0

For an alphabet, with each letter we have a minimum number of dots/ pixels required to represent it.

For convenience one takes such a value for the whole alphabet but actually in addition to this it varies for each letter rg number of dots required to denote an 'I' is lesser than 'X' .

Comparing letters of different alphabets 'X' certainly has lesser requirement of dots to be recognisable than 'ध' ( 'gha' ) in devnagari.

Given the angular resolution of the pixel as subtended to the eye remains the same... The metric is agnostic of letter size.

**Question: Using which alphabet can Hamlet / Dhammapada be transliterated so that the book has least number of dots/pixels ( and yet is readable) **

ARi
  • 580
  • 1
  • 3
  • 17
  • 5
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it really has nothing to do with linguistics, but just glyph design. – curiousdannii Dec 30 '15 at 00:37
  • 4
    I disagree. This question touches on issues of economy that have long been dear to functional phonologists' hearts. – Russell Richie Dec 30 '15 at 23:28
  • @RussellRichie Even so, the "economy" of a writing system is usually judged in relation to the stroke count, not the pixel count. – curiousdannii Jan 01 '16 at 08:54
  • 1
    This is actually a good question, although a bit misformulated. (1) Every script is excessive to reduce mistakes when reading it handwritten; (2) Every character is defined not by pixels, but by strokes, their locations, and relative positions; (3) Reducing stroke number is possible. See, or example, PalmOS Graffiti™ stroke recognition system which reduces each symbol of Latin script in no more than 3 strokes. I'm pretty sure there must be no more than 5 strokes for Devanagari. – Be Brave Be Like Ukraine Jan 05 '16 at 15:17
  • @ARi, I guess, you confused your readers by mixing up script alone, on one hand, and meaning-to-characters and character-to-pixels relations, on the other hand. – Be Brave Be Like Ukraine Jan 05 '16 at 16:20
  • This still isn't a good question because to answer it would be a huge undertaking. You would first need to get translations/transliterations of those books into the dozens of scripts you want to compare, and probably dozens of fonts for each script too. Then you'd need to devise your evaluation system, probably programming a new one. When a question would need an entire journal article to answer, it doesn't belong on SE. – curiousdannii Jan 06 '16 at 03:10

1 Answers1

1

I assume you require the letters to be read with the eyes, and you're assuming normal, uncorrected vision. And I assume you mean "fewest pixels per letter". You have to specify pixel diameter, which isn't a design feature of writing systems. Braille, which actually does use dots, is pixel-sparse (6), and though it is not designed to be read with eyes, it nevertheless can be.

user6726
  • 83,066
  • 4
  • 63
  • 181
  • 1
    What is a "natural writing system"? Canadian syllabics and Hangul were designed by known people, like Braille, so are these non-natural? Morse requires at least 5 elements with a 2-way "length" distinction hence at least 10 pixels vs. Braille's 6. – user6726 Dec 29 '15 at 19:39