Tallying is strictly for counting up, it’s just meant for incrementing a previous total by 1.
I still don’t quite get exactly what it is you’ve explained, but that’s okay, I don’t think we’re on the same page anyways. I appreciate you being willing to respond and answer my questions. Cheers!
I’m still not sure if I’m following the explanation. I don’t know if I’m just failing to tell what numbers your illustrations correspond to, at least not by referencing the Wikipedia article you had linked (e.g. there is no representation of a number that has two diagonal lines forming an X).
I visited your second link in the comment above this, but it appears to be a hub page containing multiple books on writing shorthand, and I can’t find mention of cistercian notation on that page. If it’s in one of the books, I’m not sure where to begin looking.
Here is my attempt to take a stab at using the cistercian system as a tally instead of numerals. Though the representations of 2, 3, and 4 are not consistent with what the article depicts as their standard numerals in isolation, I’m hoping the inclusion of their defining strokes may still be clear enough to interpret.
Where it seems to fall apart is 5, as the only other “opening” for a stroke, without removing any prior ones, is the far-right side. But the location of that stroke would not appear to be touched until you get to the numeral for 6 (visually, 5 is simply the 3-stroke combination of 1 and 4). After filling in that remaining segment, what I’m left with seems to correspond to what you had identified as 9, so I’m guessing it’s not right.
Other than the possibility of including an additional + inside the box as you had mentioned, I don’t see what else can be done to expand the tally above 5, as that now covers all permutations of the standard stroke positions detailed in the Wikipedia article. But even with the two additional strokes provided by the +, that only takes us up to 7.
I guess I am still missing a piece, as I don’t really see how one is meant to express the number 5 as a tally using only 3 strokes, or 9 as 6 strokes for that matter.
It seems like an efficient numbering system for sure, but I’m not seeing how it works as a tally without erasing any prior strokes.
Interesting numbering system that I didn’t know about before today, thanks for sharing!
It doesn’t seem like it would be quite as useful for a tally system, though, where you’re meant to be able to increment easily by 1 without changing/erasing earlier markings. This system seems strictly focused on simply representing numbers in as compact a form as possible.
It does have me feeling like it could be a lot more efficient than Arabic numberals, though. Wonder if there are any clock apps that support it so I could have it to reference for time…
Edit: a word
Bruh she’s like 10 wtf
This is it. It’s a bunch of angry people who think “Life is supposed to be hard! Deal with it.”
They think their life experiences are comparable to everyone else, which creates a logical fallacy:
Successful people don’t need help, but must obviously struggle just as much as I do.
I don’t have it easy, yet don’t need help, so people who ask for it are just being lazy.
They internalize the “life is hard” mantra and assume it’s normal to be playing life on hard mode, not realizing some people have the difficulty slider set to very easy while others are on nightmare.