We need to reach a consensus on this. Is it ‽1 or 1‽? Or do we accept both?
I think we can live with both. The proper form should probably be 1‽ though, like percentages or degrees
Yeah, I agree that it could go both ways, since most symbolic unit indicators are usually used like that.
But I think if the word "cuil" shall be used in conjunction with a numeral to denote the "cuility" of something, it should be written after the numeral, not before, and should be in lowercase. Example: 2 cuils, 4 cuils.
I don't think we should accept both. I don't care what the standard is, but I think we should have one. Not having a standard notation for something this important is absurd (and not the good kind of absurd).
It's a unit demarcation and should be treated as one. You don't say meters 2 (or m2), you say 2 meters (or 2m). Furthermore, neither (m2)4 nor (2m)4 are valid; the correct form is 24 m, or in our case, 24 ‽.
I say ‽ is a function and not a unit demarcation.
If what you said is true then you could never have anything past a linear distance. (2m)2 as far as I know gives an area of 4 m2
That would lead to the ‽2(x) function or 1‽(1‽(x))
-and I don't really want to go there right now, but I believe that it should exist.
Oh, I see; I misinterpreted your syntax; I suppose (2‽)2 is theoretically valid, although I really have no idea what square cuils represent. Still, it's a unit demarcation. Look at the original post, where it is specified as such.
It may be possible to create a system of logic in which cuil could be used as a function. You input some variables into the function and what comes out is the cuil value between these sets variables(or statements).
You could, in analogue, create a function called feettometers, which takes the input of some variable in feet and changes it into meters.
I just had a realization. Cuil can be thought of as a function!
If you consider, philosophically, that the highest value of cuil - the very meaning of cuil - could be that of the number of "observers"(Think like observer from relativity, and also keep in mind that it may entail actual consciousness which is a sticky concept) in the universe. As such, cuil would behave in some ways as a function. As a function obeys positions on a graph, defined by two values, so too must the cuil value when charted against any other variable. The highest value of cuil is charted against some other value, such as time, space, or numbers. The thing is, we must attribute our own meaning to what exactly the highest value of cuil repesents. It is entirely possible that you could then perform operations with a cuil function.
You provide a variable between the ().
An example might look like
‽(sin(x))
or if you have a function (t) describing time in some system
‽(t(x))
With this in mind, I would like to change my previous statement about it only being used as a post-script unit.
I think that it is entirely possible to use the concept of ‽ in both function and unit forms, but it may be necessary to use another symbol for each.
I hereby propose that the symbol for the function of cuil be the inverted interrobang(⸘)
As such, it's usage would look like
⸘(sin(x))
Who else finds this as an acceptable solution?
MG, I'm a fan.
I had a similar thought. When I was discussing this with a friend. Logically - it would have to be a function… How else does would one determine the arrival at exponential ‽ or the interrelationships between various levels and situation with ‽?
Mad_Gouki:
I just had a realization. Cuil can be thought of as a function!
Did you have this thought after reading the post above yours? Or are you saying something different from parker?