3 ms·
The glyphs are really facinating; thank you. Has anyone proposed Unicode code points for them? Are there more efficient representations of numbers - or anythin
by mmooss 9mo ago
The glyphs are really facinating; thank you. Has anyone proposed Unicode code points for them?
Are there more efficient representations of numbers - or anything else - in terms of bits per glyph? The Cistercian numarals encode a bit over 13 bits per glyph, of course. Maybe forms of Chinese - though I think most words require 2 characters - or another ideographic language? But also is there anything with Cistercian cognitive efficiency? You can learn it in minutes.
I wonder why the didn't make 3 into F. They follow two other patterns for 3 then 4 glyphs: 3,4,5 have hypotenuses and 6,7,9 have the short parallel line. Also, they use other glyphs that approximately match Latin letters - e.g. 9 (P), 100 (L), 900 (b), 9000 (d) - so that wouldn't deter them.
- mkotowski 9mo ago> Has anyone proposed Unicode code points for them? There is "Background for Unicode consideration of Cistercian numerals" (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf) And also one in the Under-ConScript Unicode Registry for the Private Use Area (https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/ https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/) (https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/charts/cistercian.html https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/charts/cistercian.html)
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- mmooss 9mo agoThank you. > There is "Background for Unicode consideration of Cistercian numerals" (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf) That's the most complete summary I've seen so far, though I don't know if the author, Kirk Miller, has expertise in the area.