Talk:⩶

RFV discussion: August 2020–January 2022
"(mathematics) Three consecutive equal signs." __Gamren (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess this may be an alternative form of ===, which has a definition. We currently define ≔ as an, and  ... (three dots) as an  (U+2026) – where I wonder if the other way around wouldn’t be preferable for the latter.  --Lambiam 15:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely that anyone would make a programming language using a character that no keyboard is able to produce. Likewise, ≔ probably isn't used for the programming sense of :=. As for the ellipsis... in LaTeX, at least, inputting three periods in an equation usually looks very ugly. In natural-language contexts, I doubt anyone would go out of their way to typeset an ellipsis character, but some text editors by default make that substitution, just as they may replace -- (two regular dashes) with — (one em dash) -- which naturally makes it seem as though many people use it when they actually don't make a conscious decision to do so.__Gamren (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The documents under Supplemental_Mathematical_Operators suggest that it shouldn't be made up ("This proposal is the culmination of a several-year process of collation and review of mathematical symbols, cooperation between the Unicode Technical Committee and the STIX Project, involving extensive expertise"). Maybe there is a trail of documents that can be followed. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the first document it says that "a very large collection of source citations has been collected by the STIX Project group of STIPUB". I went to their website and found the address stix@aip.org, and so I wrote to them. Wonder if I'll get a response.__Gamren (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely APL exists?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 20:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have used systems with APL keyboards, so I think of it as a typeable language. Perhaps not readable, but typeable.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * For future reference, I deliberately didn't unlink it in === and Appendix:Variations_of_"%3D". It seems useful to me to keep it there. Unicode code points are different from RFV-failed terms in languages. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)