Ysi Earth world map II

[Karro]

Okay, so the handedness of the map creator may not be a factor in the order of the numerals.

So; other factors to consider:

Base #: this may not be base 10. Considering the focus on 3's I'd think something based on 3s is just as likely: possibly either Base 3, Base 6, Base 9 or Base 12. The base will tell us the number of unique glyph symbols that are represented in a given counting system.

The meaning of glyphs/digits in representing numerals: in the arabic system we use, each glyph/digit represents one numeral in a base 10 system, with each additional glyph/digit to the right indicating a power of 10. Using the same system, but changing the base, as above, to let's say a base three system would give us three different glyphs: one for 0, for 1, and for 2. Each digit to the right (assuming the numbers are ordered from right to left in the arabic system) would represent an increased power of 3. Thus the glyphs 10 would represent 3, 11 would represent 4, and 12 would represent 5, 20 would represent 6 and so on. However, this isn't the only way for the glyphs to represent value. In the roman system, for instance, each "I" represents a value of 1. If the I is to the right of another glyph, it is added to the value of that glyph. If to the left, it is subtracted from the value of it. Each V represents a value of 5, each X a value of 10, and so on, and consecutive glyphs of the same value are added together before either being added to or subtracted from the next-order glyph. Alternatively, the order of the glyphs could be reversed, so that, going back to our example, 01 represents 3, 11 represents 4, 21 represents 5, and so on, so that the higher-order numeral is to the right instead of to the left. The fact that our higher-order numerals are to the left, IIRC, is an artifact of arabic being written from right to left.

So... the order of the digits could have a variety of meanings representing different operations that are performed on the glyphs to arrive at a given value. Addition, subtraction, and multiplication are the operations most likely to be suggested by the order of glyphs (in arabic, it is multiplication by 10s, 100s, and so on), although it might theoretically be possible for digit-order to indicate divisions as well.

Other considerations might include the possibility of hybrid forms where the counting systems appears to represent more than one base, or where glyphs represent something other than pure value (i.e. mathematical operators, etc.) or hybrids of different types of counting systems (like a hybrid roman/arabic system, perhaps?) And besides the examples I've given, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to come up with other alternative counting systems from which to draw clues and conclusions.

[Naeddyr]

Okay, so the handedness of the map creator may not be a factor in the order of the numerals.

So; other factors to consider:

Base #: this may not be base 10. Considering the focus on 3's I'd think something based on 3s is just as likely: possibly either Base 3, Base 6, Base 9 or Base 12. The base will tell us the number of unique glyph symbols that are represented in a given counting system.

Ohoho, very good, very good, and so close. But there is one assumption there that will drive you insane as you try to apply it to THIS system... *cackle*

Other considerations might include the possibility of hybrid forms where the counting systems appears to represent more than one base, or where glyphs represent something other than pure value (i.e. mathematical operators, etc.) or hybrids of different types of counting systems (like a hybrid roman/arabic system, perhaps?) And besides the examples I've given, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to come up with other alternative counting systems from which to draw clues and conclusions.

I'll help: it's not roman or pure arabic. There are still other numeral systems out there. In fact, this numeral system is unique (yet as logical as any), not to be found in nature.

[Karro]

Ohoho, very good, very good, and so close. But there is one assumption there that will drive you insane as you try to apply it to THIS system... *cackle*



I'll help: it's not roman or pure arabic. There are still other numeral systems out there. In fact, this numeral system is unique (yet as logical as any), not to be found in nature.

Yeah, I don't assume I'll solve this, per se. As I said, I'm not familiar enough with other number systems, outside the Roman and Arabic, to glean other clues. But maybe some of my musings on this conundrum will help someone figure it out.

Looking at this latest selection of numbers, a few additional thoughts occur to me:

Orientation: I'm not sure if any existing number systems are affected by this, but I'm curious if the orientation of the figure might affect it's value or meaning.

Modified Characters: I also wonder if there are other specific and regular changes we might make to a glyph that modify it's meaning or value, like the attachment of certain diacritic-like marks.

One thing is for certain, the number of digits in your numbers aren't a predictable indicator of value. From the latest example, we see the number 412 requires 4 digits to display correctly, whereas 468 requires only 2. Further, the two numbers don't have any digits in common, as far as I can tell.

[Naeddyr]

Modified Characters: I also wonder if there are other specific and regular changes we might make to a glyph that modify it's meaning or value, like the attachment of certain diacritic-like marks.

I will outright say that orientation, placement and modification do not change the numbers' value or anything about them.

[Karro]

Okay, so my last set of musings on these numbers for tonight.

Some additional assumptions and concepts that may need to be questioned:

The existence of 0. Zero is a very important concept mathematically, but is not common to all number systems. The roman system has no 0 or equivalent. If I remember correctly, 0 was invented in India and borrowed into the arabic system. Without a 0, the way I detailed how base-x systems won't work. For instance, without 0 in our system, we would have to have a symbold to represent 10 because we cannot denote the value of 10 by the position of a 1 in the tens place followed by a zero in the ones place. So, we might have a symbol that represents 10. To represent 11, we might follow the symbol that represents 10 with the symbol that represents 1 (or vice versa, depending on the order of the numerals). To represent 20, we might have one of two (or more that I haven't considered) methods: repeating the 10's symbol (as in the roman system, two instances of the 10's symbol "X" adding to represent 20) or we might preceed or follow the ten's symbol with the symbol for 2, meaning that we have 2 10's.

Another assumption is which digits need to be represented by unique symbols. In the roman system, for instance, there is a symbol that represents a 1, one that represents 5, one that represents 10, one that represents 50, 100, and so on. (I'm not sure, but I'd wager the roman system is a hybrid base-5/10 system.) Numbers in between are represented by operations on the existing symbols. II means 2 because we add to the two symbols for 1 together. IV means 4 because we subtract the symbol for 1 from the symbol for 5.

Lastly, all I have time for is to consider how you might be able to represent 468 with two digits while requiring 4 to represent 412. I pick this comparison because it is the most obvious example of the number of digits playing against our expectations on their value.

From this we can glean a few things. First, I think the base we are working with has to be something higher than 10, or at least that we have unique glyphs that represent values greater than 10. I think this is the only way we can represent something like 468 in only 2 digits. We could have one of these digits represent the value of 68 and one the value of 400 (very unlikely, and mathematically cumbersome, but provided as an illustration of an example). Or, the two numberals could be representing values that are multiplied and whose product is 468, for instance 9 times 52 or 39 times 12. Or one could represent a value greater than 468, and the other an amount subtracted from that value. For instance one could represent 32 and one 500, with the difference being 468.

Honestly, though, none of these seems right in this situation. 468 is such an unweildy number, and doesn't easily factor into any simple, meaningful numbers that I can currently see.

[guyanonymous]

Am I allowed to make a guess?

[altasilvapuer]

Have at it, Guyanonymous. Personally, I'm determined to crack this, if it takes the help of half the guild. Challenges are fun.

I've got to do a little more looking before I post anything else, though.

Out of curiosity: Is the symbol used at the top Pole in the image (the North Pole, I believe?) representative of "maximum"? Unless I missed something important, which is possible, I find it used in Latitude for 90°N and in Longitude for what I believe is 180°, based on the empty line being 0°. I'm going to transliterate this as "T" for now, until I come up with a better option. The first problem I see with this approach is its use in 412, as there appears to be no frame of reference for a "maximum" that I can see. At least, no logical one, anyway, as 100% of some base numeral would be more logically represented simply by the base numeral, correct? Unless one of the symbols preceding or succeeding the "T" is a modifier of modifiers, and functions similarly to the Roman Numerals, except that the unit being so modified then modifies the base numeral?

Also, the curved "M" shape appears to be used in both 60°S and 30°E, again basing on what appears to be the empty line.

Are we dealing with percentages in some of these numbers? (i.e. the "T" symbol being equivalent to 100% or somesuch). If so, that's an interesting approach.

The symbol used at the equator also appears to be a percentage, unless I'm mistaken. Is it 50%? It is used for 0° Latitude, and 90° Longitude, both of which can be viewed as midpoints. The only wrench in this thought, though, is what appears to be -90°: ΣδMS being the closest transliteration I can come to without involving images, which would be a little cumbersome for now. "δ" refers to the curly-cue shape whose tail heads to the upper-left.


The more I look at this, the more I'm led to believe that these numbers are mostly a system of bases and percentages. δ could be a percentage modifier to the double-y in 468, or vice-versa, in that case, allowing for only two digits relatively easily.

Do we have symbols for the cardinal directions in here? Because Σ, I notice, is present in each of the °W numerals, but in none of the other 'negative' numerals that I've seen (i.e. -90° latitude/ 90°S) Or does Σ represent a negative quantity in certain situations?

-asp

EDIT: I think I might be on to something, here:

• G8S (75°N/165°E) seems to be always 15 less than the Maximum.
• C5 (75°S/15°E) seems to be 15 'short' of the minimum number, if one counts from either the maximum or the 'median'. It is also 5 'units away' from the Median (i.e. count 5 parallels or meridians). Combined with the knowledge that 5 is 3, this leads me to believe that C represents 5 orders of magnitude of the accompanying figure, or 5x3. For the °E, this is simply the answer (15+minimum), and is positive. For the °S, it is 15+the negative maximum, or 15+-90. I haven't formulated this into a concrete rule, yet.
• M (60°S/30°E) seems to function similarly, only it represents two 'units away' from the negative maximum.
• δns (45°S/45°E) may function in the same manner, representing three 'units away'.

Are these numerals unique to this map with respect to placement on meridians/parallels, or are they generalized. I.e. if you had a map with a different projection, would the same numerals represent the same lines? A number of things seem to be relative to the point shared between both maps. At first, I notated it as 90°S, or the South Pole, following a belief that 0° Latitude would be the middle of the sphere at the equator. Now, I'm beginning to wonder if it is merely a starting point number, such as 0. Also, the numeral indicated (transliterated as "W") has yet to appear anywhere else, implying that it is either not a numeral, or that it is unique. Given that it is also used on the compass rose, I propose that it is actually not a numeral, but a character/word/etc. There appears to be no concept of "0" at first glance, as with the Romans.

I have yet to actually factor in any of the supplementary numerals, yet, so this may change some.

-asp

[guyanonymous]

I'm going with base 6, digits reversed, and I'm thinking the exact place - the um...leading zeroes instead of trailing zeroes, have something to do with the number of bumps/position on some of the letters?

[altasilvapuer]

Guy, go back to my post, again, if you haven't already. I edited it with a couple new discoveries before realizing you'd already posted here again. They may help.

-asp

[altasilvapuer]

Additional findings, so far:

• 6MS (15°N, 105°E) : median + 1 'unit'
• hC (30°N, 120°E) : median + 2 'units'
• hZS (45°N, 135°E) : median + 3 'units'
• Gn (60°N, 150°E) : median + 4 'units'
• G8S (75°N, 165°E) : median + 5 'units' or maximum - 1 'unit'
• -
• TCS (165°W) : maximum - 1 'unit' (compare to 15°E)
• TM (150°W) : maximum - 2 'units'

Still haven't deciphered Σ, yet, though.

I am done for the night, as well. I have to be up in about 5 hours to get ready for class, so I suppose I should hit the sack, now. Intriguing puzzle, so far, Naeddyr. I look forward to the continuance of it.

-asp