I've thought, in other contexts too, how much easier innovation in script (in writing, glyphs, etc.) is when handwriting instead of printing text. Anyone could create their own Cistercian shorthand - and Medieval writers did use all sorts of shorthand.
Print requires a pre-composed set of glyphs with exceptions that are, I suppose, expensive (i.e., custom made by the printer). Typing right now on your computer, how easily can you create a custom glyph and share it? Look what the OP must do - stretch the bounds of typeface function, something few people are equipped to do.
If HN comments were hand written, each commenter could create custom glyphs on the fly. We could also draw diagrams and pictures, musical notation, draw lines pointing to different taxt from others - gloss each others comments.
Thinking about it (and wandering onto a tangent): If computers could process handwriting the same way as text encodings, would that be preferrable? I can't type as fast as I write but partly because I type far more. I could do so much more with a pen; it would be interesting to try. How well do LLMs handle handwriting recognition?
Fun fact: Chinese has separate "financial numerals" precisely to prevent one digit being changed to another, the way that could be easily done with regular numerals like turning 一 (1) into 三 (3) or 十 (10). A lot harder when they look like 壹, 叁, and 拾 instead.
The glyphs are really facinating; thank you. Has anyone proposed Unicode code points for them?
Are there more efficient representations of numbers - or anything else - in terms of bits per glyph? The Cistercian numarals encode a bit over 13 bits per glyph, of course. Maybe forms of Chinese - though I think most words require 2 characters - or another ideographic language? But also is there anything with Cistercian cognitive efficiency? You can learn it in minutes.
I wonder why the didn't make 3 into F. They follow two other patterns for 3 then 4 glyphs: 3,4,5 have hypotenuses and 6,7,9 have the short parallel line. Also, they use other glyphs that approximately match Latin letters - e.g. 9 (P), 100 (L), 900 (b), 9000 (d) - so that wouldn't deter them.
I've thought, in other contexts too, how much easier innovation in script (in writing, glyphs, etc.) is when handwriting instead of printing text. Anyone could create their own Cistercian shorthand - and Medieval writers did use all sorts of shorthand.
Print requires a pre-composed set of glyphs with exceptions that are, I suppose, expensive (i.e., custom made by the printer). Typing right now on your computer, how easily can you create a custom glyph and share it? Look what the OP must do - stretch the bounds of typeface function, something few people are equipped to do.
If HN comments were hand written, each commenter could create custom glyphs on the fly. We could also draw diagrams and pictures, musical notation, draw lines pointing to different taxt from others - gloss each others comments.
Thinking about it (and wandering onto a tangent): If computers could process handwriting the same way as text encodings, would that be preferrable? I can't type as fast as I write but partly because I type far more. I could do so much more with a pen; it would be interesting to try. How well do LLMs handle handwriting recognition?
In a high trust environment, I suppose easy addition is helpful. Probably not best used in loan agreements.
Fun fact: Chinese has separate "financial numerals" precisely to prevent one digit being changed to another, the way that could be easily done with regular numerals like turning 一 (1) into 三 (3) or 十 (10). A lot harder when they look like 壹, 叁, and 拾 instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals#Financial_num...
Neat, you made me one of the 10 thousand today.
The glyphs are really facinating; thank you. Has anyone proposed Unicode code points for them?
Are there more efficient representations of numbers - or anything else - in terms of bits per glyph? The Cistercian numarals encode a bit over 13 bits per glyph, of course. Maybe forms of Chinese - though I think most words require 2 characters - or another ideographic language? But also is there anything with Cistercian cognitive efficiency? You can learn it in minutes.
I wonder why the didn't make 3 into F. They follow two other patterns for 3 then 4 glyphs: 3,4,5 have hypotenuses and 6,7,9 have the short parallel line. Also, they use other glyphs that approximately match Latin letters - e.g. 9 (P), 100 (L), 900 (b), 9000 (d) - so that wouldn't deter them.
> Has anyone proposed Unicode code points for them?
There is "Background for Unicode consideration of Cistercian numerals" (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20290-cistercian-digits.pdf)
And also one in the Under-ConScript Unicode Registry for the Private Use Area (https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/) (https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/charts/cistercian.html)