Re: Useful Unicode

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:26:04 -0400
Message-ID: <479a1bb1$0$4077$>

JOG wrote:

> On Jan 25, 3:16 am, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>JOG wrote:
>>>On Jan 24, 7:14 pm, Bob Badour <> wrote:
>>>>JOG wrote:
>>>>>On Jan 24, 2:22 pm, Bob Badour <> wrote:
>>>>>>JOG wrote:
>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 2:22 am, Tegiri Nenashi <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Jan 22, 12:56 pm, JOG <> 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
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>How do you explain the uptake of XML?
>>Ignorance and wishful thinking. The same thing that explains the uptake
>>of any sort of snake oil.
> But yet the one thing of substance about XML is that (sadly) it now
> proliferates, and has become sort of data interchange standard. 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make above. I expect plenty of data gets interchanged in fixed column data files that trace their roots straight back to Hollerith too.


> not necessarily a case of good or bad standards, its just the process
> of standardizing at all. I wonder if SQL's domination might be viewed
> along the same lines, but I am in the dark as to what languages were
> competing at the time of its adoption?

Transactions require agreed upon media. Parties agree on currencies. Parties agree on measures. Parties agree on governing jurisdiction. Sometimes, parties agree on 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.
>>Monopoly is de facto standard. When there is only one to choose from, we
>>might as well call it a universal standard.
>> 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?
>>I didn't find what you wrote very coherent. You seemed to say markets
>>cause standardization rather than competition. You seemed to say
>>monopolies interfere with standardization. If that is not what you meant
>>to say, I apologize.
>>In retrospect, I should have cited Date's _Principle of Incoherence_.

> I think all I was trying to say , is that agreement of standards
> increases the size of a market, however if there already exists a
> dominant player in that market, then they have incentive to disrupt
> standardization in order to protect their own position. Hari Seldon I
> ain't however.

Actually, the dominant player has incentive to make potential customers or suppliers adopt their method as the standard, which is not exactly the same thing. They also have incentive to prevent competitors from similar adoption, which is perhaps what you were saying.

>>>>Have you ever tried to buy
>>>>accessories for the latest, newest cell phone six months or a year after
>>>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
>>>>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.
>>LOL All the way at the other end of the galaxy, no doubt.
Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 18:26:04 CET

Original text of this message