I found "Harry Potter" etc on the same webpages. Yes, I've heard that Harry Potter name from some young people, but, I've never watched any Harry Potter film, never read any book about it either. So, I know nothing about them. So, your replies with such videos here do not make any sense for me. So, it'll hit on my head if you just say whatever you meant by your such videos here, in short and to the point, of the thread here, ok?)

By the way, I had a quick look at that video, only watched its first seconds. I see, how you say, a "spoiled child"?, he looks healthy enough. Here, I have a next door neighbour whose child is a real physically spastic one (in born) and every day and every night, I (have to) listen her voice with no any clear word coming out of her mouth, passing through the wall... I guess there are such kids in your neck of wood there as well. You know what is worse? These kids are helpless, and the worst is they can not get any help from healthy people because most of those healthy people are people with mental spasticity who see themselves clever, smart, intelligent, etc. And, all these are clear just by looking at what's happening about the cent coin (and their equivalents such as the penny, the kurus, the agora, the kapik, etc.)

For example, lets look at this: (I'm borrowing the data from here https://www.cointalk.com/threads/cent-production-through-july.302363/ - further detailed related talks can be made there in that thread. Here in this thread, it'll be interpreated within the scope of this topic.)

It's written in OP there: "...5,066,400,000 pcs of cent coin were produced in July and this is 65% of all coinage annual production..."

So, annual production of 1cent coin over there is around 8 billion pieces and this annual total quantity of the cent corresponds to 80 million dollars annually...
Which is more important here? 8 billion cent coins or 80 million dollars?
I'll say it. Whether a poor who has a few dollars or a rich who has 80 million dollars, does not matter, they do not have a one cent coin in their pocket... And, 8 billion cent coins are being produced over there annually... And, this has been repeated every year... (Will these people with such (ill)logics be helpful to the kids with real physical spasticity........? They can NOT...)

(As I said in one of previous posts in this thread, this high production of one-cent over there in the US is over-over-over-...-over-engineering, waste of time/effort/etc. On the other hand, in some other countries, with zero-production of one-coins, it is under-under-under-...-under-engineering, again waste of time/effort/etc. Basically, same mistake. They both missing the frequency in the money, by going either the Over or the Under.)

 

It's about counting, isn't that what your posts are about???

Your loss.
[/QUOTE]

Yes

 

Your this reply also did not make any sense. (do I have to watch your video carefully, again again?)
Could you please tell in words how it is about counting?
(we are not counting sheeps, cows, etc here, we are counting the money here.)

 

Actually I am kidding around with you, and even if you don't catch the references and jokes I make, many other people do. Insofar as the "topic" of your posting, it seems to be essentially inconsequential. In the beginning people distinguished between "one" (or "1" if you prefer) and many. Pretty soon they needed two, three, etc. Thus counting was born. Early commerce was handled by people exchanging one form of goods for another (barter), but this became clumsy. The earliest forms of currency appear to either be objects with intrinsic value for manufacture like lumps of bronze, silver or gold, or objects that would "stand in" for these intrinsic value items such as seashells or big honking rocks. Value was decided by the weight of the object or by a perceived value. When these systems grew to a large number, a way had to arise to tell value, thus putting denominations on coins.

 

You even admitted you never watched the entire 60 seconds in its entirety, perhaps go back and try again. Dudley was counting presents, and his complaint to his father was that "I got X presents last year and this is X-1" and in response to his father's explanation that "Some of these presents are LARGE", his answer of "I don't care how large, I just care how many" seems to be consistent on your central question...

Whew...when you have to explain why something is funny, it gets less so.

 

Kentucky,

It seems that you have not followed this thread really/carefully.
Like in questioning "how much money or how many money" (that's not about learning how people say there, of course, I know, they say "how much money", but, still questioning, further, linguistically/mathematically, it is about something else than that people are used to..), the "counting" too in this thread is being questioned in a different way that people are not used to... To explain, I had written these in my previous posts:

1cent < 5cent (nickel) < 10cent (dime) < 25cent (quarter) < 50cent (half) < 100cent (1usd) < ... < 100usd < etc... (1)

This is classical standard counting way from few/less/smaller to many/much/big/large. In this form, the smallers (not only 1cent, but also 5cent, etc) are not significant comparing with the largers.

But, what I am doing here in "counting money" is different, there is a small difference, but, its result is big.
Let me rewrite it again with small difference:

1cent ... 5cent (nickel) < 10cent (dime) < 25cent (quarter) < 50cent (half) < 100cent (1usd) < ... < 100usd < etc... (2)

Expression (1) above is not wrong, but, this expression (2) too is correct... Do you see the difference between (1) and (2)? There is no "<" sign after "1cent" in (2)... I wrote (2) so to emphasize that 1cent has a special property that makes it differ from all others and its that property of "1cent" is more important than how small/big it is. And, its this special property has not been being seen by people and that is why people have been trying to circulate 1cent also. That circulation can be tried to be done if "counting" is done as in (1), but, it can NOT be done in the form (2) and it has been proved over and over in reality that circulation of 1cent does not work, according to (2)... In form (2), "1cent" is seperated intentionally, to highlight its special property, that's... it is constant.... all others are variables. (hope what I've been trying to tell is clear now.)

 

Some maybe asking now How in the world 1cent is constant!?

To answer this: Lets imagine we people here are "governmental authorities" (as numismatists use in defining coin) and lets say some of us are economy minister/manager, some of us are math prof, some of us are mint director, etc etc. Lets say we are having a serious meeting now about minting coins for the next year. We analysed the economy and some of us had a proposal to change the coins that may fit current economy better, instead of minting those nickels, dimes, quarters, etc, for example, these are new coins :

1cent... 7cents < 12cents < 23 cents < 41cents < 70cents < 99cents < etc...

Acceptable? Yes, of course, depending on the economy, these new coins too acceptable.
So, all coins changed... EXCEPT? Except 1cent... It is constant... alternativeless...

 

And am willing to bet that NO ONE HAS

 

You may be willing to bet, but, don't bet your one cent coin... (it is the most valuable.)

Maybe, members of this forum might not have followed here really/carefully, but, there may be someone somewhere in a remote corner in the World who may not be a member of this forum, but, may be just viewing here silently. That's, even if there is only one person here or there who may be following this thread carefully, it is ok for me, if I am doing some errors in my posts, I'll try to correct them as soon as I realize.

(By the way, I just saw your caricature about "explain" you posted in your previous post above. So, here is further explanation on why 1cent coin can't/shouldn't be circulated.)

Lets rewrite these again:

1cent < 5cent < 10cent < 25cent < 50cent < 100cent (1usd) < etc... (A)
1cent ... 5cent < 10cent < 25cent < 50cent < 100cent < etc... (B)
1cent... 7cents < 12cents < 23 cents < 41cents < 70cents < 99cents < etc... (C)

(A) is classical way of counting current coins from smallers to biggers, it is for elementary school students.
(B) is same way of counting, except 1cent is seperated, to highlight it is constant.
(C) is same way of counting, but, with new coins with different numerals.

So, a general form of these can be written as:

1cent... Xcent < Ycent < Zcent < etc... (D)

where face/marked values "X, Y, Z, etc" on the coins are dependent on the "economy" which is dependent on many other factors including social/political/cultural/etc factors in the country. Therefore, "X, Y, Z, etc" are variables, dependent on the economy.

But, "1cent" is independent of economy. Whatever country/government/etc type which will also effect the economy you have, as long as the money exists, "1cent" has to exist...

So, since 1cent is independent of economy, why trying to circulate it in the economy? It is unnecessary... But, it has to exist... So, how? Simple. By keeping at least one 1cent always in the pocket, without using it in the economy, without using it in the circulation. This way, the mints will not have to mint 1cent coin again and again in billions. Once everybody has it in their pocket, people won't need more one cent coin. But, how will one cent coins in pockets be useful if they won't be used in exchange? It'll still be helpful, to see the "integrity" in the money, not to forget the integrity in the money, by keeping always in the pocket that conforms with the constancy of 1cent coin. That's scientific help...

All these are not a rocket science, just the basic science that is our main need... (so that we can repair our error in the money and we can have a chance to be helpful to ourselves and also to others such as disabled kids with spasticity/etc. Younger generations can improve things further. Ok, hope, explanation is clear enough. Ok, good evening. Late in the night here, it is 04:24AM.)

 

WOW!!!!!

 

A more interesting subject about the concept of zero. It sucks having zero money.

https://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html

Only Erol can write more about nothing than the author of this article.

Page 10 and counting.

 

See what I did there?

Somehow I doubt it.