**From:** Chris Jacobs (*chris.jacobs@freeler.nl*)

**Date:** Tue Nov 11 2003 - 15:01:37 EST

**Previous message:**Chris Jacobs: "Re: Tengwar digits (was: Hexadecimal digits?)"**In reply to:**Jill Ramonsky: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"**Next in thread:**Jill Ramonsky: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

(1) I distinguish between different kinds of digit 5 even within the same

radix.

radix 10 most-significant first positional digit 5 (examples: 5, ٥)

radix 10 units digit 5 (example: ה )

radix 10 tens digit 5 (example נ )

(2)

How would the natural sort algorithm handle fractions? Does 123,456 come

before or after 123.456 ?

(3) I don't expect natural sorting to sort in numeric value but if it

is modified to do that anyway then I certainly don't want it to stop doing

that without warning when the format of the numers becomes complicated.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jill Ramonsky

To: unicode@unicode.org

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:58 AM

Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?

Look, for one thing I mentioned natural sort of an EXAMPLE of how I think

the digits ten to fifteen should be treated identically to the digits zero

to nine, not the raison d'etre. But could anyone else who wishes to post on

this subject (natural sort) please CONSIDER whether you've actually

understood the subject before posting either strawman arguments or just

plain nonsense. The following are FACTS. As in, mathematical facts. As in, I

can prove them, and so can you, and we will all reach identical conclusions

provided that each step follows logically from the previous ones. Note these

then:

(1) A digit is a digit is a digit. There is no difference between a radix-8

five, a radix-10 five and a radix-16 five. In all cases, the digit is 5.

This is the same digit which you find in radix-6, radix-93 or radix-7654321.

Anyone who suggests there is ANY rationale for having a separate set of

digits for each radix is just plain wrong, and, I would suggest, not a

mathematician.

(2) The natural sort algorithm works identically in all radices. There is

nothing special about radix ten. Furthermore, the same sort order is

guaranteed in all radices. An implementation of a natural sort algorithm

does NOT need to "know" the radix. It does not need to guess. It does not

need to assume. It does not need to infer. It does not even need to care.

All it needs are the functions IsDigit(codepoint) and

GetDigitValue(codepoint). The return value of the latter is only required to

be defined if the return value of the former is true. That's ALL it needs.

(3) Nobody in their right mind would even consider that mixed radices need

to sort in numerical order. Such a thing is absurd. Jim Allen (below) said

"If you want a natural sort using a mixed alpha and numeric string which may

use multiple bases...". Well note the word "if" in that sentence, because it

is very pertinent. *I DON'T*. In fact, NOBODY on this list has proposed that

multiple radices should be intermixable. SO WHAT if one thousand nine

hundred and eleven (777 hex) is greater than nine hundred and ninety nine?

That does NOT mean that "File777" should sort before "File999". In fact,

Nobody, and I stress this because it's starting to annoy me, *NOBODY* on

this thread has supported the use of mixed bases. Certainly not I.

Therefore, anyone who argues against it, is arguing against something which

nobody has proposed. And that seems about as good a definition of "waste of

time" as I can think of.. It is most certainly not an argument against

anything I've said, as I am in complete agreement with the notion that it's

a totally dumb and stupid idea. It's a strawman argument, and it's

sidetracking away from the original issue of whether or not there should

exist Unicode characters for which IsDigit() returns true and for which

GetDigitValue() returns values in the range ten to fifteen.

And finally, please note, Mr Allen, my name is Jill, not Jim. I think you'll

find that in fact _your_ name is Jim, though I can see why that might be

confusing. :-)

Jill

PS. This thread has been and interesting experience. If I do write a letter

of support, do I really have to go to such extremes to point out what I'm

NOT supporting? It would seem so.

**Next message:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Comb. Diacritics Sup."**Previous message:**Chris Jacobs: "Re: Tengwar digits (was: Hexadecimal digits?)"**In reply to:**Jill Ramonsky: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"**Next in thread:**Jill Ramonsky: "RE: Hexadecimal digits?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 16:04:21 EST
*