h a l f b a k e r y
Poof of concept
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Typography + Science = Scientography
There are numerous "new" phenomena that weren't around when most of the commonly accepted graphic symbols used in the scientific community were generated and accepted, many of which are based on Greek letters. (pi being the most obvious example)
We now have
black holes; gravitons; gluons; parsecs; dark matter - the list is long, and applies to all disciplines.
What is clearly needed is the creation of a series of new universally agreed graphically orientated symbols, under the collective name of Scientography. These would be organised like typefaces with accepted standards and conventions for size, spacing, upper and lower case versions. The next stage would be the generation of digital font sets to enable the new symbols to be inserted in sentence construction.
The quality of a language that it only exists in writing and has no spoken form [notexactly, Apr 15 2018]
Prior art that just happened to have its most recent activity just over exactly ten years ago [notexactly, Apr 16 2018]
Submit new unicode symbols
Make up some new symbols, publish them in a journal, and get them into unicode! [beanangel, Apr 16 2018]
The purpose of this language is to study symbolism, metaphor and etymology, and to draw little pictures. I'm just trying to see how far I can go using only pre- established symbols, without inventing signs out of whole cloth. I don't expect anyone to actually use it. [eritain, Apr 19 2018]
||I think for contemporaneous advantage, it should
be that emoji be created which graphically depict
exactly what is going on there in each case.
||One of the things about why maths is so
incomprehensible is that it uses a notation which
simply was never ever introduced to us (well, me).
Each new school I went to, the teachers all
assumed the students had been introduced to the
weird and inefficient unpronounceable characters
that were inserted into the maths to make it
somehow mean something other than what it reads
(which is basically just numbers with typographic
noise scattered throughout). The end result is that
there is no meaning whatsoever, and just jamming
a bunch of numbers together with random
characters blended in here and there doesnt
introduce any meaning at all, it just makes it even
more difficult to say, pronounce and therefore
remember what youve just seen.
||Im sure maths probably has some use somewhere,
but until it achieves a fluid transmissible state
where you could read some maths off a page and
dictate it down a phone and the person at the
other end could not only write it down but also
know what it means, then it is effectively an
exclusionary pissing contest. None of it means
anything because none of it can be pronounced.
Theres no mechanisms or relationships made
visible at all all that occurs is occlusion.
||Meaning? I'm surprised that you see no meaning in
maths. You may not understand the symbols, but
that does not remove their meaning, only your
comprehension of that meaning. You could apply
the same logic to musical notation and see where
it takes you. i.e. like all languages, it's an
abstraction with a set of rules that fit together and
make sense when applied in certain circumstances.
||I'm very relieved that this is not a combination of graphology with
||Meanwhile, [Ian], you might like to try reading some translations
of Ancient Greek maths. If the bits of it I remember from Plato
are anything to go by, it was all done with words, not symbols.
||So, [Ian], what symbols would you use to allow the
concept of "equals" to be expressed both concisely and in
such a way that no prior knowledge is needed?
||I think maths actually does rather well. Compare its
symbology to that of music, which is just so perverse that
all kinds of extra arcane squiggles have to be added to
express things like "that note that's just above C, only the
one at the top end, and not actually C as such but the
one between C and the next D that we don't have a name
for, and by the way it should be quite long and fairly
||So what Ian is saying is that they should have done
common core math a long time ago.
||The poo emoji should be reserved for the imaginary
||Music the same I passed music at school having
no idea of the notation (just because I talked a lot
about synthesisers, but this was 1977 and my music
teachers were both quite elderly, although werent
unfamiliar with what a synthesiser might be).
Since then Ive been making music without the
slightest clue what it might look like on a stave. In
fact Ive just finished off a couple of songs Ive
been working on for the past week or so, and
really dont know which notes are which, at all.
The songs sound okay to me though.
||The problem is the notations. I find that all
education involving a new notation simply launches
ahead without properly introducing it to my
satisfaction (or at all).
||Don't make new fonts. Just add the new characters to
||// maths [
] none of it can be pronounced. //
||Math is semi-semasiographic: [link]
||Really? Well why didnt they say so, back then.
||<musical notation for 'bdum tsh'/>
||Make up some new symbols, publish them in a journal, and get them into unicode!
||Create new symbols at the unicode consortium at [link]
||quantum entangled particles: double smiley face
alternate usage: almost guaranteed.