**From:** Kenneth Whistler (*kenw@sybase.com*)

**Date:** Tue Oct 12 2010 - 20:11:10 CDT

**Previous message:**Asmus Freytag: "Re: Irrational numeric values in TUS"**Maybe in reply to:**karl williamson: "Irrational numeric values in TUS"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Asmus,

*> >> I'm curious if any thought was given to this, and what code points I'm
*

*> >> missing in my analysis.
*

*> > U+1D452 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL E (or merely U+0065 LATIN
*

*> > SMALL LETTER E), also used for Euler's number. See also U+2147.
*

*>
*

*> Now you are confusing Euler's constant - also depicted with U+03B3 GREEK
*

*> SMALL LETTER GAMMA, with the natural exponent.
*

Actually I'm not confusing the two -- which is why I wrote

Euler's number, not Euler's constant. Perhaps I misplaced

"also" in the sentence, but I was referring here to 2.718...

not to 0.57721...

*> That kind of confusion is
*

*> really not helpful
*

Hehe. Well, it wasn't me, but mathematicians who took to calling

these things Euler's number and Euler's constant confusingly.

Check the wikis. ;-)

*> and is what drives people like Karl to ask for
*

*> numeric property values in the first place - to unambiguously define
*

*> what these symbols were encoded for.
*

*>
*

*> The proper place to document that, without introducing a formal
*

*> property, is with additional nameslist annotation for a few characters.
*

I disagree. Because that just further cements the notion that

these characters *are* the constants. We keep going around on

this, both about mathematical values and about confusion of

characters with units of SI, as well.

*> I suggest that you add the correct value for Euler's constant as a
*

*> comment and cross reference that character it to 03B3
*

*>
*

*> 0.57721 56649 01532 86060 65120 90082 40243 10421 59335 93992
*

*>
*

*> should be approximate enough...?
*

*>
*

*> At the same time you could add a comment e ≈ 2.718 for 212F - Again, not
*

*> to document the value, but to make clear, beyond the character name,
*

*> what constant the alias for 212F denotes.
*

Nah, I don't think those are helpful here.

Maybe the UTC would disagree with me. ;-)

--Ken

**Next message:**Ngwe Tun: "Re: OpenType update for Unicode 5.2/6.0?"**Previous message:**Asmus Freytag: "Re: Irrational numeric values in TUS"**Maybe in reply to:**karl williamson: "Irrational numeric values in TUS"**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 Oct 12 2010 - 20:13:20 CDT
*