Early Elven Number System

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Hello everyone! I just finished the beginning of the elvish number system.

It runs off a symbolic, color based system on a base 8 format, using direction of following terms for interaction.

Here are the symbols and their representatives:

3d4967aaccab69de78575c981bb8d183.png

The beginning rules:

Parentheses- form blocks around symbols.
Exponents- Blue subscript for positive exponent, Red subscript for negative exponent
Multiplication- Blue number symbols going in vertical from highest to lowest.
Division- Red number symbols going in vertical from highest to lowest.
Addition- Blue number symbols to the right.
Subtraction- Red number symbols to the right.

**Some numbers have multiple possible assortments**

Final result is circled.
Click to expand...

It isn't as complicated as it may seem, but until one get's fluent at making the symbols, it takes space.

Let me do a some examples:

62c057af6119a81360d473ddd61554bd.png

62de1e20abe7ac201521ff4b2c3662c5.png

d80a6daf5fcab3d2c6170e5c2e5ed944.png

f6506bd35b7ea3de77a579f1ef71b7da.png

All of this is basic starting of the system. Many of you will say "That takes up too much space to work!" and to that I reply with Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." I'll simply make the elves extremely proficient at it and have the eyesight to read it easily. Meh :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser29066

Guest
so when an elf shoots you the finger, is he saying he thinks you're number \ in his book?
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Archon of Corinth said:
I've looked at other comparative websites and versions of Elvish, Tengwar, Sindarin, Noldorin and so on. How about introducing a decimal or duodecimal form as in Latin with numerals based on sets of ten or five. Do these help?

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/numerals.html

http://elvenesse.net/blog/counting-the-elvish-way-duodecimal-system/

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tengwar.htm
Click to expand...

I certainly will be making a duo decimal system (as it's my favorite system), but it will probably be for another race. I have to make a language and mathematical system for about 3-4 other races, so bases is a definite start.

I would like the elves to start out on a more symbol based math system, but dwarves (or any race I make myself) Could use a different base.

I plan on evolving each race to a point of having a common mathematical system, which will resemble our own decimal format. And eventuality have English become the business language throughout tinge and evolve that to become the common tongue (similar to LOTR).

I'll definitely be looking at those links you gave, though. They should help in the future. Thank ya!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This is way too complicated lol, requires actual thought :p
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Swamp-Fox said:
This is way too complicated lol, requires actual thought :p
Click to expand...

Hey you can read and write the English language with mostly proper grammar and spelling. I assure you pebbles number system is simpler than that. He was a jerk for basing the system on 8 though.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Cheater of death said:
Hey you can read and write the English language with mostly proper grammar and spelling. I assure you pebbles number system is simpler than that. He was a jerk for basing the system on 8 though.
Click to expand...

Number bases are not that difficult to learn. Either way, it only SLIGHTLY resembled a base 8 system.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Unless you're inventing entirely new fundamentals of mathematics, this system is not only flawed, it's flat out wrong. I don't intend to sound rude or demoralizing but I don't suggest using this in fiction it its current state. :p

The octal system doesn't have an 8. it uses the digits 0-7. Even if you decide that a 1 represents a 0, a 2 represents a 3 and so on, this doesn't change the rules of mathematics (e.g. your use of the V looking symbol as exponents is useless as that is a 1, meaning it adds nothing to the number)
This is probably the reason why I fail to understand any of your representation of decimal numbers, but feel free to enlighten me.

(
a pebble said:
I plan on evolving each race to a point of having a common mathematical system, which will resemble our own decimal format.
Click to expand...
Just fyi, the only reason we use the decimal numbers is because we have 10 fingers. The most optimal way to store information would be using a base e system (which is irrational and therefore very complicated) Or the duodecimal system which would be the 'neatest' system. (easier division, fewer infinite numbers like 10/3)
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Skullyhoofd said:
Unless you're inventing entirely new fundamentals of mathematics, this system is not only flawed, it's flat out wrong. I don't intend to sound rude or demoralizing but I don't suggest using this in fiction it its current state. :p

The octal system doesn't have an 8. it uses the digits 0-7. Even if you decide that a 1 represents a 0, a 2 represents a 3 and so on, this doesn't change the rules of mathematics (e.g. your use of the V looking symbol as exponents is useless as that is a 1, meaning it adds nothing to the number)
This is probably the reason why I fail to understand any of your representation of decimal numbers, but feel free to enlighten me.

(
Just fyi, the only reason we use the decimal numbers is because we have 10 fingers. The most optimal way to store information would be using a base e system (which is irrational and therefore very complicated) Or the duodecimal system which would be the 'neatest' system. (easier division, fewer infinite numbers like 10/3)
Click to expand...

In a manner of speaking, it does run off a base 8 system. Base 8 in principle is having 8 symbolic representations of numbers. Just in my base 8 rendition, zero does not exist. My system practically is an advanced version of tally marks (base one, but I think we can agree my interpretation is a bit different from using a base system- I used the term base 8 to give an idea), so to speak, but with 8 terms. Since tallies never need zeroes, neither does the system. A zero could be represented by a blue one horizontals juxtaposed against a red one.

So, I may not be making new fundamentals, but expounding upon an already existing idea of tally marks in an (very) obscure way. For example, when one rolls from a base 8 system (as I'm sure you know), once one has 9 items we roll the 8 into the next exponential place of 8 (the "tens" place, for simplistic terms) and then place a 1 in the ones place. However, once I reach 9, I do not roll any numbers backward (the 8 stays in place)- I simply place a blue one beside it.

It is a different manner of interpreting numbers (albeit, an EXTREMELY inefficient one, but different).

EDIT: And yes, I really really want a base 12 system in use. I don't know much about counting in base e though lol :D Not sure I'd want to :p
 

DeletedUser46838

Guest
First you're inventing some "godly" language, now you're creating ElvenGobbleGook Mathematics, next thing you know, it's going to be Pebble Graphix Delight
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Rock5 said:
First you're inventing some "godly" language, now you're creating ElvenGobbleGook Mathematics, next thing you know, it's going to be Pebble Graphix Delight
Click to expand...

I did delve into photoshop for a few months. I soon realized it was a bit tedious for me. I'll leave GFX to Xtc- he's better at it anyway :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am a computer science student, I can do conversions from decimal to binary/octal/hexadecimal by heart :p Which is why this system is bothering me because I cannot see the logic in it.

I made that remark to make sure you knew octal systems don't have 8s only because when you're trying to show how an octal system works in respect to conversion to decimal you should use 0-7, not 1-8 :p This is why a 0 is necessary unless you're throwing away all the fundamentals of mathematics.

The tallies might not have the need for a 0, but if you're trying to make sense of a self-created mathematical system which bears any resemblances to the real one you will need a 0. Not the number, but the concept. Just the smallest natural number. Which in your case would be a \.

Let's take a look at your example of 71.

It's (the highest single-digit number to the power of the second-lowest single-digit number) minus the second highest single-digit number. ==> converted to base-8: (7^1) - 6 = 7 - 6 = 1
1 in base-8 == 1 in base-10, not 71.

Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere, but I think I followed your rules? fyi I'm assuming order of operations doesn't change and is the same as PEMDAS (Parantheses > exponents > Multiplication / Division > Addition / Subtraction)

This is very hard to explain with words only, and your made up symbols don't help either :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Skullyhoofd said:
I am a computer science student, I can do conversions from decimal to binary/octal/hexadecimal by heart :p Which is why this system is bothering me because I cannot see the logic in it.

I made that remark to make sure you knew octal systems don't have 8s only because when you're trying to show how an octal system works in respect to conversion to decimal you should use 0-7, not 1-8 :p This is why a 0 is necessary unless you're throwing away all the fundamentals of mathematics.

The tallies might not have the need for a 0, but if you're trying to make sense of a self-created mathematical system which bears any resemblances to the real one you will need a 0. Not the number, but the concept. Just the smallest natural number. Which in your case would be a \.

Let's take a look at your example of 71.

It's (the highest single-digit number to the power of the second-lowest single-digit number) minus the second highest single-digit number. ==> converted to base-8: (7^1) - 6 = 7 - 6 = 1
1 in base-8 == 1 in base-10, not 71.

Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere, but I think I followed your rules? fyi I'm assuming order of operations doesn't change and is the same as PEMDAS (Parantheses > exponents > Multiplication > Division > Addition > Subtraction)

This is very hard to explain with words only, and your made up symbols don't help either :p
Click to expand...

Let's get away from your understanding of bases. I used that as a simple way to convey an idea of having 8 terms. Since I did not need a zero, I went up to an 8th symbol. The reason you are having trouble seeing the logic in it is because it does not resemble any current numerical system (to my knowledge). It really is not a "base-based" numerical system. I only used that terminology to convey an idea.

If it helps you understand better, consider it as a base 9 format and zero is a blue diagonal horizontal to a red diagonal.

I'll make examples using our "regular" numerals and see if that helps.

EDIT: Just realized my 71 example was wrong. Not by what you said, but I used a red 7 and not a blue one. The 71 example would be 64-7, making it a 57 example. I'll edit it and add a proper 71 example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
a pebble said:
Let's get away from your understanding of bases. I used that as a simple way to convey an idea of having 8 terms. Since I did not need a zero, I went up to an 8th symbol. The reason you are having trouble seeing the logic in it is because it does not resemble any current numerical system (to my knowledge). It really is not a "base-based" numerical system. I only used that terminology to convey an idea.
Click to expand...
Don't blame me, you used the words 'based on a base-8 format' :p

a pebble said:
If it helps you understand better, consider it as a base 9 format and zero is a blue diagonal horizontal to a red diagonal.
Click to expand...
Ah, that does help. A base-9 system is exactly what it is then, to answer your earlier words "does not resemble any current numerical system (to my knowledge)"
You follow its logic, anyhow, you just lack a symbol. Which makes it even more inefficient, but hey, it's not the first inefficient system to have existed :p (looking at you romans)



a pebble said:
EDIT: Just realized my 71 example was wrong. Not by what you said, but I used a red 7 and not a blue one. The 71 example would be 64-7, making it a 57 example. I'll edit it and add a proper 71 example.
Click to expand...
It makes sense now :)
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
This was probably the signle most complex argument I have ever seen. I probably only understood half of it but it's ok cause that one comment about roman numerals, made it all worth it :D.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Cheater of death said:
This was probably the signle most complex argument I have ever seen. I probably only understood half of it but it's ok cause that one comment about roman numerals, made it all worth it :D.
Click to expand...
lol, their terrible system deserves it :p

Btw pebbles, I think I found a flaw. The colours limit your possibilities. How would you divide by or multiply negative numbers?
Also, how do you represent fractional numbers (numbers after the decimal point?)
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Skullyhoofd said:
lol, their terrible system deserves it :p

Btw pebbles, I think I found a flaw. The colours limit your possibilities. How would you divide by or multiply negative numbers?
Also, how do you represent fractional numbers (numbers after the decimal point?)
Click to expand...

I solved the negatives problem the day I posted it, but was too lazy to edit it :p

A red circle is a negative number, blue circle would be positive. Same principle with the block parentheses.

As for fractions, I have an example of one already ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top