Talk:Chisanbop

We sure could use a cross-reference to this article from "Chisambop". Took me forever to find it.

-done, 20/Jan/2006 --User:NathanBeach

Spelling of chisanbop

"Chisenbop" appears to be a misspelling. "Chisanbop" is a more accurate romanization of 지산법. It is also used in books such as The Complete Book of Chisanbop by Hang Young Pai. I suggest making Chisanbop the main article and having a redirect from Chisenbop to Chisanbop. Davidimai 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of chisanbop

According to The Complete Book of Chisanbop by Hang Young Pai, chisanbop was created in the 1940s in Korea by Sung Jin Pai and revised by his son Hang Young Pai. It was brought to the U.S. around 1977 by Hang Young Pai. "Chisanbop" was registered as a U.S. trademark in 1980 but the trademark expired in 1987. I find no support for the statement "It is said to be of ancient Korean origin." Davidimai 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to money

One of the reasons this counting method may be easy to remember is that it is analogous to many common currency systems. For example, US currency has coin denominations of 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 cents, as well as bills of 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 dollars. (There's a discrepancy between 10 and 50 in this case, as the coin is 25 cents and the bill is 20 dollars, and the 50+ cent and 50+ dollar denominations are less commonly used, but the concept is there.) And most other nations have similar systems for their currency (sometimes varying by order of magnitude), stressing the 1's and 5's in each of the significant places. So we are already used to counting in this way whenever we handle money. (This makes it unlike binary finger counting, because most people outside of the computer industry are not used to counting in binary.) Should this be mentioned in the article? Lurlock (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rather like the numbers that each distinct letter represents in roman numerals — and probably several other number systems. I guess it's just a convenient compromise between simplicity and conciseness. —DIV (1.145.51.120 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.