5 ms·

Cistercian Numbers

89 points by debo_ 8mo ago

tangus 8mo ago
My minuscule pet peeve is that having only one source where the number 5 is depicted with a triangle (all others show it as a separated segment, like the number 6 but shorter), that's how every article or library draws it. It's all because the guy who wrote a book about them saw that source first so he based his figures on it. Here's a small summary about the numbers with many examples: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf
- debo_ 8mo ago
  It would never have occurred to me that anyone would want to get these into a Unicode standard. This document you linked is excellent, thank you.
- bobbiechen 8mo ago
  Being first matters :') I wrote a font for these, which does use the triangle-5 and the vertical layout: https://bobbiec.github.io/cistercian-font.html https://bobbiec.github.io/cistercian-font.html (recent discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46939312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46939312) And my associated writeup: https://digitalseams.com/blog/making-a-font-with-9999-ligatures-to-display-thirteenth-century-monk-numerals https://digitalseams.com/blog/making-a-font-with-9999-ligatu... . As mentioned in the blog, I think the horizontal layout makes more sense too (in terms of writing order). But just like the triangle-5, the vertical layout is more commonly seen, so that's what I stuck with.
- autoexec 8mo ago
  It might not be accurate but it does seem like it'd be easy to mistake a 5 and 6 without the triangle. Especially when the characters are being hurriedly written by hand. If I were going to use this system, I'd be sticking with the triangle.
- culi 8mo ago
  I wish the 6 was a triangle in the other direction instead
- jhncls 8mo ago
  In a Numberphile video [0], Alex Bellos also uses a triangle for 5. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p55Qgt7Ciw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p55Qgt7Ciw
klondike_klive 8mo ago
Wow, it's a while since I've seen one of those lists of hundreds of vampires that you have to deselect!
dcanelhas 8mo ago
Shouldn't 523 in that list of "other numbers" actually be 522?
- poulpy123 8mo ago
  You're right
beratbozkurt0 8mo ago
Actually, it would automatically translate when we scan it with the camera, like Google Translate.
onirom 8mo ago
did a small raw binary-like implementation of an extended (base-16) version : https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/snippets/#JavaScript_:_Extended_Cistercian_numerals_(base_16_and_binary-like) https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/snippets/#JavaScript_:_Extended_C...
somat 8mo ago
I am a little sad that bare zero is not represented. This is my first exposure to Cistercian numbers but it looks like a unadorned staff would fit for the bare zero. The whole thing is a lot of fun, feels like a Myst puzzle. Or more accuratly, I don't think Myst had a number puzzle but Riven did and I recently picked up Obduction and it had one, So probably fairer to say a Cyan type puzzle as they appear to love creating wierd numeric representations.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
iguana_shine 8mo ago
It's pretty cool but I'm surprised there wasn't confusion among the 2s (2 & 200, 20 & 2000) all the other symbols had enough to make it clear which side they're on, but the closer the 2-notch gets to the centre, the more ambiguous it gets. Could even be confused with a 1 if you're not careful
hackernj 8mo ago
Two OEIS sequences for Cistercian numeral system: https://oeis.org/A341737 https://oeis.org/A341737 and https://oeis.org/A381327 https://oeis.org/A381327
perilunar 8mo ago
Two odd things strike me: 1. 5 is the symbols for 4 and 1 combined, 6 is new, then 7=6+1, 8=6+2, and 9=6+3. It seems to me it would be more obvious to have 1 to 5 be unique symbols, then 6=5+1, 7=5+2, 8=5+3, and 9=5+4. Like how we do with tally marks. 2. The system is really just 4 digits combined in a square. I don't see the advantage over Arabic numerals.
- szemy2 8mo ago
  They had limited space.
zzo38computer 8mo ago
Some people have said, use a unadorned staff for zero, and six being a triangle in the other direction instead; that is what I thought too, and some other people also do. I also wrote a program in PostScript to draw Cistercian numbers (which uses the nonstandard sign for 6): % Specify a four-digit number as the command-line argument. /A ARGUMENTS 0 get def /Digit { get 48 sub { {} %0 {24 0 rlineto} %1 {0 -24 rmoveto 24 0 rlineto} %2 {24 -24 rlineto} %3 {0 -24 rmoveto 24 24 rlineto} %4 {24 0 rlineto -24 -24 rlineto} %5 {24 -24 rlineto -24 0 rlineto} %6 (nonstandard) {24 0 rlineto 0 -24 rlineto} %7 {0 -24 rmoveto 24 0 rlineto 0 24 rlineto} %8 {24 0 rlineto 0 -24 rlineto -24 0 rlineto} %9 } exch get exec stroke } bind def 4 setlinewidth 6 6 moveto gsave 36 0 rmoveto 0 72 rlineto gsave -1 1 scale A 2 Digit grestore A 3 Digit grestore 36 72 rmoveto 1 -1 scale 0 72 rlineto gsave -1 1 scale A 0 Digit grestore A 1 Digit showpage quit

89 points by debo_ 8mo ago

My minuscule pet peeve is that having only one source where the number 5 is depicted with a triangle (all others show it as a separated segment, like the number 6 but shorter), that's how every article or library draws it. It's all because the guy who wrote a book about them saw that source first so he based his figures on it. Here's a small summary about the numbers with many examples: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf

debo_ 8mo ago
It would never have occurred to me that anyone would want to get these into a Unicode standard. This document you linked is excellent, thank you.
bobbiechen 8mo ago
Being first matters :') I wrote a font for these, which does use the triangle-5 and the vertical layout: https://bobbiec.github.io/cistercian-font.html https://bobbiec.github.io/cistercian-font.html (recent discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46939312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46939312) And my associated writeup: https://digitalseams.com/blog/making-a-font-with-9999-ligatures-to-display-thirteenth-century-monk-numerals https://digitalseams.com/blog/making-a-font-with-9999-ligatu... . As mentioned in the blog, I think the horizontal layout makes more sense too (in terms of writing order). But just like the triangle-5, the vertical layout is more commonly seen, so that's what I stuck with.
autoexec 8mo ago
It might not be accurate but it does seem like it'd be easy to mistake a 5 and 6 without the triangle. Especially when the characters are being hurriedly written by hand. If I were going to use this system, I'd be sticking with the triangle.
culi 8mo ago
I wish the 6 was a triangle in the other direction instead
jhncls 8mo ago
In a Numberphile video [0], Alex Bellos also uses a triangle for 5. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p55Qgt7Ciw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p55Qgt7Ciw

klondike_klive 8mo ago

Wow, it's a while since I've seen one of those lists of hundreds of vampires that you have to deselect!

dcanelhas 8mo ago

Shouldn't 523 in that list of "other numbers" actually be 522?

poulpy123 8mo ago
You're right

beratbozkurt0 8mo ago

Actually, it would automatically translate when we scan it with the camera, like Google Translate.

onirom 8mo ago

did a small raw binary-like implementation of an extended (base-16) version : https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/snippets/#JavaScript_:_Extended_Cistercian_numerals_(base_16_and_binary-like) https://www.onirom.fr/wiki/snippets/#JavaScript_:_Extended_C...

somat 8mo ago

I am a little sad that bare zero is not represented. This is my first exposure to Cistercian numbers but it looks like a unadorned staff would fit for the bare zero. The whole thing is a lot of fun, feels like a Myst puzzle. Or more accuratly, I don't think Myst had a number puzzle but Riven did and I recently picked up Obduction and it had one, So probably fairer to say a Cyan type puzzle as they appear to love creating wierd numeric representations.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

iguana_shine 8mo ago

It's pretty cool but I'm surprised there wasn't confusion among the 2s (2 & 200, 20 & 2000) all the other symbols had enough to make it clear which side they're on, but the closer the 2-notch gets to the centre, the more ambiguous it gets. Could even be confused with a 1 if you're not careful

hackernj 8mo ago

Two OEIS sequences for Cistercian numeral system: https://oeis.org/A341737 https://oeis.org/A341737 and https://oeis.org/A381327 https://oeis.org/A381327

perilunar 8mo ago

Two odd things strike me: 1. 5 is the symbols for 4 and 1 combined, 6 is new, then 7=6+1, 8=6+2, and 9=6+3. It seems to me it would be more obvious to have 1 to 5 be unique symbols, then 6=5+1, 7=5+2, 8=5+3, and 9=5+4. Like how we do with tally marks. 2. The system is really just 4 digits combined in a square. I don't see the advantage over Arabic numerals.

szemy2 8mo ago
They had limited space.

zzo38computer 8mo ago

Some people have said, use a unadorned staff for zero, and six being a triangle in the other direction instead; that is what I thought too, and some other people also do. I also wrote a program in PostScript to draw Cistercian numbers (which uses the nonstandard sign for 6): % Specify a four-digit number as the command-line argument. /A ARGUMENTS 0 get def /Digit { get 48 sub { {} %0 {24 0 rlineto} %1 {0 -24 rmoveto 24 0 rlineto} %2 {24 -24 rlineto} %3 {0 -24 rmoveto 24 24 rlineto} %4 {24 0 rlineto -24 -24 rlineto} %5 {24 -24 rlineto -24 0 rlineto} %6 (nonstandard) {24 0 rlineto 0 -24 rlineto} %7 {0 -24 rmoveto 24 0 rlineto 0 24 rlineto} %8 {24 0 rlineto 0 -24 rlineto -24 0 rlineto} %9 } exch get exec stroke } bind def 4 setlinewidth 6 6 moveto gsave 36 0 rmoveto 0 72 rlineto gsave -1 1 scale A 2 Digit grestore A 3 Digit grestore 36 72 rmoveto 1 -1 scale 0 72 rlineto gsave -1 1 scale A 0 Digit grestore A 1 Digit showpage quit