• hexagonwin@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    it’s the chinese character 正, it’s also used for this purpose in korea and i expect china as well.

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I use these:
    Tally marks progressively forming a square, then slashing it.

    I’m not too sure on how widespread they are, but some websearch hints South America (here), France, and Iberia.

    I’ve seen the bottom one only in anime/manga, never IRL. Can’t recall the top one.

    • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If you start with dots in the corners, and end with an “X in a box” you can get up to 10 in the same amount of space.

        • recursivethinking@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          31 minutes ago

          I like it but would flip it. Top row dots, then line through them. Next row of dots goes underneath, so on so forth.

          I personally do ~ 1/4 height vertical lines then slash through horizontally. Specifically because of the space efficiency. I also find it more defined when you have a fine pen, as you said dots can get missed, especially on recycled paper.

    • zikzak025@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Interesting numbering system that I didn’t know about before today, thanks for sharing!

      It doesn’t seem like it would be quite as useful for a tally system, though, where you’re meant to be able to increment easily by 1 without changing/erasing earlier markings. This system seems strictly focused on simply representing numbers in as compact a form as possible.

      It does have me feeling like it could be a lot more efficient than Arabic numberals, though. Wonder if there are any clock apps that support it so I could have it to reference for time…

      Edit: a word

      • _‌_反いじめ戦隊@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        It was designed for both!
        All the tallies get incremented and overriden by «9»: 9
        Every 10th is an ordinal:
        10ᴺ

        I also specifically use it to prescribe times & formulæ:
        3💊@12🕘45 o[r] 18μg

        • zikzak025@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I guess I am still missing a piece, as I don’t really see how one is meant to express the number 5 as a tally using only 3 strokes, or 9 as 6 strokes for that matter.

          It seems like an efficient numbering system for sure, but I’m not seeing how it works as a tally without erasing any prior strokes.

            • zikzak025@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              I’m still not sure if I’m following the explanation. I don’t know if I’m just failing to tell what numbers your illustrations correspond to, at least not by referencing the Wikipedia article you had linked (e.g. there is no representation of a number that has two diagonal lines forming an X).

              I visited your second link in the comment above this, but it appears to be a hub page containing multiple books on writing shorthand, and I can’t find mention of cistercian notation on that page. If it’s in one of the books, I’m not sure where to begin looking.

              Here is my attempt to take a stab at using the cistercian system as a tally instead of numerals. Though the representations of 2, 3, and 4 are not consistent with what the article depicts as their standard numerals in isolation, I’m hoping the inclusion of their defining strokes may still be clear enough to interpret.

              Where it seems to fall apart is 5, as the only other “opening” for a stroke, without removing any prior ones, is the far-right side. But the location of that stroke would not appear to be touched until you get to the numeral for 6 (visually, 5 is simply the 3-stroke combination of 1 and 4). After filling in that remaining segment, what I’m left with seems to correspond to what you had identified as 9, so I’m guessing it’s not right.

              Other than the possibility of including an additional + inside the box as you had mentioned, I don’t see what else can be done to expand the tally above 5, as that now covers all permutations of the standard stroke positions detailed in the Wikipedia article. But even with the two additional strokes provided by the +, that only takes us up to 7.

              • _‌_反いじめ戦隊@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                47 minutes ago

                When you tally, do you count up, or subtract?

                I ask, because even in your self notation, you can clearly see you tallied over 2, 3, 4, & 6.
                tally trans
                On 7, you can overline, 8 underline 2, and lastly 9 can be strikethrough!