Talk:3092: Baker's Units - Revision history

2001:4C4E:1C03:8000:C51E:182C:A5F5:1F6: numbers

2025-10-26T20:25:35Z

numbers

64.114.211.60: Quibble over the baker's octave

2025-09-29T05:51:16Z

Quibble over the baker's octave

172.70.160.205 at 08:38, 27 May 2025

2025-05-27T08:38:21Z

172.69.79.190 at 00:26, 26 May 2025

2025-05-26T00:26:08Z

172.70.174.78 at 12:38, 25 May 2025

2025-05-25T12:38:18Z

物灵 at 05:14, 25 May 2025

2025-05-25T05:14:00Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Ignore Dad. :)

2025-05-25T02:05:29Z

Ignore Dad. :)

172.69.194.99 at 09:00, 24 May 2025

2025-05-24T09:00:48Z

172.69.22.29: suggesting 13 notes to a standard octave, rather than redefining the octave...

2025-05-24T08:59:28Z

suggesting 13 notes to a standard octave, rather than redefining the octave...

172.71.164.102: count to 12 on 1 hand

2025-05-24T06:20:36Z

count to 12 on 1 hand

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 26 October 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:

	You get an extra letter's worth of baker's magnesium if you're British. :-D [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190\|172.69.79.190]] 00:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)		You get an extra letter's worth of baker's magnesium if you're British. :-D [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190\|172.69.79.190]] 00:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Some other "numbers in baker's units":
		+	*Baker's trillion (10<sup>13</sup>) – 13 zeros instead of 12, so ten trillion
		+	*Baker's undecillion (duodecillion, 10<sup>3(13)</sup> = 10<sup>39</sup>) – 13 groups of 3 instead of 12
		+	*Baker's duodecillion (tredecillion, 10<sup>3(14)</sup> = 10<sup>42</sup>) – 14 is the 13th integer larger than 1, and so "duodecim" is replaced with "tredecim".
		+	[[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C03:8000:C51E:182C:A5F5:1F6\|2001:4C4E:1C03:8000:C51E:182C:A5F5:1F6]] 20:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 29 September 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:

	The Baker’s octave is tied with the major sixth for the prettiest interval, in my opinion. In fact, do both at once (so C A D for instance) for an unusual but pretty chord.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.78\|172.70.174.78]] 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)		The Baker’s octave is tied with the major sixth for the prettiest interval, in my opinion. In fact, do both at once (so C A D for instance) for an unusual but pretty chord.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.78\|172.70.174.78]] 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
		+	:Except that a baker's octave should probably be C to D-flat, and there's probably either an error or a trick in the cartoon. [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.60\|64.114.211.60]] 05:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

	You get an extra letter's worth of baker's magnesium if you're British. :-D [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190\|172.69.79.190]] 00:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)		You get an extra letter's worth of baker's magnesium if you're British. :-D [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190\|172.69.79.190]] 00:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 My main objection to the possibility of giving out not-quite-a-dozen loaves (whether 'rectangular tin' type or round 'farmhouse loaves', whatever the style of loaf a contemporary baker would have produced in that era) is that it is ''very'' easy to visually confirm a dozen regularly-sized items, because a dozen is so much easier to visualise: A 3x4 array (square or skewed) is ''very'' easy to compare to one with one item missing (even if you have difficulty with 2x5 stretching out too far to stay unragged and even, when you can't even count as far as the fingers on one hand). Even piled up, 2x2x3 (whichever way the '3' lies) works well. (Put in a square pyramid, for the ''really'' fancy, three layers gives 14, so removing the pinacle for a 3x3 with only 2x2 on top could give 13, but why not take off/leave one more? Triangularly pyramid-stacked, say for round-loaves, three stable layers is 10, so add a couple more. Four stacks of 2-and-1 or two stacks of 3-2-and-1 'vertical wedge's would give you 12 without exceeding any easy counting. Of course, the disnumerate would have to learn "the patterns", all of which would be less obvious than a flat or stacked purely square-based array.) But who are these bakers who are baking in bulk (presumably with a ''degree'' of consistency between their loaves/other-baked-products) and frequently ''selling in bulk'' (as opposed to a farthing or ha'penny loaf, or two, per average household per day, so probably a sufficiently large ''landed'' household with staff/servants, yet not large enough to have a dedicated in-house baker/cooking-staff doing their own on-demand baking) that they're regularly and rapidly passing over handfulls of larye, loose baked-product over the counter and yet aren't taking just enough extra effort to ensure that they're not diddling the customer (or, more of immediate concern, diddling themselves through sheer carelessness!). And not in a manner that even only the partially-numerate (both sides of of the purchase?) can easily and correctly judge by eye (to consistently bake decent loaves, you're probably going to get ''very'' good at judging relative volumes/weights of even powders!). - And, here's a practical excercise: get a bucket of tennis balls (or anything large enough for one to occupy a hand) and manually transfer them from that bucket to another. I bet most people will dive in with both hands and grab two at a time in synchrony (or stocato left-right/left-right/..., or vice-versa). Very hard to do that ''almost'' six times and end up with an off by one error. Do it enough times, perhaps you even tend to grab two balls, use them to support a third between them to transfer ''three'' in each transfer... Hup, hup, hup, hup! That's your dozen, and bread can be handled in the same manner (careful not to damage the crust...). Small enough balls(/pastries), or big enough hands, to fit two in each hand? "Hup, hup, hup" will do your dozen, and you'll ''already'' know if your grabs failed to hold two of them (whether by overgrab, side-grab, scooping up, etc).  ...I'm far more convinced that the (or, at least, ''a'') true source of the Baker's Dozen was just as a "Loss Leader". For those who ''could'' buy such items (one of the few daily essentials that could be "mass produced", in a way) a dozen at a time, they were given an extra item for being a good customer. A little extra goodwill, with a loss of potential profit on that single transaction (8⅓% of gross) less than a typical tythe (⅒th, 10%). (Not that tythes worked that way, exactly.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.166|172.70.163.166]] 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
 : It is actually easy to count to 12 on one hand, just use the thumb to count the bones in the other fingers. It even leaves the other hand free to transfer whatever you're counting. (Western culture simply sucks at counting on fingers.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.164.102|172.71.164.102]] 06:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
+:My understanding of it was that it was to avoid shorting the customer by weight, not by count. There can be non-negligible variance in the weight of baked loaves/rolls even if the dough weight was identical, and there's also plenty of potential for error in the dough weight. But it's extremely unlikely that the weights will be off by enough that a 13th item won't make up the possible shortfall. Looking it up, this seems to be the leading theory, but there's no definite confirmation from historical sources. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.117|162.158.42.117]] 23:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
-My understanding of it was that it was to avoid shorting the customer by weight, not by count. There can be non-negligible variance in the weight of baked loaves/rolls even if the dough weight was identical, and there's also plenty of potential for error in the dough weight. But it's extremely unlikely that the weights will be off by enough that a 13th item won't make up the possible shortfall. Looking it up, this seems to be the leading theory, but there's no definite confirmation from historical sources. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.117|162.158.42.117]] 23:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
+:My nana told me the 13th loaf in a bakers dozen was to make up for any shortfall in the weight of the loaves. I never heard that a baker would be penalized if he charged for 12 but gave you 11. If the buyer does not count the loaves, nana would say that is the buyer's fault. Nana was from the old country. {{unsigned ip|162.158.167.191|04:31, 24 May 2025}}
 ''Title text: 169 is a baker's gross.'' I thought a Baker's gross described a disqusting pastry. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, 26 May 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:

	The Baker’s octave is tied with the major sixth for the prettiest interval, in my opinion. In fact, do both at once (so C A D for instance) for an unusual but pretty chord.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.78\|172.70.174.78]] 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)		The Baker’s octave is tied with the major sixth for the prettiest interval, in my opinion. In fact, do both at once (so C A D for instance) for an unusual but pretty chord.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.78\|172.70.174.78]] 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	You get an extra letter's worth of baker's magnesium if you're British. :-D [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190\|172.69.79.190]] 00:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 25 May 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:

	Every day my workload supposed to finish by noon is still not finished at Baker’s noon, so I empathize with the concept. [[User:物灵\|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵\|talk]]) 05:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)		Every day my workload supposed to finish by noon is still not finished at Baker’s noon, so I empathize with the concept. [[User:物灵\|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵\|talk]]) 05:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	The Baker’s octave is tied with the major sixth for the prettiest interval, in my opinion. In fact, do both at once (so C A D for instance) for an unusual but pretty chord.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.78\|172.70.174.78]] 12:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:14, 25 May 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	''Title text: 169 is a baker's gross.'' I thought a Baker's gross described a disqusting pastry. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 02:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)		''Title text: 169 is a baker's gross.'' I thought a Baker's gross described a disqusting pastry. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 02:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Every day my workload supposed to finish by noon is still not finished at Baker’s noon, so I empathize with the concept. [[User:物灵\|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵\|talk]]) 05:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:05, 25 May 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:

	My nana told me the 13th loaf in a bakers dozen was to make up for any shortfall in the weight of the loaves. I never heard that a baker would be penalized if he charged for 12 but gave you 11. If the buyer does not count the loaves, nana would say that is the buyer's fault. Nana was from the old country. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.167.191\|04:31, 24 May 2025}}		My nana told me the 13th loaf in a bakers dozen was to make up for any shortfall in the weight of the loaves. I never heard that a baker would be penalized if he charged for 12 but gave you 11. If the buyer does not count the loaves, nana would say that is the buyer's fault. Nana was from the old country. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.167.191\|04:31, 24 May 2025}}
		+
		+	''Title text: 169 is a baker's gross.'' I thought a Baker's gross described a disqusting pastry. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 02:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 24 May 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:

	My understanding of it was that it was to avoid shorting the customer by weight, not by count. There can be non-negligible variance in the weight of baked loaves/rolls even if the dough weight was identical, and there's also plenty of potential for error in the dough weight. But it's extremely unlikely that the weights will be off by enough that a 13th item won't make up the possible shortfall. Looking it up, this seems to be the leading theory, but there's no definite confirmation from historical sources. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.117\|162.158.42.117]] 23:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)		My understanding of it was that it was to avoid shorting the customer by weight, not by count. There can be non-negligible variance in the weight of baked loaves/rolls even if the dough weight was identical, and there's also plenty of potential for error in the dough weight. But it's extremely unlikely that the weights will be off by enough that a 13th item won't make up the possible shortfall. Looking it up, this seems to be the leading theory, but there's no definite confirmation from historical sources. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.117\|162.158.42.117]] 23:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
−	My nana told me the 13th loaf in a bakers dozen was to make up for any shortfall in the weight of the loaves. I never heard that a baker would be penalized if he charged for 12 but gave you 11. If the buyer does not count the loaves, nana would say that is the buyer's fault. Nana was from the old country.	+
		+	My nana told me the 13th loaf in a bakers dozen was to make up for any shortfall in the weight of the loaves. I never heard that a baker would be penalized if he charged for 12 but gave you 11. If the buyer does not count the loaves, nana would say that is the buyer's fault. Nana was from the old country. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.167.191\|04:31, 24 May 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 24 May 2025
Line 20:		Line 20:

	The clef in the Baker's Octave seems to mark the gap between 2nd and 3rd line from the bottom. A normal treble clef has a "ring" part spanning two line gaps, with the "dot" pinning the G to the middle line. This one is closer to a one-gap ring with the dot in the gap. That might be a layman's excusable sloppiness ... or it could well be intentional. In the latter case, the notes shown would indeed be B3 and C5, making the interval a 13-semitone minor 9th. [[User:Sesc\|Sesc]] ([[User talk:Sesc\|talk]]) 09:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)		The clef in the Baker's Octave seems to mark the gap between 2nd and 3rd line from the bottom. A normal treble clef has a "ring" part spanning two line gaps, with the "dot" pinning the G to the middle line. This one is closer to a one-gap ring with the dot in the gap. That might be a layman's excusable sloppiness ... or it could well be intentional. In the latter case, the notes shown would indeed be B3 and C5, making the interval a 13-semitone minor 9th. [[User:Sesc\|Sesc]] ([[User talk:Sesc\|talk]]) 09:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Couldn't you also get a Baker's Octave by spacing your notes at root13(2) instead of the traditional semitone at root12(2) apart?

	My main objection to the possibility of giving out not-quite-a-dozen loaves (whether 'rectangular tin' type or round 'farmhouse loaves', whatever the style of loaf a contemporary baker would have produced in that era) is that it is ''very'' easy to visually confirm a dozen regularly-sized items, because a dozen is so much easier to visualise: A 3x4 array (square or skewed) is ''very'' easy to compare to one with one item missing (even if you have difficulty with 2x5 stretching out too far to stay unragged and even, when you can't even count as far as the fingers on one hand). Even piled up, 2x2x3 (whichever way the '3' lies) works well. (Put in a square pyramid, for the ''really'' fancy, three layers gives 14, so removing the pinacle for a 3x3 with only 2x2 on top could give 13, but why not take off/leave one more? Triangularly pyramid-stacked, say for round-loaves, three stable layers is 10, so add a couple more. Four stacks of 2-and-1 or two stacks of 3-2-and-1 'vertical wedge's would give you 12 without exceeding any easy counting. Of course, the disnumerate would have to learn "the patterns", all of which would be less obvious than a flat or stacked purely square-based array.) But who are these bakers who are baking in bulk (presumably with a ''degree'' of consistency between their loaves/other-baked-products) and frequently ''selling in bulk'' (as opposed to a farthing or ha'penny loaf, or two, per average household per day, so probably a sufficiently large ''landed'' household with staff/servants, yet not large enough to have a dedicated in-house baker/cooking-staff doing their own on-demand baking) that they're regularly and rapidly passing over handfulls of larye, loose baked-product over the counter and yet aren't taking just enough extra effort to ensure that they're not diddling the customer (or, more of immediate concern, diddling themselves through sheer carelessness!). And not in a manner that even only the partially-numerate (both sides of of the purchase?) can easily and correctly judge by eye (to consistently bake decent loaves, you're probably going to get ''very'' good at judging relative volumes/weights of even powders!). - And, here's a practical excercise: get a bucket of tennis balls (or anything large enough for one to occupy a hand) and manually transfer them from that bucket to another. I bet most people will dive in with both hands and grab two at a time in synchrony (or stocato left-right/left-right/..., or vice-versa). Very hard to do that ''almost'' six times and end up with an off by one error. Do it enough times, perhaps you even tend to grab two balls, use them to support a third between them to transfer ''three'' in each transfer... Hup, hup, hup, hup! That's your dozen, and bread can be handled in the same manner (careful not to damage the crust...). Small enough balls(/pastries), or big enough hands, to fit two in each hand? "Hup, hup, hup" will do your dozen, and you'll ''already'' know if your grabs failed to hold two of them (whether by overgrab, side-grab, scooping up, etc). ...I'm far more convinced that the (or, at least, ''a'') true source of the Baker's Dozen was just as a "Loss Leader". For those who ''could'' buy such items (one of the few daily essentials that could be "mass produced", in a way) a dozen at a time, they were given an extra item for being a good customer. A little extra goodwill, with a loss of potential profit on that single transaction (8⅓% of gross) less than a typical tythe (⅒th, 10%). (Not that tythes worked that way, exactly.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.166\|172.70.163.166]] 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)		My main objection to the possibility of giving out not-quite-a-dozen loaves (whether 'rectangular tin' type or round 'farmhouse loaves', whatever the style of loaf a contemporary baker would have produced in that era) is that it is ''very'' easy to visually confirm a dozen regularly-sized items, because a dozen is so much easier to visualise: A 3x4 array (square or skewed) is ''very'' easy to compare to one with one item missing (even if you have difficulty with 2x5 stretching out too far to stay unragged and even, when you can't even count as far as the fingers on one hand). Even piled up, 2x2x3 (whichever way the '3' lies) works well. (Put in a square pyramid, for the ''really'' fancy, three layers gives 14, so removing the pinacle for a 3x3 with only 2x2 on top could give 13, but why not take off/leave one more? Triangularly pyramid-stacked, say for round-loaves, three stable layers is 10, so add a couple more. Four stacks of 2-and-1 or two stacks of 3-2-and-1 'vertical wedge's would give you 12 without exceeding any easy counting. Of course, the disnumerate would have to learn "the patterns", all of which would be less obvious than a flat or stacked purely square-based array.) But who are these bakers who are baking in bulk (presumably with a ''degree'' of consistency between their loaves/other-baked-products) and frequently ''selling in bulk'' (as opposed to a farthing or ha'penny loaf, or two, per average household per day, so probably a sufficiently large ''landed'' household with staff/servants, yet not large enough to have a dedicated in-house baker/cooking-staff doing their own on-demand baking) that they're regularly and rapidly passing over handfulls of larye, loose baked-product over the counter and yet aren't taking just enough extra effort to ensure that they're not diddling the customer (or, more of immediate concern, diddling themselves through sheer carelessness!). And not in a manner that even only the partially-numerate (both sides of of the purchase?) can easily and correctly judge by eye (to consistently bake decent loaves, you're probably going to get ''very'' good at judging relative volumes/weights of even powders!). - And, here's a practical excercise: get a bucket of tennis balls (or anything large enough for one to occupy a hand) and manually transfer them from that bucket to another. I bet most people will dive in with both hands and grab two at a time in synchrony (or stocato left-right/left-right/..., or vice-versa). Very hard to do that ''almost'' six times and end up with an off by one error. Do it enough times, perhaps you even tend to grab two balls, use them to support a third between them to transfer ''three'' in each transfer... Hup, hup, hup, hup! That's your dozen, and bread can be handled in the same manner (careful not to damage the crust...). Small enough balls(/pastries), or big enough hands, to fit two in each hand? "Hup, hup, hup" will do your dozen, and you'll ''already'' know if your grabs failed to hold two of them (whether by overgrab, side-grab, scooping up, etc). ...I'm far more convinced that the (or, at least, ''a'') true source of the Baker's Dozen was just as a "Loss Leader". For those who ''could'' buy such items (one of the few daily essentials that could be "mass produced", in a way) a dozen at a time, they were given an extra item for being a good customer. A little extra goodwill, with a loss of potential profit on that single transaction (8⅓% of gross) less than a typical tythe (⅒th, 10%). (Not that tythes worked that way, exactly.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.166\|172.70.163.166]] 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)