h a l f b a k e r yClearly this is a metaphor for something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It would also greatly increase the number of possible password combinations. Being upper case or lower case would have no affect on the numeric value.
It's not fair for numbers to have only one case. it limits their wardrobe.
upper and lower case numbers
http://developer.ap.../TE/TE3numbers.html
I was going to do this a year ago until I saw that they already exist [FarmerJohn, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Using numbers in the proper case - David Bergsland
http://www.graphic-...ing_typography.html
Lowercase digits do exist, but they don't look much different. They (some of them) just have descenders like some lowercase letters (g, j, p, q, y) do. [tuc, May 05 2007]
Text figures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_figures
Wikipedia’s article on old-style, non-lining numerals. [Crissov, May 12 2007]
[link]
|
| |
So, you would have to use an uppercase digit at the beginning of every calculation, or at the beginning of every number? |
|
| |
<side> While writing this anno I finally figured out why some pedantic people see a difference between the words number and digit </side> |
|
| |
You'll be opening a whole can of numerical grammar next. |
|
| |
Mathematically, lowercase '4' should be
infintesimally less than 4. |
|
| |
//Mathematically, lowercase '4' should be infintesimally less than 4.// You be useful for orders "Give me '500'g of that cheese" would imply "Certainly not more than 500g" (because I don't have the money with me). Plain "Give me 500g of that cheese" would imply "Somewhere close to 500g". Then of course the problem is how to pronounce upper case numbers. Currently we even pronounce upper case letters. |
|
| |
Given that monospaced fonts with upper- and lower-case letters exist, I don't think it would be too difficult to keep cased numbers monospaced. |
|
| |
I'd just like to point out that throughout
this anno I've used uppercase spaces
between the words. |
|
| |
They do look nice as superscript, tough.... |
|
| |
Ahhh No! This would give H4x0rz the ability to shout. |
|
| |
IIRC, on punched cards, it was possible to overstrike a digit 0 through nine with a dash. Thus, a five-column numeric field could hold numbers from -99,999 to 99,999 (for negative numbers, type a dash on top of the first digit). Unfortunately, although a hand-typed card produced in such fashion would show the column as a "-0" through "-9", copying the card would change the printed symbol to a letter "J" through "R". Incidentally and interestingly, a COBOL program that was expecting a numeric field would still interpret the letters "J" through "R" as "-0" through "-9". |
|
| |
Unabubba: Actually, I would suggest that typographical spacing issues would be a good reason to favor having two sets of numbers (whether they're called "upper/lowercase" or something else). Indeed, some fonts have two sets of digits (one proportionally-spaced, one not) but there's no easy way to type the set which isn't mapped to the keys 0-9. |
|
| |
As UnaBubba pointed out, the range of numbers is limitless. Thus there's no point in making upper and lower case numbers. |
|
| |
Yeah, he's got your digit. |
|
| |
I've always wanted lowercase numbers, but could never think of a good reason to have them. |
|
| |
Use the shift key to make them uppercase. I do it !000 times a day. |
|
| |
I just thought about posting superscript
and subscript numbers, so that you can
use powers in plain text. It turns out
that these exist in unicode but aren't in
a continuous series so they're both
difficult to find and often not designed
consisitently so they don't fit well
together. (sup:?¹²³??????, sub:??????????
-- may not render
in all fonts or browsers). |
|
| |
I figured it was a bit of a 'me too' so
posted the though as an annotation
here. I hope you don't mind my
annexing your idea, duroncrush. |
|
| |
This seems like a complex idea. I hate to
be negative, but it's irrational. It's a pi in
the sky concept if you ask me - and it has
no integrity. Get real. |
|
| |
I think it's an idea who's prime has come. |
|
| |
//Reader's Digest used to do that with page numbers, having some big and some small and some dangle below the line like the tail on a small y.// |
|
| |
Traditionally, typeset numerals often had varying widths, and non-uniform height and baseline. The round loops of the zero, six, and nine shared roughly the same vertical center; the stem from the six would extend up from that, while the one on the nine would extend downward. |
|
| |
Having numerals designed in that fashion makes it easier to recognize a group of digits as a block (since e.g. "4906" will have a very different shape from "4609") but harder to read and process individual digits. Printing digits with uniform baseline, ascent, and spacing will make it easier to read individual digits, but will make all sequences of digits look much more similar. |
|
| |
The situation quite analagous to the upper and lowercase alphabets in many typefaces. Uppercase is more legible, but lowercase is more readable. Someone who had to copy a sequence of gibberish letters such as an activation code could do so more easily in uppercase (e.g. "MPRNMJBXDO") than lowercase ("mprnmjbxdo"), but in general lowercase text in human language can be read more easily than uppercase. |
|
| |
(nb: Trebuchet seems to be better than some other fonts at lowercase letter sequences, and not as good at uppercase; I think my point still stands, though). |
|
| |
Rectilinear digits (such as those seen on digital clocks) could be used as the uppercase, while the curvy kind could be lowercase. |
|
| |
1 would be anomalous, having only one case, but that's okay since we don't need new 1's conflicting with i's when the original already looks like an l. |
|
| |
i) Lower case numbers already exist
ii) No really, they do.
iii) I just can't remember where I last saw them
iv) Hmmm.
v) I'm sure I last saw them somewhere around here.
vi) Maybe I imagined it.
vii) Carry on.
|
|
| |
Baked, like Supercat explained. Open Type even supports four styles of digits, onum being what you want:
- Lining numerals (lnum)
- Old-style numerals (onum)
- Proportional numerals (pnum)
- Tabular numerals (tnum) |
|
| |
One of the things that has always bothered me about numbers is how countries can't agree on how to separate your thousands, millions, etc. Is it: |
|
| |
so how about "capitalizing" every third digit to save space. It would look like this: |
|
| |
No! do it intuitively:
10ooo 150ooo 2ooo000 30ooo000ooo |
|
| |
But don't forget the idea is about ALL numbers: |
|
| |
so 153_425_220ooo
The ones between the underscore are lowercase
(more like handwritten font) numbers. |
|
| |
A capital = sign would be very useful for C(capital)+
and C(capital)sharp.(PS Never get too close to
someone giving a lecture about C++. There's a lot
of spit involved) |
|
| |
I call on all HBers to try this system at least ince,
and to use it on HB fr0m n0w and 0n. |
|
| |
This could get out of hand. Clearly most people here are refering to base 10. If it's extended to hex and binary, joy would be felt throughout the universe. By which I mean, everything would be hedious. |
|
| |
However, it can easilly be seen as a doubling of the base factor. Binary, decimal and hex would be increased to base 4, 20 and 32 respectivly. Interestingly, (or not perhaps) base 1 would be increased to base 2, changing the whole number sequence from having a sungular value to an infinite range. |
|
| |
Here's a substitution code I just came up with, based on lower-case letters that look kind of like numerals: |
|
| |
j=1 z=2 e=3 a=4 s=5 b=6 r=7 y=8 g=9 o=0 |
|
| |
*j and not i, because i is already in use in roman numerals. Not l because it can be confused with I. |
|
| |
**r is 7 backwards, and I understand some people will be bothered by this. My theory of glyphology says that letters written backwards should be equivalent to each other, or else somehow distinguished with additional strokes. (In my ideal world: b = d . But I can't change this now.) |
|
| |
***y for 8 because nothing else fits, except certain versions of g, and I used g for 9. x might fit 8 best, being composed of the middle part of that numeral, but like i, it's already in use in roman numerals. In SI units, prefixes yocta and yotta both represent an exponent related to 8, for octa. |
|
| |
Not widely seen but some small-caps typefaces have
two sets of numbers to match both sizes of caps. |
|
| |
Always wanted to use them, but could never remember which ones had descenders... or when to use lc numbers properly. |
|
| |
How about upper and lower class numbers? |
|
| |
If I had a lower-case three, I could use it in my user name. I always
though that st3f had the wrong word-shape. |
|
| |