Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Mark Lawrence breamoreboy at
Tue Jul 21 12:34:32 CEST 2015

On 21/07/2015 10:10, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Laura Creighton <lac at>:
>> In a message of Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:30:48 -0700, Rustom Mody writes:
>>> Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether that
>>> ideograph is equivalent to roman '9' or roman 'nine'?
>> Ah, I don't understand you. What do you mean roman 'nine'? a phonetic
>> way of saying things? What bankers use to help prevent forgeries?
>> Something else?
> This is getting deep. It is an embarrassing metamathematical fact that
> numbers cannot be defined. At least, mathematicians gave up trying a
> century ago.
>     In mathematics, the essence of counting a set and finding a result n,
>     is that it establishes a one to one correspondence (or bijection) of
>     the set with the set of numbers {1, 2, ..., n}.
>     <URL:>
> Our ancestors defined the fingers (or digits) as "the set of numbers."
> Modern mathematicians have managed to enhance the definition
> quantitatively but not qualitatively.

Not all of them

My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

More information about the Python-list mailing list