# Re: Useful Unicode

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:13:00 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <014faff3-dd0c-48bc-98cc-f8ca1bacb8e2_at_i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

On Jan 24, 2:22 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> JOG wrote:

*> > On Jan 24, 2:22 am, Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
**>
**> >>On Jan 22, 12:56 pm, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
**>
**> >>>So impressed was I by mAsterdam's japanese 'reference' symbols, I
**> >>>decided to add them to my list of useful unicode. Yes, I am indeed,
**> >>>that cool, and hereby post said list partly as a google-group test,
**> >>>and partly (perhaps) to assist in the more mathematical cdt
**> >>>discussions:
**>
**> >>>inequality : ≠
**> >>>inference : →
**> >>>implication : ⇒
**> >>>not : ¬
**> >>>and : ∧
**> >>>or : ∨
**> >>>xor : ⊕
**> >>>xor : ⊻
**> >>>exists : ∃
**> >>>for all : ∀
**> >>>membership : ∈
**> >>>non-membership : ∉
**> >>>equivalence : ⇔
**> >>>empty set : ∅
**> >>>subset : ⊂
**> >>>proper subset : ⊆
**> >>>superset : ⊃
**> >>>proper superset : ⊇
**> >>>union : ∪
**> >>>intersection : ∩
**> >>>cartesian product : ∏
**> >>>division : ÷
**> >>>naturals : ℕ
**> >>>integers : ℤ
**> >>>rationals : ℚ
**> >>>reals : ℝ
**> >>>complex: ℂ
**> >>>infinity : ∞
**> >>>references: レ
**> >>>references unique: ル
**> >>>masterdam smiley : ☺
**>
**> >>I believe I saw this rendered correctly, but now that I'm trying to
**> >>post something on sci.math most of the symbols do not render properly
**> >>in GG IE!
**>
**> > yeah, checking in IE , the second xor, non-membership, the empty set,
**> > and the naturals, integers, etc, don't render. Hooray for microsoft
**> > and their continued support of standards. Market Failure 101 anyone....
**>
**> What makes you think there is a market for standardization?- Hide quoted text -
**>
*

Well the economic theory (as far as I can recall) is that even in a fiercely competetive market, so long as there is no market failure, there exists an underlying impetus to agree on standards (or rather adopt a single one, from the scariest player). The game-theoretic (!) motivation is to increase network externalities overall, hence growing the size of the market as a whole and giving everyone a simlar percentage slice but of a bigger cake. I think its happened enough, in web standards, communication standards, etc, that it has some merit, but as far as a monopoly is concerned such agreement is anathema. They'd quite sensibly rather tie everyone into their own dedicated systems using such useful things as er...say... activex, subtly different css models and silverlight... ;) 'Course its a long time since I was an economist, and given economic theory is about as scientific as the fashion industry, the above may all now be viewed as bobbins.

*> - Show quoted text -
*

Received on Thu Jan 24 2008 - 17:13:00 CET