Now can we find an example where this symbol was actually used in practice?
U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
31–40 of 98 posts
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#32One of the interesting things about Unicode is how many symbols exist that almost no one encounters in normal software. Every once in a while you run into something like this and realize the standard is not just for text encoding but also a kind of archive of specialized notation from different fields. It makes you wonder how many other symbols are sitting in the table that are still mostly unknown outside the niche…
It's nearly impossible to know or to implement all utf-8/16 as beside of UTF support you need also to provide fonts for each. Thousands of scalable fonts - takes a lot of memory. That's why using such characters is risky as somewhere on the path such font will be displayed aa trash. (logs to email to presentation to word to excel to csv to database for example)
For years Ł support on Python on windows for example broke sometimes when imported from poor quality Excel files haha
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#33[flagged]
[flagged]
Something got doubled six times in a row, big deal.
In the case of the i-ching it's literally six bits of binary (expressed in yarrow stalks).
In genetic codons there's four symbols instead of two, and three places instead of six, so the effect is the same. (Does base 4 have a name?)
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#34Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Something got doubled six times in a row, big deal. In the case of the i-ching it's literally six bits of binary (expressed in yarrow stalks). In genetic codons there's four symbols instead of two, and three places instead of six, so the effect is the same. (Does base 4 have a name?)
>(Does base 4 have a name?)
Quaternary
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#36Great detective work re the azimuth finding for the glyph, but I believe the link to a sextant is tenuous at best. The author says it can, of course, be turned sideways to measure an azimuth with respect to an arbitrary meridian. That’s not correct. The tool for doing that is an azimuth ring sitting on a compass which allows the user to obtain the angle relative to north (the azimuth) between the user’s local meridian and a landmark.
A sextant can be used to obtain the relative horizontal angle between two landmarks, but it is much easier to use an azimuth ring. A sextant is designed to be used vertically. Holding and using one horizontally is difficult and time-consuming in comparison and is probably a less than a 1% use case, used only during the training of apprentices as a theoretical exercise (source: professional mariner for many years and daily user of a sextant back in the day). A comparison would be using a screwdriver to drive in a nail; you could do it given enough time, but a hammer is much easier.
I believe the explanation is much simpler: the glyph simply represents a variety of angles measured from north (the common meaning of azimuth) avoiding the use of any lettering (like “N”) or the use of a compass-like symbol which would be difficult to represent at such small scale.
Also (pedant warning for another poster) Polaris is not the brightest star, it’s around the 40th and has no practical use for navigation other than “north is roughly that way”.
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#37[dead]
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but what does any of that have to do with knowing that the glyph at U+237C originated as a symbol for azimuth?
Because that symbol was used as a notation symbol in those star charts and azimutal maps? The article quotes the Didot system, specifically, which focused on printing travel maps and is known not only in the French speaking world for its timely accuracy [1] as it was also using that very same map system. Maybe read the article next time? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didot_family [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki…
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment at all. The linked article does not refer to Didot, nor does the Wikipedia page for the glyph in question.
Neither the wikipedia page for the Didot family, nor for Histoire générale des voyages shows the Angzarr symbol, I've carefully checked on all the scans on these pages. In fact, any occurrence of the symbol would pre-date the current earliest known example (1963) by 200 years, and that would be a great find. If you have an actual reference, please let us know!
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#39The existence of characters that need this much work to explain suggests to be that unicode is bloated. Not the only thing that suggests that, either.
Re: U+237C ⍼ Is Azimuth
#40The existence of characters that need this much work to explain suggests to be that unicode is bloated. Not the only thing that suggests that, either.
That’s unavoidable given the goal:
Unicode provides a unique number for every character,
no matter what the platform,
no matter what the program,
no matter what the language.