Talk:D'ni numerals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to D'ni language. |
Rotating the basic numeral, therefore, multiplies its value by five; this principle of Fives misleads many to believe that D'ni numerals are base-5
Is that really "misleading" to call it base 5? I personally would consider those numerals to be base 5, with simply a novel method of combining digits. In the same way that hangul is alphabetic, but combines the characters into syllabic blocks, so D'ni numerals are base-5, combining the digits into base-25 blocks. Nik42 03:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is misleading. "Glyphs used to derive digits" != "digits" themselves. The base of a positional numeral system is the number of unique digits in that system. D'ni numerals have twenty-five unique digits, regardless of the fact that those digits are derived from only four glyphs. SFT | Talk 04:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- But the D'ni numbers have only five basic digits, merely combined by rotation. A number like decimal 17 is simply "32" with the digits juxtaposed on top of each other instead of placed linearly. If it were truely base 25, there would be distinct digits. Nik42 05:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I just don't see the logic in calling the "digit" for, say, 17 anything but a combination of 3 + 2. It seems senseless to me to call it anything but a unique way of writing base-5. But, whatever. If you want to define "digit" as something other than a basic character, you're free to do so. But there should at least be a mention in the article that it can be interpreted either way. A true base-25 system should have distinct digits/glyphs whatever you want to call them for each number 0-24 Nik42 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- D'ni numerals do not have 25 "unique digits", they have FIVE unique digits (glyphs, if you insist). The "digits" are not unique characters but combinations of the basic characters (by whatever name you choose to call them). Nik42 05:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It cannot be interpreted either way. Base-5 means you go through five characters in one place (as in place-value) before advancing to the next place to the left. D'ni numerals do not do that. They go through twenty-five characters in one place before advancing to the next place. Therefore, they're base-25. SFT | Talk 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nik42, D'ni numerals are base 25, not base 5. That the majority of the digit's glyphs happen to be made up of simpler ones has absolutely no bearing on this; it is merely a typographic curiosity. To give you an example, the equivalent of a 'century' in D'ni, a "hahrtee fahrah", is 625 years, which is [1][0][0] years in a base-25 system. Not in a base-5 system. chucker 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the D'ni language, but their numerals, so it doesn't matter if D'ni has unique terms for 1-25 or if 125 is simply "five 25's", that doesn't have any bearing on their numerals (indeed, if the language itself is base-25, then it makes perfect sense to write the base-5 D'ni numeral system as if it were base-25, in much the same way that Korean hangul, while alphabetic, is written to appear syllabic, due to the influence of surrounding native scripts) Nik42 20:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)- Never mind, it's a waste of time to continue arguing this point. To me it's blatantly obvious that it's base-5 just written in a way that makes it seem base-25, to you, it's obviously base-25, neither of us is going to convince the other, I don't think. Nik42 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The digits from 0 to 24 are base-5, yes, the power of a glyph determined by rotation instead of position. But not the numbers. They are base-25. It might be misleading to those only who don't have to deal with numbers greater than 24. --Vohveli 07:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's a waste of time to continue arguing this point. To me it's blatantly obvious that it's base-5 just written in a way that makes it seem base-25, to you, it's obviously base-25, neither of us is going to convince the other, I don't think. Nik42 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nik42, D'ni numerals are base 25, not base 5. That the majority of the digit's glyphs happen to be made up of simpler ones has absolutely no bearing on this; it is merely a typographic curiosity. To give you an example, the equivalent of a 'century' in D'ni, a "hahrtee fahrah", is 625 years, which is [1][0][0] years in a base-25 system. Not in a base-5 system. chucker 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Removal of image
I'm removing the image of the numerals until I get clarification from Cyan on how I can license that image, if I can at all. SFT | Talk 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Transliteration of D'ni Numerals
Wouldn't it be important to mention the transliteration of the D'ni numerals: 0123456789)!@#$%^&*([]{} for the 0-24 and | for the 25 character? Pinothyj 08:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)…
