Re: Irrational numeric values in TUS

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Oct 12 2010 - 20:11:10 CDT

  • Next message: Ngwe Tun: "Re: OpenType update for Unicode 5.2/6.0?"


    > >> 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. ;-)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 12 2010 - 20:13:20 CDT