Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Ken, The next time I'm at the Mountain View CHM, I'll try to ask. However, assuming it was an overstrike of an X and an I, then where does the "Eris"-like glyph come from? Was there ever an IBM font with a double-semicircular X like )( ? On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Ken Whistler

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

2017-09-26 17:45 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler via Unicode : > Leo, > > Yeah, I know. My point was that by examining the physical typewriter keys > (the striking head on the typebar, not the images on the keypads), one > could see what could be generated *by* overstriking. I think

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The doc designate those characters as negative digits. They are used during numeric processing as well and then refered to as "-1".. "-9" and explcitly says it is a negative sign 2017-09-26 17:53 GMT+02:00 Ken Whistler : > Philippe, > > Those aren't negative digits, per se.

RE: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

William Overington wrote: > A digit with a bar over the top is used to express the common logarithm of a > number that is both greater > than zero and also less than one. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_logarithm Gosh, I’d forgotten that usage, although I now remember being taught it

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

A digit with a bar over the top is used to express the common logarithm of a number that is both greater than zero and also less than one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_logarithm William Overington Tuesday 26 September 2017 Original message >From : unicode@unicode.org Date :

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Philippe, Those aren't negative digits, per se. The usage in the manual is with an overline (or macron) to indicate the flag bit. It does occur over a zero, and in explanation in the text of floating point operations, it is also shown over letters (X, M, E) representing digits of the exponent

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Leo, Yeah, I know. My point was that by examining the physical typewriter keys (the striking head on the typebar, not the images on the keypads), one could see what could be generated *by* overstriking. I think Philippe's suggestion that it was simply an overstrike of "X" with an "I" is

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The 56th page in the PDF, numbered 52. -- SKen Software, LLC Coming soon to an iPhone near you > On Sep 26, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> On 2017/09/26 22:03, John W Kennedy via Unicode wrote: >> I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Thank you for the information. I attach an enlarged part of the scan which in my eyes shows a specific design at least for the printed text (maybe inspired by " } ^H | ^H { "). - Karl -- Am Dienstag, 26. September 2017 um 15:28 schrieb Jörg Knappen via Unicode: >> I found the character in

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

But what is interesting is the use of negative digits (-1 to -9, with the minus sign above the digit; I've not seen a case of minus 0, not needed apparently by the described operations) How do you encode these negative decimal digits in Unicode ? with a macron diacritic ? 2017-09-26 15:20

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

This is what is printed in the manual by its editor that probably used metalic fonts, however I doubt the actual typewriter had this symbol on the wheel of hammers, and it was probably just overtriking the two letters X and I. 2017-09-26 15:03 GMT+02:00 John W Kennedy via Unicode

Aw: Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

I found the character in question on p. 52, it is a picture of something handwritten, not a typeset character. "Clearly" means something different to me.   --Jörg Knappen   Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. September 2017 um 15:03 Uhr Von: "John W Kennedy via Unicode" An: "Leo

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On 2017/09/26 22:03, John W Kennedy via Unicode wrote: I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally authoritative IBM manual, A26-5706-3, IBM 1620 CPU Model 1 (July, 1965) displays what is clearly the Cyrillic letter. Whether it should be regarded as that, or as a distinct

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

I don’t know what your snippet is from, but the normally authoritative IBM manual, A26-5706-3, IBM 1620 CPU Model 1 (July, 1965) displays what is clearly the Cyrillic letter. Whether it should be regarded as that, or as a distinct character, is another question. See

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote: > For me, the glyph looks like the proposed and accepted U+2BF0 ERIS FORM ONE > (see pipeline; proposed as U+2BBA in L2/16-173R). > That's a perfect graphical match. I propose an annotation "Also an early IBM

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

For me, the glyph looks like the proposed and accepted U+2BF0 ERIS FORM ONE (see pipeline; proposed as U+2BBA in L2/16-173R). - Karl -- Am Dienstag, 26. September 2017 um 06:48 schrieb Leo Broukhis via Unicode: >> Wikipedia >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1620#Invalid_character) >>

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The glyph there looks more like U+1D219 Greek vocal notation symbol-51: http://shapecatcher.com/unicode/info/119321 than a Ж. If it was implemented as an overprint, either )^H|^H( or \^H|^H/ and was intended to signify an invalid character (for example, in the text part of core dumps, where a

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Magnus Bodin ☀ wrote: > It's like if IBM invented the tofu of some sort. > Right. The question is, can it be considered a glyph variation of U+? On a tangent: graphically, the closest glyph which is not a letter appears to be  U+1F74F