Reply To: consistency with omissions
Home › Forums › Nemeth Code for Math and Science › consistency with omissions › Reply To: consistency with omissions
September 21, 2017 at 7:09 pm #29639
Thank you for your questions. I shall respond in the order you posed them.
- Since "units" is not a member of the standard, metric, or other codified measurement system, it should not be within Nemeth Code indicators (unless it is involved in an equation or other computation).
- When there is an omission sign followed by a unit, I would use UEB code for both in most cases.
- In the same worksheet, it is alright, and almost inevitable, to use some UEB [square] symbols and some Nemeth [square] symbols for boxes of omission.
- I would suggest you try to avoid it if you can do so without bending over backwards, but it is also ok to use both types of squares within the same problem.
- The first simbraille in your attached document is almost exactly how I would transcribe that problem. I only wonder about the symbols you used for a square in UEB. Should it not be ⠰⠫⠼⠙ , where the first cell is a grade 1 indicator? (section 11.7 of the Rules of UEB)
- I believe your suggestion about using dots 2-5 would work for the reader.
You may not be as well-versed in the Nemeth Code as would be ideal. But your questions indicate that you are doing a fiiiine job of transcribing this work.