Useful Unicode

#**161**

JOG wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 25, 5:26 pm, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

JOG wrote:

On Jan 25, 3:16 am, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

JOG wrote:

On Jan 24, 7:14 pm, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

JOG wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:22 pm, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

JOG wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:22 am, Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNena... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Jan 22, 12:56 pm, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> 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
discussions:

inequality : â‰*
inference : â†’
implication : â‡’
not : Â¬
and : âˆ§
or : âˆ¨
xor : âŠ•
xor : âŠ»
exists : âˆƒ
for all : âˆ€
membership : âˆˆ
non-membership : âˆ‰
equivalence : â‡”
empty set : âˆ…
subset : âŠ‚
proper subset : âŠ†
superset : âŠƒ
proper superset : âŠ‡
union : âˆª
intersection : âˆ©
cartesian product : âˆ
division : Ã·
naturals : â„•
integers : â„¤
rationals : â„š
reals : â„
complex: â„‚
infinity : âˆž
references: ãƒ¬
references unique: ãƒ«
masterdam smiley : â˜º

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 emptyset,
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?- Hidequoted 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
standards?

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.

Its

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::

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Useful Unicode

comp.databases.theory comp.databases.theory

Re: Useful Unicode - 01-25-2008 , 12:06 PM