Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ErolGarip, post: 2821159, member: 88736&quot;]&quot;Sallent&quot;, thanks for these posts which are very informative. I&#039;ll read them slowly and I&#039;ll come back and read them from time to time. It is like a library. For the moment, I&#039;m going to touch a thing or two in your posts.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>Is that &quot;X&quot; depicted in the coin really 10? It looks to me like a part (handle) of a sword. If it were 10As, while there were also denarius, sessertius, etc., they could have clearly write/add &quot;As&quot; also like &quot;Xas&quot;, couldn&#039;t they? Even if &quot;as&quot; was not added, still &quot;X&quot; on that coin does not look like numeral &quot;X&quot; (=10 in Roman.) Anyway, if it is really 10, then, it is a singularity in ancient coin domain. Have you seen some other ancient coins with any mark of value? </p><p><br /></p><p>Ok, I understood/learnt that, even if there was no numeral, no marks of values on different coins (as, denarius, etc), all those coins were related each others mathematically, by invisible mathematics. There were numerical ratios between all those coins, that is, there was a systematic mathematics also in those ancient coins. But, again, like it is happening today, in old days too, there was/is&nbsp; a &quot;non-integrity&quot; in the coin mathematics. This non-integrity or &quot;broken-chain&quot; in money math was/is due to the economy that you told in your posts. </p><p><br /></p><p>We can compare all those costs and living conditions related to economy of those old days with those of today. But, you say this: </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, things in the past and today are not same, not so easy to compare, but, still, it can be comparable using coins of old days and today. Things, living conditions and economy, in those old days and coins depending on these were a &quot;compact&quot; version of things of today. We can simulate these things including coins of old days and today as a chewing gum, contracting/stretching gum, which can be mathematically modelled by &quot;scaling&quot; techniques to find &quot;invariants&quot; between coins of old days and today. One of those invariants I immediately see is &quot;unit value&quot; which was unimportant in those old days and also today. </p><p><br /></p><p>I need to stay around &quot;unit value&quot; a little more here not to confuse it with &quot;smallest value&quot; coin circulating in the market. For example, as you said, 10As was probably the smallest value coin in some years of those old Roman days. In our day, for ex, in Israel, stiuation is same, smallest value coin there in the market is 10agorots. This 10agorot is not &quot;unit value&quot; of currency in Israel even if it is smallest in Israel economy. Their &quot;unit value&quot; is 1agora even if it does not exist physicially in their economy, it exists mathematically. Hope this is clear. So, as a conclusion, even if bad economies cause &quot;coins with unit values&quot; to disappear in economy, still, mathematically the most important money is the coin with unit value, that&#039;s, 1x coin. However, economically the most important coin is the biggest value coins such as 1aureus, 100dollars, etc. So, there is a contradiction between mathematics and economy, and, mathematicans of old days and today have been siding with economists in that challenge, accepting rich economists as their boss also because of those &quot;elegants&quot; on those coins who were/are illiterate in basic mathematics and who were/are siding with wealthies who have contradictions in their words, for ex, &quot;1cent is nothing, it is not needed, we are rich of money.&quot; Do you find their this word normal? I don&#039;t.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in