Re: Useful Unicode

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:06:47 -0400
Message-ID: <479a253c$0$4051$>

JOG wrote:

> On Jan 25, 5:26 pm, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>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.
> Yup, that's what I'm saying. Css always spring to mind. Microsoft
> could easily have accorded to the css spec for IE7, but chose not to.
> In doing so, they hinder growth of other browsers that do accord to
> the spec, because web designers must ensure that their pages work in
> IE above all else. And of course this results in more sites that work
> best in IE. If everyone just agreed to use the MS css model however,
> they would no longer have that advantage, and browsers would be
> competing on features alone.
> One might consider the principle of Silverlight as taking this one
> step further, tying you in to both IE and Windows.

Fuck! Just what we need: Another way for scummy advertisers to pollute the web with animations. ::shudder:: Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 19:06:47 CET

Original text of this message