Re: hexatridecimal internationalisation

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Fri Jun 22 2007 - 23:20:42 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: hexatridecimal internationalisation"

    OK...now that we're getting closer to list topic...
    [...]

    > Even if these ancients did have a separate set of symbols for base
    > 60, say, we have no need of them.

    On this I could not disagree with you more, particularly if there is
    a scholarly community studying these texts.

    > I have an article somewhere that discusses computations and
    > computational algorithms used by the ancients, even translating the
    > source text into English, with illustrations of the computations
    > involved. The author of this article found no need to use symbols
    > other than 09 to talk about the computations.

    Sure. But (again assuming that these symbols exist as hypothesized)
    that is at best a transliteration. Your argument -- if I understand
    it correctly -- is similar to saying that because we can represent
    Bengali unambiguously in Roman transliteration, we don't need to
    encode Bengali script in Unicode.

    >
    > George
    > ------

    Best,

    -- 
    Marnen Laibow-Koser
    marnen@marnen.org
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 22 2007 - 23:25:38 CDT