5 ms·
Obligatory to also mention the historical Cistercian digits, which used an in-digit encoding to create a base 10000 number system: https://commons.wikimedia.or
by cubefox 3y ago
Obligatory to also mention the historical Cistercian digits, which used an in-digit encoding to create a base 10000 number system:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cistercian_digits_(vertical).svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cistercian_digits_(v...
- thih9 3y agoI can see novice monks scraping 9900 on the walls.
- chrismorgan 3y agoDoesn’t feel entirely fair to call that base-10000. Practically, it’s just base-10 with an idiosyncratic and mandatory ligation scheme involving mirroring, and only defined for 0001–9999 and not 0000 for some reason (though it’s obvious how zero should be represented).
- cubefox 3y agoStill, the graphical complexity per "digit" is not much higher than of a latin letter.
- teddyh 3y agoNot in Unicode. (But neither is Bibi-Binary.)