From: Lew on
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Even today, about three-quarters or more of the google hits on the
>> gold vs. feathers question assert that the pound of feathers weighs
>> more.
>
> It might be true anyway. Though if Wikipedia also thinks the feathers
> weigh more, it's pretty much a lost cause.

I assume you mean, "if Wikipedia also thinks that feathers use avoirdupois
pounds and gold uses troy pounds, thus a pound (avoirdupois) of feathers
weighs more than a pound (troy) of gold, it's pretty much a lost cause."

Wikipedia, that bastion of encyclopedic and infallible truth that one should
never, ever doubt, says that precious metals are weighed in troy ounces but
not troy pounds.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weight>
<http://www.troy-ounce.com/> agrees, though it cites the Wikipedia article as
one of its sources, so perhaps that doesn't surprise.

This is not true.

<http://www.sizes.com/units/troy_weight.htm>
tells us that "[i]n the United States, troy weight remains legal," and directs
us to page 20 of the 1982 "Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of
Commodities, model legislation proposed for adoption by individual states by
the National Conference on Weights and Measures."
<http://www.sizes.com/library/USA/NatlConfWtsandMeasures.pdf>
which would mandate
> 2.17.2. Quantity. --
> The unit of measure and the method of sale of precious metals,
> if the price is based in part or wholly on a weight determination,
> shall be either troy weight or SI units.

<http://www.goldcalculator.com/index_files/page0033.htm#Troy Pound (0.37kg):>
calls the troy pound a "mass unit is used to measure precious metals."

<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TroyPound.html>
asserts that troy pounds are used to measure precious metals.

<http://www.govmint.com/item/Classic-Half-Troy-Pound-Bag-of-US-Silver/1803581/2>
offers silver weighed in terms of troy pounds, proving definitively that
someone, at least, still uses that unit for precious metal.

Same for
<http://www.shopwiki.com/Bags+of+Buffalo+Nickels+New+Half+Troy+Pound+Bag+of+Buffalo+Nickels+III>
<http://www.dondienterprises.com/id12.html>
<http://www.milliondollarbill.com/goldfinger01.html>
and many other current commercial sites.

The fact that precious metals (or simulations thereof) are actually sold by
troy pounds proves that the unit is still in use. Ergo, a pound (troy) of
gold is lighter than a pound (avoirdupois) of feathers.

The question remains tricky.

--
Lew
From: Arved Sandstrom on
Lew wrote:
[ SNIP ]

> The fact that precious metals (or simulations thereof) are actually sold
> by troy pounds proves that the unit is still in use. Ergo, a pound
> (troy) of gold is lighter than a pound (avoirdupois) of feathers.
>
> The question remains tricky.

You'd have to decide what country you ask the riddle in. In the US it
still applies, as you pointed out. In the UK, Canada, Australia, and
divers other jurisdictions it no longer does. For example, the Canada
Weights and Measures Act, under the Canadian Units section, allows for
the troy ounce to measure precious metals, but not the troy pound.
Similarly, the UK Weights Measures Act disallows use of the troy pound.
And so on and so forth.

I agree that it's an old riddle, but the trick answer depends on the
legal system of weights and measures being used at the specific time and
place of asking. It'll have no meaning at all sometime in the future
when Imperial measures completely die as legal units of trade.

AHS
From: Mike Schilling on
Lew wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> Even today, about three-quarters or more of the google hits on the
>>> gold vs. feathers question assert that the pound of feathers
>>> weighs
>>> more.
>>
>> It might be true anyway. Though if Wikipedia also thinks the
>> feathers weigh more, it's pretty much a lost cause.
>
> I assume you mean, "if Wikipedia also thinks that feathers use
> avoirdupois pounds and gold uses troy pounds, thus a pound
> (avoirdupois) of feathers weighs more than a pound (troy) of gold,
> it's pretty much a lost cause."

Nothing so complicated; I just meant that Wikipedia's usually wrong.