HOME | DD
BlackHatGuy β Gallifreyan Numbers
Published: 2012-07-01 20:46:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 19082; Favourites: 78; Downloads: 239
Redirect to original
Description
Numbers are pretty complicated, so I thought I'd clear things up a bit!Related content
Comments: 65
Is it 9175537589? I tried texting it but my phone has been playing up.
π: 0 β©: 0
I know what it is, but I'm confused. Isn't there supposed to be an 8?
π: 0 β©: 0
is either one of these it?
917655975
or
917655759?
π: 0 β©: 0
617-886-6552
Probably entirely wrong. I'm not sure how to read the rings though. Do you have any tips or videos that may help me get clearer on how this system works?
π: 0 β©: 1
No, but the number system has changed. Check the guide for a much simpler one:Β shermansplanet.com/gallifreyan
π: 0 β©: 1
The new number system isn't as impressive, but it's still really cool.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is a beautiful system you have here, but aren't Old Gallifreyan numbers in base 7? From where comes 8 and 9? Are those just like "eleven" and "twelve" as shortcuts?
π: 0 β©: 2
Well this number system isn't canon, so it doesn't need to be base 7. The base 7 thing is also only semi-canon, because it comes from the chapter numbering system in a book.
π: 0 β©: 0
Also I gather that the upper left on the innermost ring is indicated as '8', but since the two circles inside the "8" do not intersect the innermost ring, couldn't that digit also be 2 circles outside the ring, aka 9, or whatever 3 circles on the outside of a ring is?
π: 0 β©: 0
Ooh, close. Very close.
π: 0 β©: 1
xD which number am I messing up on? 9175579758?
π: 0 β©: 1
Just remember, for each ring you start at the very bottom and read counterclockwise.
π: 0 β©: 1
Meh, I'm trying. When your transitioning from circles, do you veer off kind of like a spiral? Or do you go to the next ring and start at the very bottom. I've been spiraling, because in one of your comments it says that the number ends in an 8 (Atless you changed yours phone number of course) and it doesn't quite line up the other way. I'm also confused on the different way to translate the numbers. I know it HAS to go 1-917-55, and then that can either be a 7 or a three based on weather or not the circles interpect the middle from that perspective, and then I know the number after would be a 9, then a 7, then a 5, and then of course you rule out everything because it's an 8. Which also makes it more confusing, because I looked at the newer numbers, and that one ended in a 9, so it's confusing trying to translate them both into something. I don't have a phone either so I'm stuck using iMessage on iPod.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well the number doesn't end in an 8... there's a simpler number system here that you can use to get the same number:Β www.shermansplanet.com/storageβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, but can you please delete that comment? I don't want people finding out without translating it first.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are the owner of the deviation, you can hide that comment
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh wow, I guess that should have been obvious.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't have a phone, is the # by any chance 917223712?
π: 0 β©: 2
Or maybe its 9176559715?
π: 0 β©: 1
Try this guide instead: [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
First off, I love what you've done here. Absolutely love this and the whole Circular Gallifreyan writing system too. However, I really dislike the number system in the official guide. Two big reasons, the first and foremost of which being that I can't read it. I very often miss lines or circles inside the many rings or get lost with regard to which ring I was in. I find it extremely visually confusing. The other reason being that it just does not fit the style of the rest of the writing system. This however, very clearly matches the original appearance of the system. Now if I came off as rude, I appologise, but I felt like you needed to hear this. Anyway, thanks for reading, and again, love what you're doing.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the input! I had this as the main number system, but people just found it too hard to translate.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sherman, you were closer to the mark with the other system. the visual simplicity of that system, among other things, was what made it great.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah... people said they couldn't understand this one though, so the one in the guide is staying.
π: 0 β©: 0
i ran across a hexagon based system of writing numbers too. are the two methods used in different ways or something?
π: 0 β©: 1
The hexagon based system comes from the numbers written for chapter numbers in a doctor who book, and I just came up with this on my own. Totally separate things.
π: 0 β©: 0
Isn't the second last digit impossible? It's a circle terminating on the outside of the ring, with two inner circles, representing a "10", given that no-co-centrics would be eight and one-co-centric circle would be 9.
I suspect it to be eight. Is it supposed to be since the two other inner circles are exhausted (used up) by the mid and outer ring?
π: 0 β©: 1
It is eight, because the two inner circles do not touch the innermost ring.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, well if you ever decide to use this system over the new one, you may want to update the legend to reflect that. It show 6,7 and 9 as not needing the inner circles to touch.
π: 0 β©: 1
Mhmm. Thanks for notifying me!
π: 0 β©: 0
Only one problem I see with this system, and that's that Gallifreyan used a septenary system; base 7. It only uses numbers 0-6.
π: 0 β©: 1
This number system is easy to adapt to different bases- easier than our Arabic number system even! I'll describe how to represent different bases in my upcoming section on gallifreyan mathematics.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>