currency exchange rates
Eddie G
(well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the fees)
Anyway, stuff there was really cheap compared to here. A good dinner with
appetizer and soda cost about $8.00 with tip. When I was exchanging money I
wondered what drives exchange rates?
I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
Thanks,
Eddie G
mistakes were made
>When I was exchanging money I
>wondered what drives exchange rates?
I think it's a combination of the total national productivity, and what you
can really but with X amount of whatever they trade there, combined with the
relative faith the government isn't going to suddenly print up a whole lot more
currency, perhaps some measure of confidence in the local adminstration's
ability to endure and impose its will on the populus, its neighbors, etc.
Roughly analogous to credit ratings for people, I guess, except there's also
probably the various trends and fads in the international currency markets
themselves.
If it helps, think of money as a good in and of itself, except it's a good
that at least certain agencies can suddenly increase, or with a little more
efforts, slowly decrease the supply of relative to what you can trade it for.
For instance, when the Reserve lowers interest rates, well, that increases the
currency supply, which means there are suddenly more dollars and just as many
(or even fewer, as this usually only happens when the economy slows down) goods
to spend them on, which means prices in dollars go up. The actual mechanism is
a little more complex, but that's the result. This also encourages foreign
investment, since a euro or a yen now buys more US stuff than it used to. A
similar thing happens when the government borrows money.
>I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
>money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
>salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
If I understand what you're saying here, yes, that's what causes inflation
(which will also reduce the value of your currency internationally, which isn't
necessarily a bad thing, as it means your products are now more attractive to
foreigners, and at least until you're just being goofy with the printing
presses, X amount of labor still trades for Y amount of goods )
--
."Uh, you talking about me BF? Gosh!"
ctc...@hotmail.com
> My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
> (well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the
> fees)
>
> Anyway, stuff there was really cheap compared to here. A good dinner
> with appetizer and soda cost about $8.00 with tip.
On the other hand, you had to be in Kazakhstan in order to eat that
dinner, which is kind of a cost in and of itself.
> When I was exchanging
> money I wondered what drives exchange rates?
I'll give you the classic non-answer answer--supply and demand.
How desperate are you to get tengas, and how desperate is someone with
tengas to get US dollars?
> I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
> money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
> salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
That depends on why they started getting paid more. If it's just because
the government printed up a bunch of money, then yes. It it's because
their productivity went up, then they could get paid more without driving
prices up.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Sean Houtman
>I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
>money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
>salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
>
Especially on the low end of the scale, paying people more money means they
spend more, which is generally a good thing for the economy. Of course
Republicans don't like that to happen on the supposition that poor people
spending money is bad for small business.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
RM Mentock
>
> My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
> (well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the fees)
name? congrats.
> Anyway, stuff there was really cheap compared to here. A good dinner with
> appetizer and soda cost about $8.00 with tip.
I dunno, I can get the same here in the USA for $3.95 plus tax
--
RM Mentock
'No,' answered Jarry. 'It's a reduction.' -- Guillaume Apollinaire
Greg Goss
"The Economist" magazine maintains a list of exchange rates as
calculated in BigMacs.
http://www.oanda.com/products/bigmac/bigmac.shtml
Kazakhstan is not on their list.
If you read some webpages there are a lot of people who think that the
US dollar is artificially propped at a very high point compared to
where it would be in a free-er market. There are probably just as
many people who call that bunkum. I don't feel like arguing the
manipulation point in this thread.
The US dollar is the main "reserve" for national banks of other
countries. It serves the role that gold filled in previous
generations. Thus a large number of dollars are removed from
circulation, propping the price of the remaining ones. Thus, in
theory, the US dollar is worth more than would be otherwise expected.
Lesmond
>My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
>(well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the fees)
I have nothing to say about exchange rates. I just wanted to say
congratulations to you and your new baby.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:56:10 -0400, Eddie G wrote:
>
>>My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
>>(well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the fees)
>
>I have nothing to say about exchange rates. I just wanted to say
>congratulations to you and your new baby.
OOO, I must have missed the original post & so I will piggyback here:
Congratulations Eddie. All the best to you, your wife and your
daughter.
boron
Eddie G
> name? congrats.
Thanks...her name is Sophie Celia Goldberg.
:-)
Eddie G
"Lesmond" <Les...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:yrfzbaqsnfgarg....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:56:10 -0400, Eddie G wrote:
>
> >My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
> >(well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the
fees)
>
> I have nothing to say about exchange rates. I just wanted to say
> congratulations to you and your new baby.
Thank you!!
:-)
Eddie G
>
> OOO, I must have missed the original post & so I will piggyback here:
>
> Congratulations Eddie. All the best to you, your wife and your
> daughter.
Thank you, Boron...I should have waited until I read all messages and
thanked everyone at once. <g>
kay w
>Thanks...her name is Sophie Celia Goldberg.
Sophie....love it. A great name for a lucky little girl and her lucky family.
Congrats!
Did you say how old she is?
--
Gas up the dingy and go fishing with Fredo, because you are dead to me.
Dennis Miller, on France.
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose.
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
Congratulations, Eddie (and Mrs. Eddie and the Eddie-ette!)
--
"Liquor is filling my lifeline,
Psilocybin building a dam;
There's no escaping the puking sphinx"
-- E. Sanders
Sean Houtman
>
>"The Economist" magazine maintains a list of exchange rates as
>calculated in BigMacs.
>http://www.oanda.com/products/bigmac/bigmac.shtml
>
>
>
>Kazakhstan is not on their list.
>
I can convert that into Big and Tasties, Monday, April 21, 2003 1 Big and
Tasty(s) = 157.030 Kazakhstan Tenge(s).
My ISP has a currency converter. You can translate anything on the dollar menu
into a whole lot of other currencies.
Eddie G
> >Kazakhstan is not on their list.
> >
>
> I can convert that into Big and Tasties, Monday, April 21, 2003 1 Big and
> Tasty(s) = 157.030 Kazakhstan Tenge(s).
>
Except Kaz has no McDonalds.
groo
>
> My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
> (well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the fees)
>
> Anyway, stuff there was really cheap compared to here. A good dinner with
> appetizer and soda cost about $8.00 with tip. When I was exchanging money I
> wondered what drives exchange rates?
>
In general, it's simply how much of a certain commodity you could buy
with either currency, such as (for example) gold. If you can buy (making
up numbers here) an ounce of gold for US $300 or for 1200 Kazakhstan
rubles, then each Kazakhstan ruble is worth $0.25. Plus a commission for
the company doing the exchange.
That only explains how the rate is set, not why it is that way. That is
too complicated for me to try to explain. Debt, GNP, money printing,
confidence, etc. are all factors that drive the value of a currency. Get
a book on macroeconomics if you really care, but be warned that there is
no simple answer or formula.
The fact that your meal was less expensive than you expected probably,
however, has just as much to do with the lower cost of labor and cost of
living there than the exchange rate. An hour of labor in Kazakhstan is
not worth the same as an hour of the exact same labor in the USA. Labor
is not totally fungible, because it is location dependent.
A friend of mine who recently lived in the Phillipines has told me that
when a laborer showed up at his house to dig a trench across a concrete
driveway, the only tool he was provided to do the job was a piece of
steel rebar. It was cheaper to pay the guy for several days of labor
than to rent a jackhammer or saw that could do the job in a few hours.
That wouldn't be the case in the USA.
> I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
> money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
> salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
Depends. If the average wage goes up slowly, then all other things being
equal, many components of the cost of living will start to go up as well
(inflation). Rarely are the two a perfect match, though. In the real
world, not all wages rise uniformly, and the price of all things don't
go up at the same rate. In most countries (maybe all) this is further
compounded by government influencing wages/prices.
If you could wave your magic wand and make everyone's wages go up by
10%, what would happen? Well, in many countries, the take home pay would
not all go up by 10% (unequal taxation), so you would have introduced
some disparity there (actually, you would further exaggerate the
existing disparity). Prices of many items would soon go up (because
people could afford higher prices with their higher incomes), but some
government controlled commodities might see no price rises. This would
mean there would be some improvement in standard of living for the
average person, but at the expense of the producers of the controlled
price commodities. (They would have to pay the higher prices for the
items that did go up, but their income wouldn't be able to rise above
the original 10% magic wand increase, so they would be getting
relatively poorer.) Eventually, the government would theoretically raise
the controlled commodity prices by the proper amount (hah!) and
everything would be the same as when you started, with the exception of
the taxation disparity you have made worse. And the commodity producers
who were forced into bankruptcy. And the opportunists who found a way to
make money off the transition.
Amy Austin
"Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6UudnWItSK0...@comcast.com...
>
> > name? congrats.
>
> Thanks...her name is Sophie Celia Goldberg.
>
> :-)
GREAT NAME! Congratulations!
L & k,
Amy
mistakes were made
Well, and the whole point of the Big Mac scale is the Big Mac costs more or
less in some countries than the rate of exchange would predict.
StarChaser Tyger
>"The Economist" magazine maintains a list of exchange rates as
>calculated in BigMacs.
>http://www.oanda.com/products/bigmac/bigmac.shtml
Heh! That's my favorite currency conversion site, and I've never seen
that before...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Oliver Sampson
>"Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>My wife and I just got back from Kazakhstan where we bought a baby girl.
>>(well, we adpoted her but I joke that we bought her because of all the fees)
>>
>>Anyway, stuff there was really cheap compared to here. A good dinner with
>>appetizer and soda cost about $8.00 with tip. When I was exchanging money I
>>wondered what drives exchange rates?
>>
>>I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
>>money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
>>salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
>
>"The Economist" magazine maintains a list of exchange rates as
>calculated in BigMacs.
>http://www.oanda.com/products/bigmac/bigmac.shtml
>
>
>Kazakhstan is not on their list.
>
>If you read some webpages there are a lot of people who think that the
>US dollar is artificially propped at a very high point compared to
>where it would be in a free-er market. There are probably just as
>many people who call that bunkum. I don't feel like arguing the
>manipulation point in this thread.
The dollar may be artificially high, but I don't think it's through
manipulation. Over the years, the US has gained a reputation as a
very stable government with a very stable currency. When you're
looking for stable investments (as bankers are wont to do throughout
the world), the US comes up as number 1. In this case, it probably
reflects demand.
That being said, the dollar ain't looking so good right, now.
>
>The US dollar is the main "reserve" for national banks of other
>countries. It serves the role that gold filled in previous
>generations. Thus a large number of dollars are removed from
>circulation, propping the price of the remaining ones.
I don't think that's quite the way it works. When you buy dollars,
they don't actually ship you a box. Purchasing dollars refers to
purchasing some type of bond like a T-bill.
Thus, in
>theory, the US dollar is worth more than would be otherwise expected.
I've read this same argument, but it was in reference to shadow
economies, not the legal ones. If all of the money that was being
circulated in the drug communities and the street money in places
where they have hyper-inflation were to come back to the US, it could
put an inflationary pressure into the system, sure.
--
Oliver Sampson
ol...@quickaudio.com
http://www.oliversampson.com
Charles A Lieberman
> In general, it's simply how much of a certain commodity you could buy
> with either currency, such as (for example) gold. If you can buy (making
> up numbers here) an ounce of gold for US $300 or for 1200 Kazakhstan
> rubles, then each Kazakhstan ruble is worth $0.25.
That's one way of doing it, purchasing power parity. It's not useful for
comparing prices of things, however, since you end up finding that
everything costs the same everywhere (because it's a circular argument;
if the amount of dollars it takes to buy a car is deemed equal in value
to the amount of Elbonian dinras it takes to buy a car, and this ratio
is used to do the conversion, you find, amazingly enough, that the car
costs the same in both countries). If you're converting currency, the
market exchange rate is more useful. That's literally the cost of
[foreign currency] in dollars or vice versa. I suspect there are also
other parity measures, such as wages and shit like that. Economists can
learn stuff from comparing these rates, although I don't know what they
are.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | Arise, children of the fatherland!
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
groo
>
> In article <3EA466ED...@groo.org>, groo <gr...@groo.org> wrote:
>
> > In general, it's simply how much of a certain commodity you could buy
> > with either currency, such as (for example) gold. If you can buy (making
> > up numbers here) an ounce of gold for US $300 or for 1200 Kazakhstan
> > rubles, then each Kazakhstan ruble is worth $0.25.
>
> That's one way of doing it, purchasing power parity. It's not useful for
> comparing prices of things, however, since you end up finding that
> everything costs the same everywhere (because it's a circular argument;
> if the amount of dollars it takes to buy a car is deemed equal in value
> to the amount of Elbonian dinras it takes to buy a car, and this ratio
> is used to do the conversion, you find, amazingly enough, that the car
> costs the same in both countries). If you're converting currency, the
> market exchange rate is more useful. That's literally the cost of
> [foreign currency] in dollars or vice versa. I suspect there are also
> other parity measures, such as wages and shit like that. Economists can
> learn stuff from comparing these rates, although I don't know what they
> are.
I wasn't trying to compare the prices of things, I was try to illustrate
the concept of exchange rates.
Although exchange rates aren't exactly set the way I described, the
illustration is valid. If you find that you can buy a currency which can
then be used to purchase a commodity at a lower cost than it would be if
purchased in your native currency, you can turn a very healthy profit
(buy Kazakhstan rubles with dollars, use it to buy Au, sell Au to get
dollars, rinse and repeat).
There are people who exploit small inequities in the exchange rates this
way, which helps to keep the exchange rates on an even keel. Of course,
this implies that there are people willing to trade their gold for
Kazakhstan rubles, which is an important factor in how the actual
exchange rate is set.
Sean Houtman
According to my map, Georgia is almost next door. We can go there.
Odd thing, part of Azerbaijan is on the other side of Armenia. Is this a
possible violation of the 4 color rule?
Greg Goss
>If you're converting currency, the
>market exchange rate is more useful. That's literally the cost of
>[foreign currency] in dollars or vice versa. I suspect there are also
>other parity measures, such as wages and shit like that. Economists can
>learn stuff from comparing these rates, although I don't know what they
>are.
Governments have a habit of manipulating the official exchange rate.
The US forbid ownership of gold for their citizens for a long period.
The Soviets banned exchanging rubles for other currencies anywhere
other than at the official banks.
Mark Brader
> Odd thing, part of Azerbaijan is on the other side of Armenia. Is this a
> possible violation of the 4 color rule?
In the real world, there are lots of countries that consist of multiple
disconnected pieces, violating the premises of the four-color theorem.
The largest disconnected piece (that is, the largest piece that's the
second-largest part of its country) belongs to the US, and the second-
largest one belongs to Russia.
In attempting to four-color a map in the real world, you have to decide
what to do about water. If all lake and ocean water has to be the same
color and this counts as one of the four, then the lakes and oceans
effectively form a single country that is massively divided into
disconnected pieces, and it doesn't take many other countries before
you get stuck. For example, each of Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia, and
Brazil touches all three of the others, so they need four colors; but
all four countries contain lakes, requiring a fifth color.
On the other hand, if you say that the lakes and oceans don't count,
then none of the actual countries with disconnected pieces causes a
problem in four-coloring, as far as I know. In every case one of
the following situations applies:
(1) The disconnected pieces are enclaves within a country that was
already adjacent to the main piece of the country (e.g. Campione
d'Italia, Italy, surrounded by Switzerland; Belgian enclaves
surrounded by the Netherlands), and don't touch any other
countries, so they don't affect coloring.
(2) The disconnected pieces are islands and don't touch any other
country (e.g. Hawaii, USA; Martinique, France; Canary Is., Spain).
(3) The disconnected pieces are on physically separate continents,
which can be colored independently. If there were two such
cases involving the same continents, that wouldn't work, but
there's only the one: French Guiana, France.
(4) The disconnected piece shares a coastline with the main piece
of the country (e.g. Kaliningrad oblast, Russia; Alaska, USA;
Cabinda, Angola; European Turkey; Ceuta, Spain). The coastline
doesn't touch any other country, so we can imagine a strip of
coast connecting the main and disconnected pieces being
transferred to the country that they're both part of -- or if
simpler, imagine a section of water between the two pieces
being treated as national territory.
Such a change eliminates the disconnected piece and makes the map
conform to the four-color theorem, and any coloring that would
work if was done happened will also work on the real-world map.
Of course this only works if these hypothetical transfers do not
intersect, but in fact none of them do.
(5) Azerbaijan doesn't meet any of these descriptions, but the
disconnected piece only touches Iran, which the main piece
also touches, so it doesn't create a problem.
I now await a posting from someone pointing out an example that I
didn't think of and which makes my conclusion wrong...
--
Mark Brader | The "I didn't think of that" type of failure occurs because
Toronto | I didn't think of that, and the reason I didn't think of it
m...@vex.net | is because it never occurred to me. If we'd been able to
| think of 'em, we would have. -- John W. Campbell
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Oliver Sampson
>I now await a posting from someone pointing out an example that I
>didn't think of and which makes my conclusion wrong...
On page 25 of the Jan, 2003 issue of Scientific American, there's a
blurb entitled "Color Madness: Oddball Maps can require more than four
colors."
It does state that on a planar map, it has been mathematically proven
that four colors are all that's necessary so that two bordering
countries don't share the same color. (not counting countries that
meet at a point.) Interestingly, it takes at most seven colors for
maps on a torus.
Bill Kinkaid
>
>A friend of mine who recently lived in the Phillipines has told me that
>when a laborer showed up at his house to dig a trench across a concrete
>driveway, the only tool he was provided to do the job was a piece of
>steel rebar. It was cheaper to pay the guy for several days of labor
>than to rent a jackhammer or saw that could do the job in a few hours.
>That wouldn't be the case in the USA.
>
Not necessarily. I just had about C$1200 worth of work done on my car
for C$520 by a guy who's a professional mechanic and instructor who
does work on the side when he has the time. But I was willing to wait
two weeks while he did it (took somewhat longer than it should have
due to some complications). You can have good, cheap, and fast, but
only two of the three.
Bill in Vancouver
Lalbert1
<ol...@quickaudio.com> writes:
Today's "Zippy" strip (4/23) is all about the big toroidal shape, but he only
shows it in one color:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/comics/Zippy_the_Pinhead_C
olor.dtl
Les
Gary S. Callison
: I just had about C$1200 worth of work done on my car for C$520 by a
: guy who's a professional mechanic and instructor who does work on the
: side when he has the time. But I was willing to wait two weeks while he
: did it (took somewhat longer than it should have due to some
: complications). You can have good, cheap, and fast, but only two of the
: three.
The term for that is 'side jobs'. Many construction workers do similar
things. The difference in price is the markup the company charges on time
and material versus what the guy actually doing the work gets. If a brake
job from a professional mechanic breaks down to one book hour of labor at
$60, four rotors turned at $10 each, and two sets of brake shoes at $50
each, that's $200 retail. The same brake job, done by a guy in his garage
who just surface-scuffs the rotors (most of them don't need to be turned
anyways) and pays $40 for one set of brake pads (most cars don't need
rears anyways) and only takes him twenty minutes, he can charge half
as much as you would have paid for the same service, and pocket $60 for
fifteen minutes worth of work, versus the $25 he'd have been paid for the
book hour at the shop. Better for him, better for you, everybody's happy.
The tax implications are left as an exercise for the reader.
--
Huey
Mark Brader
> On page 25 of the Jan, 2003 issue of Scientific American, there's a
> blurb entitled "Color Madness: Oddball Maps can require more than four
> colors."
>
> It does state that on a planar map, it has been mathematically proven
> that four colors are all that's necessary so that two bordering
We know THAT. That's just the four-color theorem; it was proved in
1976. However, it doesn't necessarily apply if the countries are made
of disconnected pieces. THAT was the point under discussion.
--
Mark Brader "... we still feel that color is hard
Toronto on the eyes for so long a picture ..."
m...@vex.net -- N.Y. Times review of GONE WITH THE WIND
Oliver Sampson
>Oliver Sampson writes:
>> On page 25 of the Jan, 2003 issue of Scientific American, there's a
>> blurb entitled "Color Madness: Oddball Maps can require more than four
>> colors."
>>
>> It does state that on a planar map, it has been mathematically proven
>> that four colors are all that's necessary so that two bordering
>> countries don't share the same color...
>
>We know THAT. That's just the four-color theorem; it was proved in
>1976. However, it doesn't necessarily apply if the countries are made
>of disconnected pieces. THAT was the point under discussion.
So, you missed the point, then. See the title above? Says, "oddball
maps can require more than four colors." See the description below?
Says (paraphrase) what we already know. Then I went on to describe
something cool and useless that someone has proved how many colors one
needs for a torus.
I even gave a cite, so you could read up on it.
groo
>
>
> So, you missed the point, then. See the title above? Says, "oddball
> maps can require more than four colors." See the description below?
> Says (paraphrase) what we already know. Then I went on to describe
> something cool and useless that someone has proved how many colors one
> needs for a torus.
>
A torus only needs one color. I prefer white frosting.
Opus the Penguin
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:19:48 GMT, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>>Oliver Sampson writes:
>>> On page 25 of the Jan, 2003 issue of Scientific American,
>>> there's a blurb entitled "Color Madness: Oddball Maps can
>>> require more than four colors."
>>>
>>> It does state that on a planar map, it has been mathematically
>>> proven that four colors are all that's necessary so that two
>>> bordering countries don't share the same color...
>>
>>We know THAT. That's just the four-color theorem; it was proved
>>in 1976. However, it doesn't necessarily apply if the countries
>>are made of disconnected pieces. THAT was the point under
>>discussion.
>
> So, you missed the point, then.
I'm thinking you did, actually. You responded to Mark with some things
he already knew, one thing that he may or may not have known that
didn't answer the question, and nothing that answered the question.
> See the title above?
Yep.
> Says, "oddball maps can require more than four colors."
As implicitly stipulated in the first sentence of Brader's post. He
wants to know if one particular map (ours) requires more than four
colors. That question is not answered by the generalization you cite.
> See the description below? Says (paraphrase) what we already know.
Exactly. Now Mark wants to know something we don't already know.
Namely, can a planar map of the world as we know it be done in four
colors? He considers all the examples he can find that make our globe
an "oddball map." He notes that none of those examples require more
than four colors.
So now he wants to know: 1) Is his analysis of those oddball
situations correct? And, 2) Did he miss any oddball situations that
*would* require more than four colors?
Now you're up to date.
--
Opus the Penguin
"I shall go and kick myself now." - Nikitta (aka MEow)
GrapeApe
violating the four color theorem.
The special cases that DO prove the exception usually gerrymander themselves
into a size smaller than the observer. It could be a spiral shaped country or a
comb shaped country, and have five districts interweaved to the point that four
colors just isn't enough information.
A cult of no
was at least some quibble that the so-called proof was more an experiment.
--
."Besides invading other people's countries, and forcing them to do whatever he
said, Alexander the Great was famous for something called the Gordian Knot."
RM Mentock
>
> Was the four color theorem actually prooved? I was under the impression there
> was at least some quibble that the so-called proof was more an experiment.
No, they're satisfied with it.
--
RM Mentock
'No,' answered Jarry. 'It's a reduction.' -- Guillaume Apollinaire
RM Mentock
If the districts aren't contiguous, then you have a problem. Otherwise,
no.
But that's the same with countries.
John Lawler
>A cult of no writes:
>> Was the four color theorem actually proved?
>> I was under the impression there was at least some quibble that the
>> so-called proof was more an experiment.
>No, they're satisfied with it.
Well, they accept it, grudgingly, because it's a proof by exhaustion and
they have to accept that. But they grumble about it, because what
mathematicians really want in a proof -- and what this one doesn't deliver
-- is understanding, and they still don't understand *why* four colors
suffice to color any map on a sphere or plane.
All that's ever been proved is what mapmakers have known for centuries,
i.e, *that* four colors do in fact suffice, because no possible case needs
more than four, as determined by running this algorithm here on all of the
cases, or at least on each of some smaller set of cases that's been proven
to be equivalent to all of the cases if you look at them all the right
way, and to have the same effects as running this algorithm here on all of
the cases.
Which, of course, doesn't tell anybody *why* anything. So, although it's
officially proven, many mathematicians consider the proof inelegant, which
is to some a worse sin than being incorrect.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once you have the cap and gown all you need do is open your mouth. What-
ever nonsense you talk becomes wisdom and all the rubbish, good sense."
-- Moliere
Greg Goss
>A cult of no wrote:
>>
>> Was the four color theorem actually prooved? I was under the impression there
>> was at least some quibble that the so-called proof was more an experiment.
>
>No, they're satisfied with it.
I seem to recall that someone found a loophole a couple of months
after the announcement and that they closed the loophole with more
cruft a few months after that.
Mark Brader
>>> Was the four color theorem actually prooved? I was under the
>>> impression there was at least some quibble that the so-called
>>> proof was more an experiment.
This is because the proof involved so many cases that a computer program
was required to enumerate and test them all.
R.M. Mentock answered:
>> No, they're satisfied with it.
Well, I'm sure that people would be *more* satisfied by a proof that
did not depend on the correctness of a program. Are the hundreds of
cases that it enumerated really all that there are? Did it really
test them all correctly? But it's now been more than 25 years, so
presumably any bugs would have come to light by this time.
Greg Goss confused:
> I seem to recall that someone found a loophole a couple of months
> after the announcement and that they closed the loophole with more
> cruft a few months after that.
No, nothing like that happened. I suspect Greg is thinking of the
proof of that *other* long-unanwered question, Fermat's Last Theorem,
in the 1990s. The proof first announced by Andrew Wiles turned out
on close examination to be wrong. At some point he had accidentally
made an assumption, let's say of the form "if A then B". His initial
reaction was that "if A then B" was correct, so he just needed to
prove it -- which sounds like what Greg must means by "they closed
the loophole with more cruft", although I don't see why such an
insulting word would be deserved.
However, Wiles then realized that "if A then B" *wasn't* correct, or
maybe that even if it was, he still couldn't find a way to prove it.
He then threw out a large chunk of his attempted proof and tried again
with a completely different line of reasoning, which had had attempted
once years before and failed. This time he succeeded, and the Wolfskehl
Prize was won.
--
Mark Brader | The only trouble was, no despot had the resources to plan
m...@vex.net | every detail in his society's behavior. Not even planet-
Toronto | wrecker bombs had as dire a reputation for eliminating
| civilizations. --Vernor Vinge, "A Deepness in the Sky"
Bill Jones
evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
Regards,
Bill J.
D.F. Manno
ket...@checkmysig.com wrote:
> I note that the American Dollar is doing all right against the British
> Pound, which is the one I generally look at--but, why on earth are dollars
> ALWAYS less than pounds? What is up with that? Is the British economy so
> much better than ours, all the time?
Because so many things you buy by the pound cost more than a dollar.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
GrapeApe
>> Pound, which is the one I generally look at--but, why on earth are dollars
>> ALWAYS less than pounds? What is up with that? Is the British economy
>so
>> much better than ours, all the time?
They are relatively interconnected to the point that if one does well, so does
the other, more or less, equally sprinkled with many of the same english
speaking multinational corporations driving their economies. The biggest bomb
dropped on the pound lately has probably been EU, the euro.
I'm not sure why the Canadian dollar seems to show more relative fluctuation.
Their economy is based more on more localized production and exports, such as
Paper and Timber?
ctc...@hotmail.com
> I am intersted in knowing how a posting on 'currency exchange rates"
> evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
New in town?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
N Jill Marsh
>So limeys, do people still use "shilling" as a unit of value, and if so do
>they mean by it 12 pence, or 1/20 of a pound?
Only at nasty sorts of theme parks where they insist you have to use
an old style money so employees and geezers can confuse and torment
non-dinosaurs with lightning fast change making and such.
nj"ironbridge"m
--
"It's important to take time out to have fun with your friends,
particularly if they spend considerable time doing your bidding."
Sean Houtman
>> Odd thing, part of Azerbaijan is on the other side of Armenia. Is this a
>> possible violation of the 4 color rule?
<Attack post with a supersize pair of snippers>>(5) Azerbaijan doesn't meet any
of these descriptions, but the
> disconnected piece only touches Iran, which the main piece
> also touches, so it doesn't create a problem.
>
>I now await a posting from someone pointing out an example that I
>didn't think of and which makes my conclusion wrong...
For values of Iran that include Armenia and Turkey...
Sean Houtman
>
>I am intersted in knowing how a posting on 'currency exchange rates"
>evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
>
1) Poster announces arrival of adopted child from Kazakhstan, mentions low cost
of meals.
2) Comment is made about how you can convert many monetary units into Big Macs,
but not Kazakhstani Tenges.
3) It was observed that any currency converter will allow you convert the Tenge
to anything on the dollar menu.
4) Someone else said there would be difficulty finding any Big Macs in
Kazakstan.
5) A play on the name "Georgia" resulted, since that name is used by both a
nearby country, and a state in the US, where Big Macs may not be in such short
supply. At the same time the poster noted that Azerbaijan was not a contiguous
country, and questioned the 4 color rule.
It often takes fewer steps to throw a thread off course in this group.
RM Mentock
>
> I am intersted in knowing how a posting on 'currency exchange rates"
> evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
find your inner newsreader
Rick B.
news:962b628d.03042...@posting.google.com:
> I am intersted in knowing how a posting on 'currency exchange
> rates" evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
It's what we do around here. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D5AA0A3.AAB1E140%40groo.org
And if you can manage it, read this post without peeking at the
subject line until you're finished:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19990504204913.02855.00002208%40
ng147.aol.com (or http://tinyurl.com/agmr ).
Rick B.
groo
>
>
>
> It often takes fewer steps to throw a thread off course in this group.
>
Like one.
Opus the Penguin
> So limeys, do people still use "shilling" as a unit of value, and
> if so do they mean by it 12 pence, or 1/20 of a pound?
I got a shilling in change in 1985. Was told it was worth 5p.
My parents bought a bunch of Cadbury bars in the duty free shop.
They were all prominently marked "2P Off."
A friend of mine was in London when Wimpy's was giving away pencil
erasers in the shape of their hero. The sign said "Free Wimpy
Rubber."
Alan Hamilton
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
>ctc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> So limeys, do people still use "shilling" as a unit of value, and
>> if so do they mean by it 12 pence, or 1/20 of a pound?
>
>I got a shilling in change in 1985. Was told it was worth 5p.
While in New Zealand in 2001, I got a 1964 florin coin in change.
It's worth NZ$0.20. They decimalised in 1967. Unlike the UK, they
ditched the pound/pence terminology and switched to dollars and cents.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Mark Brader
>>> Odd thing, part of Azerbaijan is on the other side of Armenia. Is this a
>>> possible violation of the 4 color rule?
>> [for] Azerbaijan ... the disconnected piece only touches Iran,
>> which the main piece also touches, so it doesn't create a problem.
> For values of Iran that include Armenia and Turkey...
Argh. Two different errors. What I *meant* was, "besides the obvious
strip of Armenia between the two pieces, the disconnected [smaller] piece
of Azerbaijan only touches Iran, which the main piece also touches..."
And that was wrong too, because I was going by a misleading map that
doesn't show the tiny twisty border area where Turkey touches Azerbaijan
-- it looks as though Iran touches Armenia instead. And I *knew* about
that, and I still forgot it. Sorry, and thanks for the correction, Sean.
Fortunately, it doesn't affect the conclusion. Imagine Russia, Turkey,
and Georgia united into a single country, and Armenia and Azerbaijan
united into a single country. This eliminates the disconnection and
(by the reasoning in my previous posting) creates a 4-colorable world.
Now restore the actual borders. Russia and Turkey can keep the same
color, since they don't touch each other; and Georgia can become the
same color as Iran, which it doesn't touch. So now the complete set
of four other countries that touch Armenia and/or Azerbaijan is using
just two colors, so Armenia and Azerbaijan can have the other two. QED.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't get clever at 5PM Friday."
m...@vex.net -- Tom Van Vleck
groo
>
> ctc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > So limeys, do people still use "shilling" as a unit of value, and
> > if so do they mean by it 12 pence, or 1/20 of a pound?
>
> I got a shilling in change in 1985. Was told it was worth 5p.
>
> My parents bought a bunch of Cadbury bars in the duty free shop.
> They were all prominently marked "2P Off."
>
> A friend of mine was in London when Wimpy's was giving away pencil
> erasers in the shape of their hero. The sign said "Free Wimpy
> Rubber."
My favorite anglo/american communications breakdown was in a meeting at
work (in the UK) when an American commented about someone who had done a
commendable job being worthy of a pat on the fanny.
OTOH, I was a bit surprised when someone came up with a team name with
the initials PMS.
Adam Smith
> From: "Eddie G" mick...@comcast.net
>
> >I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
> >money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
> >salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
> >
>
> Especially on the low end of the scale, paying people more money means they
> spend more, which is generally a good thing for the economy.
<snicker>
Rich people spend money too. Outside of cash on hand, everyone spends
everything they earn on *something*.
Minimum wage laws, by pricing some potential workers (specifically the
unproductive) out of the market hurt the poor.
Of course
> Republicans don't like that to happen on the supposition that poor people
> spending money is bad for small business.
Gee, a prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant Lefty, how shocking . . .
Adam Smith
> Anyway, stuff there was really cheap compared to here. A good dinner with
> appetizer and soda cost about $8.00 with tip. When I was exchanging money I
> wondered what drives exchange rates?
Relative demand for the countries tradable goods.
> I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
> money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
> salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
Yep. More money chasing the same amount of goods just bids prices up.
A cult of no
>Rich people spend money too.
But not as productively; in ways that encourage capital investment.
Bill Kinkaid
>seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote in message news:<20030421005450...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>> From: "Eddie G" mick...@comcast.net
>>
>> >I was also thinking what would happen if people started getting paid more
>> >money...then as they spend more money wouldn't prices start going up, and
>> >salaries compared to cost of living would stay relative?
>> >
>> Especially on the low end of the scale, paying people more money means they
>> spend more, which is generally a good thing for the economy.
><snicker>
>
>Rich people spend money too. Outside of cash on hand, everyone spends
>everything they earn on *something*.
>
>Minimum wage laws, by pricing some potential workers (specifically the
>unproductive) out of the market hurt the poor.
>
Seriously, if people are truly "unproductive" do you really want them
in the workplace? I talk to a dozen people a day who are apparently
making minimum wage and are probably overpaid, and can't help thinking
that if they paid a decent salary (even $10 an hour) they might
attract more competent people, which would improve their business,
make it worth paying them more, and put the dumbums in another
position which does not involve using a telephone. You pay peanuts,
you get monkeys.
Bill in Vancouver
Adam Smith
> loc...@hotmail.com (Adam Smith) writes:
>
> >Rich people spend money too.
>
> But not as productively; in ways that encourage capital investment.
Wrong as usual, George. Rich people invest MORE in actual capital
than the less rich (both as a percentage and in absolute dollars).
Sean Houtman
>
>My parents bought a bunch of Cadbury bars in the duty free shop.
>They were all prominently marked "2P Off."
>
And when their friend asked them how much they paid for those Cadbury bars, did
they tell them "2P Off"?
mike
"Adam Smith" <loc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8130079e.03043...@posting.google.com...
well, yeah... if youre rich like saddam, you build more palaces! look how
all that money trickled down!
A cult of no
>mutigho...@aol.comawaaay (A cult of no) wrote in message
>news:<20030429215212...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>> loc...@hotmail.com (Adam Smith) writes:
>>
>> >Rich people spend money too.
>>
>> But not as productively; in ways that encourage capital investment.
>
>
>Wrong as usual, George.
Your economic analysis is less valuable than mine, as look at your overhead.
> Rich people invest MORE in actual capital
>than the less rich (both as a percentage and in absolute dollars).
Well, maybe, but only in response to consumption, and who drives consumption?
Meanwhile, it wasn't poor people driving the speculative bubble in the
stockmarket the last couple few years that finally burst such that George Bush
had to invade harmless third world nations so the typically witless republican
would mistake him for a good president.
Bill Kinkaid
wrote:
>From: bill_jo...@yahoo.com (Bill Jones)
>>
>>I am intersted in knowing how a posting on 'currency exchange rates"
>>evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
>
>1) Poster announces arrival of adopted child from Kazakhstan, mentions low cost
>of meals.
>
>2) Comment is made about how you can convert many monetary units into Big Macs,
>but not Kazakhstani Tenges.
>
>3) It was observed that any currency converter will allow you convert the Tenge
>to anything on the dollar menu.
>
>4) Someone else said there would be difficulty finding any Big Macs in
>Kazakstan.
>
>5) A play on the name "Georgia" resulted, since that name is used by both a
>nearby country, and a state in the US, where Big Macs may not be in such short
>supply. At the same time the poster noted that Azerbaijan was not a contiguous
>country, and questioned the 4 color rule.
>
>It often takes fewer steps to throw a thread off course in this group.
>
How about those Canucks, eh?
Bill in Vancouver
N Jill Marsh
<kin...@telus.net>wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2003 01:05:28 GMT, seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman)
>wrote:
>
>>From: bill_jo...@yahoo.com (Bill Jones)
>>>
>>>I am intersted in knowing how a posting on 'currency exchange rates"
>>>evolved into a discussion of the "four color theorem"?
>>
>>It often takes fewer steps to throw a thread off course in this group.
>>
>
>How about those Canucks, eh?
Go Canucks, I'm hoping for an all-Canadian final, NHL income be
damned.
nj"has no flags on car"m
--
"To aleviate a guest's embarassment over breaking or damaging an
object, a good host or hostess will continue the conversation to
divert attention from the incident."
Sean Houtman
> Of course
>> Republicans don't like that to happen on the supposition that poor people
>> spending money is bad for small business.
>
>
>Gee, a prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant Lefty, how shocking . . .
>
Odd that you needed to add all those adjectives, are they ordinarily built into
the definition of a Righty? I also note that you failed to address the issue.