@eshmun, @brianchu82In practice, I find there is little...

@eshmun, @brianchu82
In practice, I find there is little variation in relative rankings across gold companies using various measures based on EV, production and AISC. In which case we may as well just use the simplest one which is EV/Production. Having said that, a combination of measures involving LOM, profitability, reserves and resources is also helpful in regard to deciding where best to place an investment. My observation is that most people with an analytical bent do this.
I consider that a measure should be easy to understand and that if it contains too many factors with complicated formulations then the impact of any one factor becomes too hard to determine and leaves a loss of confidence in the overall measure.
Since there are important non-quantitative factors (e.g. quality of management, location and environment risk) also involved in choosing an investment, the various quantitative measures are only useful as filters to indicate where to start looking more closely, or as a guide to when changes in market sentiment may be offering an opportunity to buy, or conversely a warning of over-valuation.
I only referred to Planck's constant to make a point, not because I thought it was relevant to gold measures.

I have enjoyed the discussion, even if it has taken up time, and thanks for participating.