Talk:Zero sharp
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Dingolover6969 in topic There is a symbol for the sharp sign in unicode: ♯
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
There is a symbol for the sharp sign in unicode: ♯
editThere is a symbol for the sharp sign in unicode: ♯
I am unsure how wise it might be to convert this page to use this character instead of a superscript # (octothorpe)
-- nertzy
- Not everyone can see Unicode characters. This is why we do not use Unicode unless absolutely necessary. Dysprosia 07:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- More relevantly these days, Solovay's article calls this set "O#", where the # sign has horizontal and diagonal bars. Contrast with the musical ♯ sign, which has diagonal and vertical bars. LegionMammal978 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have a couple of thoughts on this. We should use wp:commonname if possible, which might be 0♯ if that's what people call it now, even if it originally started out as O/0#. Looking over our sources, of the couple I can see without hitting a paywall I see a variety of choices, including ♯. Since we can't use # in a page title we could also use ♯ as close enough, like ♯P, if that seems appropriate. I'm also not sure that the original authors of these math papers would regard # and ♯ as distinct characters (so which character is right might be, in a sense, indeterminate) — typesetting is not always very sophisticated, and they did end up calling "0#" "zero sharp", after all!
- I would have liked to look into this more but it's difficult and I ran out of time. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
"The canonical way"
editWhich way is the canonical? --84.229.190.204 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good question, or really, good catch. Strictly speaking there is no single canonical way — there are lots of inessentially different codings. Should be reworded; not going to tackle it right now. Feel free to take a crack at it if you like. --Trovatore (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Prescience
editIt was introduced by Solovay (1967), based on the ideas in Silver (1971). I'm impressed, but perhaps that does not read quite as intended. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Indescernibles
editI think we mean order-indescernibles. Perhaps at least the first reference could be changed? (173.206.238.58 (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
- Good point — I added a parenthetical. Maybe there's a lovelier solution available, but this at least addresses the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)