<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/29/2022 10:20 PM, Anshuman Pandey
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:55855D06-5C02-4FDB-BC4B-B5D38D16C960@umich.edu">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">While
we’re on this topic, I’d like to interfere with the need to
encode a distinctive negation sign used in the Bakhshali
manuscript, a mathematical treatise written in the Sharada
script:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><a
href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13080-sharada-bakhshali-minus.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13080-sharada-bakhshali-minus.pdf</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Obviously,
using the common ‘+’ for indicating negation in plain text
does not capture the semantic intent of the Sharada ‘+’.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I see that the proposal is from 2013 and in the intervening 9
years hasn't been encoded. And that's a good thing. As usual, it's
impossible with a simple search to locate the result of any UTC
deliberation or decision on this to verify the status.<br>
</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:55855D06-5C02-4FDB-BC4B-B5D38D16C960@umich.edu">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Oct 29, 2022, at 9:19 PM, Gabriel
Tellez via Unicode <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span
style="font-family:Candara">interestingly enough, one
of the sources cited for the Wikipedia article
actually has a mapping to U+203E (spacing overline). </span></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>You mean... it's contested?!?!</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">These characters were
in Unicode from very early on. Unlike some of the later
additions there is no link to a particular citation "in
the wild". Instead, the original repertoire collected a
superset of then existing character sets in reasonably
wide usage. If any of their members violated Unicode
encoding principles, they were added as compatibility
characters (to facilitate round trip), otherwise as
ordinary characters.</blockquote>
<br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>Compatibility characters from what set? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">APL contents itself
with U+207B SUPERSCRIPT MINUS</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No? Other then on one Wikipedia Page, most places I
looked (including the APL wiki) used ¯ U+00AF MACRON.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at
8:18 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The APL language used a
high-minus for negative numbers and a normal <br>
hyphen-minus for the operator, monadic or dyadic. The
high-minus was <br>
syntactically part of the number, while the regular minus
operated on a <br>
number (which would affect its precedence.) Come to think
of it, when <br>
they were teaching us negative numbers in grade school I
think my math <br>
book initially used a high-minus sign and then introduced
the concept <br>
that negation was an operation that can be done to numbers
and from then <br>
on used the regular minus sign.<br>
<br>
Non-typographically, Lojban mathematical syntax (mekso)
distinguishes <br>
{vu'u}, the subtraction operator, from {ni'u}, the
negative-number <br>
indicator. The latter is syntactically considered a
*digit*, while the <br>
former is an operator.<br>
<br>
Unicode has a long history of tolerating the typographic
weirdness of <br>
APL (all those APL symbols). That there isn't an APL
high-minus sign <br>
already would indicate to me that APL contents itself with
U+207B <br>
SUPERSCRIPT MINUS and that's Just Fine.<br>
<br>
~mark<br>
<br>
On 10/28/22 18:10, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:<br>
> Gabriel Tellez wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Is superscript minus use for this?<br>
> Is *anything* used for this, outside of the TI-83 and
TI-84 machines, other than an ordinary minus sign or
hyphen-minus?<br>
><br>
> There are actual mathematics experts on this list,
but my understanding is that normal mathematical
notation—as used both by experts and the general
public—uses the same symbol for both unary and binary
minus. The TI calculators may have distinguished between
the two to make input or internal parsing easier.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | <a
href="http://ewellic.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ewellic.org</a><br>
><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>