One of the new characters scheduled for Unicode 3.2 is
U+213F DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL PI
(A 500-byte GIF is attached.)
Double-struck pi! What better symbol to represent 2 * pi?
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
At 07:40 PM 1/26/02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the new characters scheduled for Unicode 3.2 is
U+213F DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL PI
(A 500-byte GIF is attached.)
Double-struck pi! What better symbol to represent 2 * pi?
These double struck symbols are used by mathematical sofware
In a message dated 2002-01-26 19:58:28 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Double-struck pi! What better symbol to represent 2 * pi?
These double struck symbols are used by mathematical sofware
precisely because they are NOT yet used for regular operators
or variables. Please
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Murray Sargent wrote:
Capital pi is to product as capital sigma is to summation.
But if I'm not mistaken, Unicode already has a separate character for
n-ary products and summation (U+220F, U+2211), distinct from the capital
Greek letters *and* the variant forms in the
of a symbol for 2 pi
In a message dated 2002-01-19 17:07:34 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact Cajori mentions that
the capital pi Was used at some point for 6.28... so someone had
the same idea long before I did
Hi James,
I appreciate the research, and the humor! 2 pis = peace, eh?
(not on the unicode list! :-) but I like that especially since
the issue of a name has been problematic. e to the i peace =1
circumference = peace times r, integral from zero to peace,
period = peace over frequency, has a
In a message dated 2002-01-19 9:33:46 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has there been any consideration of practical alternatives, such as
selecting a lookalike or similar character from the plethora of those
already encoded and promoting its use to represent the newpi
At 13:32 -0500 2002-01-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2002-01-19 9:33:46 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has there been any consideration of practical alternatives, such as
selecting a lookalike or similar character from the plethora of those
already encoded
In a message dated 2002-01-19 11:35:57 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could one of these characters,
already approved and part of Unicode, be adopted to represent 2pi?
That's up the the AMS, not to us.
Indeed. It might be a good topic for the AMS discussion forum that
Robert Palais wrote,
My own proposal was a pictogram: A circle with a radius to 3 o'clock,
i.e. from 0 to 1 in the complex number plane. Pacman with mouth closed.
Does that already exist in Unicode? :-) My dad's version is a lot more
palatable for most people.
Couldn't find such a
Robert Palais wrote:
I will be doing so, and apologize if my inquiry intruded on your
work, and at the same time, appreciate the many thoughtful
considerations on the matter of process of symbol standardization
that I received.
and later:
I apologize again if my misunderstanding that I
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For my part at least, I feel it is important to explain to proponents WHY
their proposed characters may not be suitable for encoding, rather than
simply telling them No.
I thought that had been done quite well.
I think the Unicode Consortium
At 10:06 AM 1/18/2002 -0700, Robert Palais wrote:
Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
as political as action. We are holders of the standards
for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols
until they are widely used... not necessarily the
At 10:06 -0700 2002-01-18, Robert Palais wrote:
Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
as political as action. We are holders of the standards
for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols
until they are widely used... not necessarily the
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Unicode Consortium and WG2 do understand this, and that is why
they are so reluctant to encode symbols that do not have established usage,
as in the case of 2 pi, or seek to make a social or political statement that
the Consortium
Hello Robert and others,
I think the Unicode Consortium and WG2 do understand this, and that is why
they are so reluctant to encode symbols that do not have established usage,
as in the case of 2 pi, or seek to make a social or political statement that
the Consortium and WG2 do not intend,
Robert Palais wrote:
Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
as political as action. We are holders of the standards
for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit
new symbols
until they are widely used... not necessarily the intent,
but possibly
At 01:45 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
The limitation of characters to those that are in current use is related
in large part to the code point limitations
What limitations? We have over a million codepoints to play with.
There is plenty of room.
I've always been under the impression that
At 10:06 AM 1/18/02 -0700, Robert Palais wrote:
Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
as political as action. We are holders of the standards
for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols
until they are widely used... not necessarily the
At 11:02 -0800 2002-01-18, Barry Caplan wrote:
There are plenty of characters which exist in the literature that
are not ended in Unicode, and in fact are specifically excluded:
those of written but dead languages.
They are not only not excluded, they are included: Runic and Deseret
are just
Just an aside on terminolgy:
At 08:02 PM 1/18/02 +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
3) A newly added operator (ZWL) which allows joining two characters into a
it's CGJ for Combinign Grapheme Joiner
4) A set of operators called Ideographic Description Character (IDC) for
They are for Ideographic
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:35:44AM -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Furthermore, there is a small cost of 'carrying a character on the books',
as each character added will incrementally grow the size of support files
that Unicode implementations will need.
They will also end up in fonts that
R. Palais wrote...
Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
as political as action. We are holders of the standards
for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols
until they are widely used... not necessarily the intent, but possibly
the
Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
as political as action. We are holders of the standards
for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols
until they are widely used... not necessarily the intent, but possibly
the impact - that
This is the same situation as having one person in town be the mural
painter and another be the news photographer. Is every news photographer
required to paint murals, too, or be otherwise accused of hampering
artistic evolution?
That seems to be the wrong analogy. The question is
Oh my! I have to agree, the discussion on the impact of symbol
uniformization IS extremely enlightening to me, although I'm
somewhat apologetic again from distracting everyone from more
serious and practical issues. Thank you all for your thoughtful
responses, both on and off-group!
On Fri, 18
David Starner wrote:
If the symbols in Unicode make a political
statement by being there, then Unicode supports Christianity (U+2626 and
others), anti-Christianity (U+FB29), Islam (U+262a), Hippies (U+262e),
Communism (U+262d), and Dharma (U+2638).
Ahem... Not to mention Turtles. ;-)
At 11:36 AM 1/18/02 -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
It is our job as a standarizing organization to standardize what is IN USE
so that (as a goal) people can standard-ly communicate those symbols
internationally without ambiguity. It is _NOT_ our job, and never will be
our job, to invent new symbols
Robert Palais wrote,
I'd even support the inclusion of a copyleft symbol ahead of \newpi!
Has there been any consideration of practical alternatives, such as
selecting a lookalike or similar character from the plethora of those
already encoded and promoting its use to represent the newpi
This discussion has sparked a few lively contributions and brought up some
important points, so even though it may have been beaten to death and Robert
has announced his intent to move it to another forum, I still have some
comments that may be pertinent in the AMS discussion.
I was a little
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I see anything new here. However, as I suggested, Dr. Beebe's
intention was to bring the character to the discussion within the
mathematical community where its potential for usefulness MIGHT be
sufficient to encourage its appearance and
Robert Palais wrote:
Thanks, good suggestion! Don Tucker pointed out the stability of a
three-legged stool. It has to be one-syllable, though tri does
have a certain 3-ness to it.
Right on! It sure does, even more, tri is how number 3 is pronounced in
many Slavic languages. You would sure
At 14:08 -0600 2002-01-16, David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:33:48AM -0700, Robert Palais wrote:
is at the same time somewhat a Catch-22. Nelson Beebe recommended it since
he figured unicode 3.2 would be the make or break for getting it in use.
It's too late for Unicode 3.2. In
At 13:12 -0700 2002-01-16, Robert Palais wrote:
It was also accepted
in use in the Mathematical Association of America's refereed Journal
of Online Mathematics www.joma.org/more/palaismore.html where the
one revolution periodicity and 1/4 phase shifts are represented and
the
Lars Kristan wrote:
3.14... is to a circle what 4 is to a square.
More generally, 3.1415... is to a circle what all numbers in from 2.8284...
to 4 are to a square.
_ Marco
Lars Kristan wrote:
3.14... is to a circle what 4 is to a square. It is the relationship between
the diameter and the circumference.
No it is NOT, mathematically. The square whose Perimeter is 4 has
diameter \sqrt 2. What is the side of a circle?
It shows that the problem is so ingrained
From: Robert Palais [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lars Kristan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The benefit of a symbol for 2 pi
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:11:37 -0700 (MST)
Lars Kristan wrote:
3.14... is to a circle what 4 is to a square. It is the relationship
between
Greetings,
Dr. Nelson Beebe of TUG suggested I contact the unicode discussion
forums regarding the need to clarify mathematical and physical
notation with a symbol for 2*\pi. This was pointed out in my paper
in The Mathematical Intelligencer v. 23, vol.3 2001 pp. 7-8 Springer-NY
which may be
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:13:31AM -0700, Robert Palais wrote:
The pi problem turns
something which should be natural into memorization for many students,
and Unicode could allow an alternative to eventually correct it.
Unicode is generally not the place for evangalism. [T]he Unicode
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
I think it's cute. But I guess I'd call it tri.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Thanks, good suggestion! Don Tucker pointed out the stability of a
three-legged stool. It has to be one-syllable, though tri
I think it's cute. But I guess I'd call it tri.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Robert Palais wrote:
Nelson Beebe recommended it since he figured unicode 3.2 would be
the make or break for getting it in use.
Speaking not officially, but as someone who has been lurking around here
awhile, the Unicode Technical Committee does not generally float trial
balloons. In
At 11:33 -0700 2002-01-16, Robert Palais wrote:
It was also accepted
in use in the Mathematical Association of America's refereed Journal
of Online Mathematics www.joma.org/more/palaismore.html where the
one revolution periodicity and 1/4 phase shifts are represented and
the graphs are labelled
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:16:51AM -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
If this symbol starts showing up widely instead of 2 pi in mainstream
high school math text books, then UTC will know it's time to encode it.
Until then, it's a curiosity.
That's a little excessive, isn't it? I would think that
Thanks Rick,
That's why I brought it up here, to get unofficial feedback!
As a matter of credit- the suggested \newpi symbol was not mine but
due to Richard Palais (mathematical adviser of Leslie Lamport (LaTeX)
and Mike Spivak (AMSTeX/Joy of TeX) at Brandeis). In \TeX :
\def
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:33:48AM -0700, Robert Palais wrote:
is at the same time somewhat a Catch-22. Nelson Beebe recommended it since
he figured unicode 3.2 would be the make or break for getting it in use.
It's too late for Unicode 3.2. In any case, there's a lot of people who
would like
At 11:33 AM 1/16/2002 -0700, Robert Palais wrote:
is at the same time somewhat a Catch-22. Nelson Beebe recommended it since
he figured unicode 3.2 would be the make or break for getting it in use.
I'd be curious if you disagree with the thesis that a symbol for
6.28 has scientific/mathematical
I thought this would best be kept offline, but I disagree with
most of these points, where I could see many in your first
private email.
If you read the article, you will see that there is basically
no use of diameter in mathematics or physics, that pi is
an invention of the 1700's, not the
To the members of the discussion:
I saw Dr. Nelson Beebe today and discovered his intent was that I
bring this to the American Mathematical Society's discussion forum
on Unicode, not the general one. I will be doing so, and apologize
if my inquiry intruded on your work, and at the same time,
49 matches
Mail list logo
