Re: Useful Unicode

On Jan 24, 7:14 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > 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,
>
> How do you explain the plethora of competing web and communication
> standards?

How do you explain the uptake of XML?

> Ditto the various rail gauges and domestic line voltages?
>
> > but as far as a monopoly is concerned such agreement is anathema.
>
> Why do you think monopoly is required?

Hmmm, I said if there is a Monopoly, standardization is tougher to arrive at. Your asking me why if it is tough to Standardize, a monopoly must therefore be required? I have claimed such thing....have I caught you "affirming the consequent" bob?

> Have you ever tried to buy
> accessories for the latest, newest cell phone six months or a year after
> purchase?

Lordy no, I'm a hip young thing who regularly changes his phone as per the latest fashion.

>
> > 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.
>
> Market equilibria over the very long term and individual commercial
> interests over the very short term vary considerably.

I'll leave forecasting "the very long term to the Psychohistorians, while I concentrate on my unicodes. Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 03:17:21 CET