Dyslexia Friendly Numerals

Post Reply New Topic

Draw a line around it. It wasn't just my reflex response for how to solve that though, the uh, Schlingeren Method I think? That uses it as well.

The alphabet isn't as hard to adapt to a dyslexic friendly format at all.

Just a matter of teaching kids to pick out the syllables to confirm they have the letters right, etc.


Similar thing here, I already think in these, after just a couple of days of doing random math problems in them on my notebook.

I can convert easily, but translating from arabic numerals, to my mental numeral forms, calculating, then translating back to arabic sucks bad enough without reversal issues.


These slot right into my mental numerals perfectly, eliminating the static type effect.

The effect for someone with a severe inability to use arabic numerals is so positive, I can't see what the point of clinging to them is. I remember when I was little I used to claim numbers weren't real, because arabic ones weren't real to me.

They don't include any information about the numbers, they are just symbols, one symbol is as good as another, but if a symbol is specifically harmful to the learning and enjoyment of mathematics for many kids... I can't imagine a mathematician preferring the symbol over new minds being opened to math.

Projection. I can't see what is the point of clinging to another set of symbols, which have no pedigree at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

If you can change your symbol set to one which is...

• ... not ambiguous (the "|" and "||" problem is insurmountable, to my mind)
• ... does not directly conflict with the existing system (your single "|" means "2", not "1", which is "—", and what do you use as a negative sign? Just a shorter dash?)
• ... has some internal logic (with only ten symbols, there is no justification for a rule saying "even digits have parallel lines, except for digits two and [zero]" [not digit one, which your rule erroneously stated] - also "odd all have perpendicular [lines]" - but that's except for digit one, which doesn't, and digit eight, which does)
• ... had some potential for simple extension to higher bases
• ... was less cuneiform (so old...)
• ... was tolerant of rotation
• ... had fixed character widths (a failing that the Arabic "1" has, or rather, had, until it was "fattened up")
• ... and probably a slew of other good ideas

... then there might be some chance of it becoming popular.[/quote]

This is neurological issue. So I think to certain extent lau is barking up the wrong tree but I get where he is coming from. The problem is actually getting confused between numerals due to flipping.

A non positional number system may solve this issue, but it also has many problems with it.

The important thing to do is define character, as see if that matches up with what she can detect. For instance lowercase i is not a continuous line. Glyph needn’t be continuous, and indeed they can appear cursive like Arabic.

Then you want to make sure that either the glyph can be mirrored in an axis that she has a problem with and

It isn't about the pedigree, Arabic numerals are specifically difficult for people with certain learning differences. I don't care if it's thousands of years old. I don't care if it was found on a million year old rock from Mars.

It isn't right to try to "fix" kids who suffer specifically because of these symbols, not because of mathematical inability.



You can't provide a low stroke count set of symbols which are immune to left/right and up/down confusion, and is also rotation tolerant.

What is wrong with cuneiform? It was specifically built to be quick and easy to jot down on scratch paper among other things, why do numerals have to be fancy?

The character width is a good point, but again, I'm trying to represent the information of a set of numerals without losing the most important goals: dyslexia friendly, handwriting friendly, and readily adapted into forms which suit the user.



Incidentally, I was rushed as I was typing that last post on the other page, and meant to say "Besides Two, even numbers have parallel lines". The whole zero as even argument isn't one most people are even aware of, and I admit it slipped my mind. Zero is the origin/empty set/placeholder digit in my head.


Ambiguous isn't really an argument you should use when comparing it to hindu/arabic for a dyslexic viewer. Nonetheless, the | || issue could also be dealt with by having the two symbol located lower, and/or using a shorter line for it. The one symbol is also located differently in relation to the minus/plus/equals symbols.


From the origin to a point along x is generally treated as horizontal from left to right for positive values, and provided a much more natural way for me to represent one, including the interesting insertion of the symbols into Euler's Identity giving the immediate visual relation of a line with length of one terminating at zero, the origin, from the point e^iPi.

Two gives a change in dimension, and that is the logic I used to construct the other shapes, with two rotating them onto their side, with the necessary changes to make the symbols distinguishable.

Ok, taking your considerations, I trimmed them up a bit, and illustrated them horizontally with - + = symbols for comparison.

Compare:





To:

It just gets worse... now you bring in vertical position as a defining feature, which means that you cannot label items, without a clear defining horizontal reference?

There is again, a similar failing in the Arabic forms, where you really do need the conventional 6 and 9 when using digits in isolation, although that is only needed when there is no vertical orientation present.

Next you will have to explain where your decimal point will be going. (Although it is uncommon, already, not to merely use the period, rather than the somewhat archaic middle dot.

Is your new scheme making the digits use the "descenders" area of the line?

LCD display may be another aspect to consider. At a glance, rather than getting away with a "seven + dot" segment display, I think you may be needing "seven + two dots", before trying to display your nine digit (unless you abandon crossing the upright, and make it just a reversed "F" say?). A minor point.

I think the problem is, if someone has difficulty orientating characters, you can't make assumption as to what would help orient them in the mind based on intuition alone. This is not so much a character issue but a perception issue.

Like I said the characters need to be well defined as individual, ambiguity between characters is problematic. If she has problem like flipping she might well also see one character as two, or combine part of two separate characters to form a character that is not there.

Interface, Interface, Interface. That is the most important aspect. The system has to interface with your girlfriend's brain. You can only establish this through lot of testing, elimination, and deduction.

I would not try to come up with a catch all solution at this stage.

I've gotten responses from several dyscalc folks, particularly the flip/reversal type, they dig the idea.

I already know it works for her, she's enjoying math again.

The vertical position only needs to hold as consistent against other numerals, and the ambiguity you described with | || goes away.

I use all the normal mathematical symbols, period, bases, exponents, variables, etc.

It isn't that the vertical position is defining it like you're saying.

Think about a 7, without the / on the bottom, you still know where to put the cross bar.

There is blank space implied below the letters and such.


The nine could easily go from crossing to an F type symbol, and of course could be modified as such if that pleased the eye of the user better, certain changes won't alter the meaning at all.

This setup specifically pleases her/my eye, you could probably have all the shorter characters on the bottom level, like lowercase letters.


The crazy thing though... why has no one considered trying to do this to help kids with these issues? I mean, I have a living breathing example, she loves the mathematical structures I discuss with her, the equations I work out in variables and such... but then arabic numerals make her eyes want to slide away, turning her off from a subject in school she honestly enjoyed.


What if arabic numerals weren't so obviously left/right distinct to you, what if you had to struggle, strain, and stress just to manipulate them incorrectly anyways? What if you had missed out on being a mathematician, because you got turned away from a subject you clearly love now, back when you were just starting school?

To OP:

Have you done any kind of statistical study which indicates how much less your system of numerals confuse dyslexics.

If you have not done such a study, how can you claim they are helpful?

ruveyn

Discussed your points with her, and we worked on it a bit. I asked what she thought about adjusting them to be bottom up instead, and it works better. Same basic idea, but the arrangement encourages a couple of changes to the forms that address some of the issues you brought up, lau.




Keep in mind, I'm not saying it HAS to be final like any of these, why I wanted feedback, but it has to work for dyslex/calc folks too. Finding one that works for all readers would be ideal though.


I also have issues with arabic numerals, but not left/right flipping ones, with me it's a visual processing issue. It's like counting with algebraic variables, while constantly converting the symbol I see to the value it represents, and back. Courtney has the left/right issue, as does her dad.

Both immediately took to them, her dad being the more telling response, as he is a habitual Devil's Advocate. He saw the distinguishable nature of the digits immediately, but couldn't find a reason against them besides "well... gotta do what society wants you to do."

I've gotten positive feedback from several people with the issue on other forums, but I do appreciate the input of a mathematician, as I'd like to be able to proudly call myself one eventually. Some of my issues were specifically caused by the jarring discrepancy between arabic/hindu numerals and the shapes I manipulate in my mind for math. These mesh naturally, so they are a complete success for my purposes.

Extending it to help others who appreciate the beauty of mathematics, but are hindered by the choice of a numeral system? Well, I can do naught but try.

Base 12, upon suggestion from another forum.

Edit: Oops! That's Base 13! Forgot to count the zero, hah, whattamaroon I am, cut the twelve off and you have Base 12 though.

Edit: Fixed



Zero is the origin, a point.
One is a horizontal line a unit long.
Two is the same line rotated.
Three is one and two combined.
Four takes the one off the three and rotates it vertically for two two's.
Five adds another bar to four.
Six takes the top off of five and rotates it back to horizontal.
Seven is six with another bar.
Eight takes the bar off seven and closes the box.
Nine is eight with another bar.
Ten is nine with another bar.
Eleven takes the bar off and rotates it vertically.
Twelve closes the new box.

Incidentally, adding dots could expand it a bit further.

Thirteen adds a dot in the bottom box.
Fourteen moves it to the upper box.
Fifteen has both dots.

Base 16 ahoy.

I agree, although I already know this form of dyslexia is a subset.

Dyslexia is called specific learning disabilities now, many of them aren't even to do with reading.

Again, I just started this idea a few days ago.

This form is often called Dyscalculia, or Dysnomia.

It's a learning difference, not a disability. I hate that labeling of it.

I have a visual processing issue myself, synesthetic at that, numeric/spatial, which is severely disrupted by arabic numerals (and most systems I've looked into which don't encode the values deliberately) to the point of impairment.


So far I have useful input from one mathematician, a few interested non-lexy's, two captive lexy's, one of whom I developed them with specifically with her input and advice in mind.

She has severe left/right interpretation issues, and up/down to an extent, where she used to write her 5's laying on their "back" at one point.

Positive input from the few dyscalcs I've found online, seeing the way the numerals distinguish themselves regardless of reversal issues.


Still in progress, though I already think naturally in them at this point. They meshed immediately for me once I hit upon this format.


Incidentally, just showed her the Base 16 version, "I love that. Those are numbers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia




Apparently this hasn't even been tried yet, one poster incidentally on another forum is a Cognitive Thinking/Linguistics Scientist, and he said it would probably be categorized as Neurorthography, of which he knows of no experts in the field in the world.

So, yeah... better than electroshock, that's for sure.

Of course... it would be nice to replace the arbitrary number systems in use worldwide with actual value derived representations, akin to the roman/egyptian type ideas, but without the massive stroke counts.

You seem to have give a lot of work ant though about it. I was also about to propose the base 12, but I ses it's already been done. With base 12, rather that 1/3=0.3333333...., you got 1/3=0.4, much more simple and easy to calculate. (Then again peoples had been using base 10 for all their life. Which mean it's propably need a perod of adaptation.)

Well, I'm just starting to really explore this project. So far I found a way to make it work for a small sample size of individuals, and have managed to appease the points of a few more non-lexy folks.

The base adjustment was lau's idea, as I recall, he mentioned it not working for other bases, so I had to give it some thought. Then I got suggested to try base twelve and sixteen.

Interesting. I would of rather used some of your ideographs for other numbers, especially the ones that are unconsciously trained to your psyche to be natural. But if someone was reared with your version without any comparison, it would be ideal too.