• Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This system is absolutely more efficient, using one space for 4 digits of arabic numerals, and ease of use has more to do with familiarity than anything else. You only think the “common way” is easy because it’s common to you. There are lots of number systems considered “the common way” to entire other cultures.

    • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is a base 10,000 system, it’s not one symbol, it’s one position. This system is only beneficial if you are crushed for physical space on a piece of paper, for today’s use case, it’s basically pointless.

      • GreyEyedGhost
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It’s not really a base 1000 system. It’s base 10 attached to a line, with position denoting its power. It even has the benefit of being compound glyphs, with only 45 unique lines used (plus the spine). With a single addition this could be as expandable as Arabic.

        Not bad for a numbering system that didn’t become popularized. And if you say, “Ah, but you have to add a symbol,” feel free to learn the history of zero.