• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3111 months ago

    Not really more convenient tbh. Every large number is a cryptic puzzle you have to solve first.

    • shastaxc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3611 months ago

      Actually it seems pretty easy once you learn the patterns. I’m sure if you used it more frequently it would come quickly. For example, modifiers always occupy the same quadrant based on the power. What I mean is if the number is in the thousands, you look at the bottom left of the vertical line. Using this method you only have to look at each of the 4 quadrants of the symbol to know what the full number is. That’s not much different than writing out the four digits linearly in our current system.

      I can see great advantages to this system back in the days when these symbols may be carved in stone, or before the printing press where everything was handwritten so ink and paper were very expensive.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months ago

      That’s true of our numbering system. It’s literally am identical base system, you just need to learn the numerals.

      abcd where a is the 1000s place, b is the 100s place, c is the 10s place and d the 1s. In both systems you can immediately interpret any part of the number by looking at that place in the number.

      For example in the first example you can parse it easily in any order, the number is 1993, read from top left to bottom right it is literally 90+3+1000+900. Or you can simply read it from BL to TR and it reads 1000+900+90+3.

      This system makes sense in the context of saving expensive paper/parchment (as was often extremely valuable, many books have been cleared and written over to save paper throughout history)

  • anguo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3911 months ago

    What bugs me most is that because of their perfect symmetry, if you turn the paper around, the glyphs are still perfectly legible, just give you the wrong number.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1211 months ago

      I bet they scribbled these mostly on the walls of their cells in their Monastery. You’d have to hang upside down from your bunk to misread it.

      In all seriousness, wait until you hear that they wrote these horizontally when combined with Latin script.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2211 months ago

    Sure, one symbol, but how many lines per symbol. It seems much more efficient and easy to read writing it the common way.

    • veroxii
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      Yeah. It’s like saying you can write this whole sentence in a single QR code.

    • RandomLegend [He/Him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2411 months ago

      This would be interesting for when you have to number something and have very limited space and don’t want the arabic numbers to be written too small.

      I mean lets be honest, this technique is a couple hundred years old and was never adopted or even widespread. So ofc the method we use today is the superior one.

      But this is very interesting and fun to play with. For everyone doing TTRPG or LARP this is a cool concept to integrate.

      • Otter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1311 months ago

        I was picturing a fleet of spaceships, with their identification number painted on like this. Maybe an ancient and abandoned fleet

        • RandomLegend [He/Him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          811 months ago

          Yeah for example that.

          Also with that method you can write out super long serial numbers with only a few characters.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1811 months ago

      This is from the 13th century. So Arabic numbers were still very much growing in usage. So this would have been mainly as an alternative to Roman numerals.

      To me this is better than a string of letters (the single symbol for 1993 for instance instead of MCMXCIII) but worse than Arabic numbering.

    • Ech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      This system is absolutely more efficient, using one space for 4 digits of arabic numerals, and ease of use has more to do with familiarity than anything else. You only think the “common way” is easy because it’s common to you. There are lots of number systems considered “the common way” to entire other cultures.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        This is a base 10,000 system, it’s not one symbol, it’s one position. This system is only beneficial if you are crushed for physical space on a piece of paper, for today’s use case, it’s basically pointless.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s not really a base 1000 system. It’s base 10 attached to a line, with position denoting its power. It even has the benefit of being compound glyphs, with only 45 unique lines used (plus the spine). With a single addition this could be as expandable as Arabic.

          Not bad for a numbering system that didn’t become popularized. And if you say, “Ah, but you have to add a symbol,” feel free to learn the history of zero.

    • Otter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I was thinking about this one, and how it might be possible to get used to this system just as well. Neuroplasticity is so cool with how adaptable it makes us

      It would be similar to writing each number out in quadrants, just with fewer lines for each digit.

      7893 would become

      9|3
      7|8
      

      1234 would become

      3|4
      1|2
      

      It might function similar to how we read words and sentences in chunks instead of word-by-word or letter-by-letter. I imagine we already do that with some numbers, which is why we chunk numbers as 120,000.05 or 555-555-1234

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Could be useful to write numbers not in base 10.

    For non-tech people is like we write base 16 numbers (hexadeximal):
    0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F

    So 26 would be 1A.

    Edit: Does anyone know if these are available in unicode? I can’t find them, so I guess not.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8811 months ago

    I’ve seen this a hundred times now and it annoys me every time – there are still separate digits, they’re just attached to a central line. I can invent another way of writing 1-9999 with a “single symbol” too, here we go:

    0001 0002 00030099 01009998 9999

    • Solivine
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7811 months ago

      Right but that’s still disingenuous toward it, they manage to fit everything in a single glyph, which is of a standard size, and it is more information in a smaller space.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        This number system chooses economy of paper over readability.

        A good choice in a medieval monastery where parchment is precious and time is plentiful.

        A bad choice in modern society.

        • VindictiveJudge
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2611 months ago

          Readability only seems poor because we’re not used to it. It’s actually pretty logical and well thought out. The real problem is that the system isn’t expandable, so once you get to 10000 you have to get creative.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1411 months ago

          A glyph (/ɡlɪf/ GLIF) is any kind of purposeful mark. In typography, a glyph is "the specific shape, design, or representation of a character".

          Courtesy of Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

  • ☂️-
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    doing math with these sounds annoying

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    611 months ago

    Nah, it’s not fewer symbols. They just require a connecting line for every 4 symbols.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      They kinda do. To read the numbers you look bottom left, bottom right, top left, top right. There will either be a line in each quadrant to indicate the digit or not. I don’t particularly like the bottom to top convention, but I guess it make more sense to have the information at the top for the more every day life one and two digit numbers.

  • _NoName_
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    SO THAT’S WHERE CHANTS OF SENAAR GOT THAT

    Addendum: I fuckin loved so many aspects of playing through that game. If you haven’t tried it, a full playthrough is only 5 or 6 hours and it’s a really awesome puzzle game experience. Since it’s a language discovery game, it plays like a mystery game, which is really fantastic.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months ago

    Seems rather wasteful at first glance, I can’t imagine the 100 and 1000 digits changing too often. Do we know what they usually counted with it?

  • db0
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2011 months ago

    There’s so many “iamverysmart” comments in here. Some people need to touch some grass.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1811 months ago

    …I honestly don’t know what to say. This is really, really cool. And intuitive enough. And boy, did they have a lot of time on their hands. 😆

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    511 months ago

    Concerned that rarely used symbols would be easily forgotten, while every Arabic numerals can be used frequently.