Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> >> I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and
> >> subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic ("European")
> >> numerals.
> >
> > I + I = II
> > X + X = XX
> > X + X + X = XXX
> > C + X = CX
> > CX - X = C
>
> For these carefu
In a message dated 2001-09-22 11:35:16 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and
>> subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic ("European")
>> numerals.
>
> I + I = II
> X + X = XX
> X + X + X =
Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:47:59 -0700 (PDT), MindTerm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> I would like to ask any tools to convert HTML
> unicode ( e.g. & # n n n n ) to JAVA unicode ( e.g. \u
> n n n n ) ?
Here is a Perl program which does this:
perl -pe 'BEGIN {sub java ($) {sprintf "\\u%04x", $_[0]}}
> > Businesses continued to use Roman numerals for several
> centuries (because
> > addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals,
>
> I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and
> subtraction is easier in Roman numerals than in Hindu-Arabic ("European")
> numer
When developing xIUA, I designed UTF-8 support to be used two different
ways. One as a form of Unicode and the other as yet another code page. In
either case the two are handled with few exceptions in the same manor. The
only difference it when you want to convert from UTF-8 to an underlying co
In a message dated 2001-09-22 0:02:39 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Businesses continued to use Roman numerals for several centuries (because
> addition and subtraction is easier in Roman numerals,
I would be fascinated to see some sort of evidence that addition and
subtra
Edward,
Typewriters, computer keyboards, and school recitations still put 0 after 9
rather than before 1. Such is Human Stupidity.
This is logical. Originally typewrites had no 1 or 0. You code use the
letters l and O. They look the same so that is good enough until computers
came along and a
From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why would UTF-16 be easier for internal processing than UTF-8?
> Both are variable-length encodings.
Good straw man!
Working with UTF-16 is immensely easier than working with UTF-8. As I am am
sure you know! :-)
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Tr
Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> If you are expecting better performance from a library that takes UTF-8
> API's and then does all its internal processing in UTF-8 *without*
> converting to UTF-16, then I think you are mistaken. UTF-8 is a bad
>
We generally believe that the mathematicians led by
Leonardo Fibonacci won out over the Old Guard in replacing Roman numerals with
Hindu-Arabic numerals, but the victory was long drawn out, and is still
incomplete. Businesses continued to use Roman numerals for several centuries
(because add
10 matches
Mail list logo
