From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 06 2010 - 05:03:15 CDT
Den 2010-08-06 11.02, skrev "Andrew West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On 6 August 2010 05:14, Doug Ewell <email@example.com> wrote:
>> What makes this troublesome for me is that, on the one hand, there are the
>> perfectly ordinary-looking 0 through 8, and on the other hand there are the
>> invented digits for 9 and 11 through 15, and then in the middle there's this
>> bizarre use of an ordinary 9-glyph to mean decimal 10. That's what messes it
>> up for me and makes me think the '9' isn't really a 9, and what the heck,
>> maybe none of the "ordinary" digits are what they appear to be, so let's
>> CSUR-encode all of them.
> Looking at the examples shown on
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom>, it seems to me that
> 0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted
> or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that
> there is some sort of imperfect bilateral symmetry on the clock and
> compass faces, with '0' and '8' as the axis of symmetry. Thus the '9'
> is an inverted '6' (as 16-6=10) not an ordinary '9'. So except for the
> odd glyph forms for 9, 11, 12 and 15 (would be be expected to be
> simple inversions of '7', '5', '4' and '1') it makes sense as a system
> to me.
> Anyhow, I do not think the ordinary digits '0' through '8' should be
> encoded in the CSUR.
Nyström himself writes
"In the Tonal System it is proposed to add six new figures to the 10
arabic"... (page 15)
"Although the old figures in the Tonal System bears the old value (except 9)
one by one"... (page 17)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 06 2010 - 05:06:29 CDT