>how do make o (lower case o), O (upper case o) Actually, that example is perfectly doable on 7 segments. >coexist on a 7-segment display without ambiguity?

>how do make o (lower case o), O (upper case o) Actually, that example is perfectly doable on 7 segments. >coexist on a 7-segment display without ambiguity? BuT WhAT AbOuT UPpEr AnD LoWEr CaSe d aND q?? No information was lost. It doesn't matter that some glyphs didn't make the cut, because those glyphs were redundant. The engineer didn't get to choose which glyphs they could safely ignore without destroying the underlying message content. That's something that is intrinsic to the underlying alphabet. Also notice I only included one copy of the 26 letters in the English alphabet bitrate. If you insist that We SHouLD hAvE CApItAl ANd LoWeR CAsE LeTTeRs then the symbol count balloons to 70. That's 6.13 bits per letter which only leaves .87 bits of code space left in a 7-seg system. It should come as no surprise the capitals won't fit. It would be miraculous if they did! I'm sure the precious CaPItAl LeTtERs can be saved by adding an extra segment or two. >There are other languages of which the scripts do not fit in this view. Are there, or has no one thought hard enough to figure out the k-segments that would work for those scripts. >English Roman-derivative alphabet is not "better" Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about anything being better. I said that there is evolutionary pressure towards glyphs simplifying down to the minimum amount of features needed to tell them apart. There is nothing in this hypothesis that is specific to English or even specific to the 7-segment display. This is a purely information theoretic explanation for why the shape of letters evolves in such a way that eventually you could invent something like the 7 segment system.