Unicode Text Converter

    # 𝕲𝖊𝖒ä𝖘𝖘 𝕽𝖊𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖚𝖘𝖘 𝖋ü𝖗 𝕬𝖑𝖌𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖙𝖍𝖒𝖎𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊 𝕬𝖗𝖇𝖊𝖎𝖙 

    𝖐𝖑𝖆𝖘𝖘𝖊 𝕭𝖊𝖌𝖗ü𝖘𝖘𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖘𝖆𝖓𝖟𝖊𝖎𝖌𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖉𝖎𝖊𝖓𝖒𝖊𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖘𝖒𝖚𝖘: 
        𝖉𝖊𝖋 __𝖆𝖓𝖋𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓__(𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙, 𝖁𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊): 
            𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙.𝖁𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊 = 𝖁𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊

        𝖉𝖊𝖋 __𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖓𝖚𝖗__(𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙): 
            𝖟𝖚𝖗ü𝖈𝖐𝖌𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓 𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙.𝖁𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊 

        𝖉𝖊𝖋 𝖇𝖊𝖌𝖗ü𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖓(𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙, 𝖁𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊=𝕹𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖊𝖝𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖓𝖟): 
            𝖉𝖗𝖚𝖈𝖐𝖊𝖓("𝕲𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓 𝕿𝖆𝖌, " + 𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙.𝖁𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊)
            𝖟𝖚𝖗ü𝖈𝖐𝖌𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓 𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖇𝖘𝖙

    𝖇𝖊𝖌𝖗ü𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖗 = 𝕭𝖊𝖌𝖗ü𝖘𝖘𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖘𝖆𝖓𝖟𝖊𝖎𝖌𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖉𝖎𝖊𝖓𝖒𝖊𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖘𝖒𝖚𝖘("𝕳𝖆𝖓𝖘-𝕻𝖊𝖙𝖊𝖗 𝕯𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖘𝖈𝖍" )
    𝖇𝖊𝖌𝖗ü𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖗.𝖇𝖊𝖌𝖗ü𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖓()

𝔇𝔞𝔰 𝔠𝔬𝔪𝔭𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔪𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔦𝔰𝔱 𝔫𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔱 𝔣𝔲𝔢𝔯 𝔤𝔢𝔣𝔦𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯𝔭𝔬𝔨𝔢𝔫 𝔲𝔫𝔡 𝔪𝔦𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔯𝔞𝔟𝔟𝔢𝔫. ℑ𝔰𝔱 𝔢𝔞𝔰𝔶 𝔰𝔠𝔥𝔫𝔞𝔭𝔭𝔢𝔫 𝔡𝔢𝔯 𝔰𝔭𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔫𝔴𝔢𝔯𝔨, 𝔟𝔩𝔬𝔴𝔢𝔫𝔣𝔲𝔰𝔢𝔫 𝔲𝔫𝔡 𝔭𝔬𝔭𝔭𝔢𝔫𝔠𝔬𝔯𝔨𝔢𝔫 𝔪𝔦𝔱 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔱𝔽𝔢𝔫𝔰𝔭𝔞𝔯𝔨𝔢𝔫. ℑ𝔰𝔱 𝔫𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔱 𝔣𝔲𝔢𝔯 𝔤𝔢𝔴𝔢𝔯𝔨𝔢𝔫 𝔟𝔢𝔦 𝔡𝔞𝔰 𝔡𝔲𝔪𝔭𝔨𝔬𝔭𝔣𝔢𝔫. 𝔇𝔞𝔰 𝔯𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔢𝔯𝔫𝔢𝔠𝔨𝔢𝔫 𝔰𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔱𝔰𝔢𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔫 𝔨𝔢𝔢𝔭𝔢𝔫 𝔡𝔞𝔰 𝔠𝔬𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔫-𝔭𝔦𝔠𝔨𝔢𝔫𝔢𝔫 𝔥𝔞𝔫𝔰 𝔦𝔫 𝔡𝔞𝔰 𝔭𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔢𝔱𝔰 𝔪𝔲𝔰𝔰; 𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔞𝔵𝔢𝔫 𝔲𝔫𝔡 𝔴𝔞𝔱𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔫 𝔡𝔞𝔰 𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔫𝔨𝔢𝔫𝔩𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔱𝔢𝔫.

This somehow reminded me of this one, in pseudo-Old Church Slavonic: http://lurkmore.so/images/d/d6/Pravoslavnii_koding.jpg

Sad thing is, Unicode still doesn't seem to properly support titlos and (not so sad, since personally I think Unicode shouldn't really do anything with fonts unless absolutely necessary) has no separate characters for Ustav and Poluustav scripts.

    .𝖋𝖑𝖆𝖌,.𝖋𝖑𝖆𝖌:𝖇𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖊,.𝖋𝖑𝖆𝖌:𝖆𝖋𝖙𝖊𝖗{𝖈𝖔𝖓𝖙𝖊𝖓𝖙: ''; 𝖉𝖎𝖘𝖕𝖑𝖆𝖞: 𝖇𝖑𝖔𝖈𝖐; 𝖜𝖎𝖉𝖙𝖍:100𝖕𝖝; 𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖌𝖍𝖙: 20𝖕𝖝;}
    .𝖋𝖑𝖆𝖌{𝖇𝖆𝖈𝖐𝖌𝖗𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉: #000; 𝖕𝖆𝖉𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌-𝖙𝖔𝖕: 20𝖕𝖝}
    .𝖋𝖑𝖆𝖌:𝖇𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖊{𝖇𝖆𝖈𝖐𝖌𝖗𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉: #𝖋00; }
    .𝖋𝖑𝖆𝖌:𝖆𝖋𝖙𝖊𝖗{𝖇𝖆𝖈𝖐𝖌𝖗𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉:#𝖋𝖋0}

Russian is my first language, but English is my primary language, and I never had my chance to practice typing using the standard Russian keyboard layout, so I almost always use the "Phonetic" layout - where the latin c is the cyrillic ц. (Also, w is ш, and who the hell remembers what []\-= map to - always trial and error for me to find южэьъ.)

[1] PEP 0263: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0263/

Anyway, DirectWrite was horrible at high DPI, if I remember correctly.

I haven't finished the book (turns out I know less calculus than I thought), but the result is pretty effective. You're much less likely to get confused about which things are numbers and which are functions, and which of those functions operate on numbers and which ones operate on other functions, once you see the Scheme implementation of something.

According to my generalization of some advice from Knuth:[1] in a good math text, definitions of terms are presented as they go along, and they are explicit about what means what. Furthermore, one of the factors that determines the quality of mathematical writing is

- Did you use words, especially for logical connectives, whenever you could have used words (instead of symbols) to express something?

and

> Try to state things twice, in complementary ways, especially when giving a definition. This reinforces the reader’s understanding. [...] All variables must be defined, at least informally, when they are first introduced.

This is repeated:

> Be careful to define symbols before you use them (or at least to define them very near where you use them).

There are some cases where "the general mathematical community is expected to know what you mean," like when publishing papers in some specialized field, but if you're writing a book, these rules hold quite true. Books certainly should explain their notation, especially since the general consensus for certain notations is expected to change over the decades ...

[1] http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/reviewing-papers/knuth_mathematica...

For the page, that's fairly obvious when you look at the pseudoalphabet converters.

First is phonetic similarity. This is mostly just to allow users to be able to understand each other and to help automatically catch alternate latinizations so you find out "Hey, he already registered under a latinized-spelling name".

The second is glyph similarity. This is the security concern where you have two glyphs that are graphically similar but phonetically completely different, but can easily be mistaken for each other. These glyphs are used to trick and confuse users. The first kind of check won't catch these, but they're the reason we don't have unicode in domain names.

Probably a correct system would have a very liberal interpretation of glyph similarity and would treat strings as matched when they contain similar glyphs.

(And I had fun too!)

I suspect that if you could find a couple of mainstream publishers in Taiwan or Japan that prefer to print the names of mainland Chinese using the same glyphs as are used on mainland China instead of the glypths used on Taiwan or in Japan, you might be able to reopen the discussion of han unification.