**From:** Hans Aberg (*haberg-1@telia.com*)

**Date:** Fri Jun 04 2010 - 16:45:57 CDT

**Previous message:**John H. Jenkins: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**In reply to:**Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Next in thread:**Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Reply:**Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Reply:**John W Kennedy: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Reply:**John Dlugosz: "RE: Hexadecimal digits"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On 4 Jun 2010, at 20:39, Luke-Jr wrote:

*> Unicode has Roman numerals and bar counting (base 0); why should
*

*> base 16 be
*

*> denied unique characters?
*

Anyway, if you can show these John Nystrom Tonal System glyphs have

been in textual use, perhaps they should be encoded.

*> From another perspective, the English-language Arabic-numeral world
*

*> came up
*

*> with ASCII. Unicode was created to unlimit the character set to
*

*> include
*

*> coverage of other languages' characters. Why shouldn't a variety of
*

*> numeric
*

*> systems also be supported?
*

As for the question of usability, mathematical symbols typically start

off as some common symbol and gradually evolve being specially

mathematical. See for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_(number)#Evolution_of_the_glyph

Right now, there is no particular need for having special hexadecimal

symbols - the letters A-F work just fine. Also, there is no particular

with base 16. For example, in GMP <http://gmplib.org/> one can use use

any base, I recall, as long as there are letters. Historically, base

60 has been in use - we still use it in clocks. Some people (Danish,

French) use base 20 when counting. Since ancient times, one has used

binary multiplication Ethiopia. So there are number of different

number systems already in use.

Hexadecimal representation is only used to give a compact

representation of binary numbers in connection of computers. In view

of modern fast computers, one only needs to write out numbers when

interfacing with humans. Then one can easily make the computer write

or read what humans are used to. So there is no particular need to

switch to another base than ten if that is what humans prefer. Base 16

is easier when one for some reason needs to think about the binary

representation.

But if humans in the future would use base 16 a lot, it might be

convenient to have special symbols for them. Then the typical would be

that glyphs becoming some alteration of A-F.

Hans

**Next message:**Shawn Steele: "RE: Hexadecimal digits"**Previous message:**John H. Jenkins: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**In reply to:**Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Next in thread:**Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Reply:**Luke-Jr: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Reply:**John W Kennedy: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"**Reply:**John Dlugosz: "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
: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 16:47:19 CDT
*