From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 22 2007 - 23:20:42 CDT
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 0–9 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.
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 22 2007 - 23:25:38 CDT