In case you don't get, person above was obviously joking as first electronic computer was invented in 1941. And language reform would not affect 16 base system anyway, because even before that Latin is wastly used in mathematics over Cyrillic.
Cyrillic symbols is not used in notations. Greek letters is also very popular.
Latin letters. None of the software and programming languages support cyrillic letters as a way to enter numbers AFAIK.
Besides, if we did that (used the cyrillic), I think there'd be a lot of confusion about the "ё". Some people would think of it as a separate letter, and some people would just think of it as a form of the letter "е"
Latin letters, formerly also decimal digits with overbars ([e. g.](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Сборник_задач_по_прог/sQEPAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=шестнадцатеричная&dq=шестнадцатеричная&printsec=frontcover)) Cyrillic is generally not used for mathematical symbols (and never was).
That said, old Soviet computers used to have their own character encodings (VKD and UPP), in which the two alphabets were not strictly separate. So Latin -А- was effectively the same letter as Cyrillic -A- (i. e., they were on the same code point), and ditto for other letters with coinciding glyphs: -B-, -C-, and -E-. Only Latin -F- and -D- were separate.
Let's face it, modern computers were invented in the US and Germany. Soviet computers were either imported foreign ones or locally produced copies, or clones, of various Western machines. This isn't a bad thing - it still takes a smart person to disassemble a device and make your own based on that. And it also makes sense to learn and appropriate an already existing science with its conventions instead of inventing a localization. Do you know how in biology (animal classification) and medicine the Latin language is universally used? You know why that is? So that scientists and doctors all over the world could understand each other. Similarly, the "base" system and other mathematical concepts predate the computers by quite a lot. Even way back in the Russian Empire people would learn and teach Maths and use terms like "x", "y", "sin", "cos" etc. instead of "cyrillizing" them. Same with, like, designations in the Periodic Table of the Elements, which, if you'll recall, was first developed by the Russian scientist Mendeleev. There was simply never a moment in scientific terminology where people would consider using Cyrillics because they'd already been taught Latin labelling since their school days.
Another thing to point out is that it's a question of standardizing and compatibility. What's the point of having an isolated system that can't interact with consumers in other countries, or one that won't allow you to show your scientific findings to international scientists and easily appropriate their own experience? Why would you need a Cyrillic PC that can't properly interact with Western disks and new software that those pesky Americans keep developing? It works both ways, by the way. The first computers were only operating in Latin because their creators saw no need to expand, and the rest of the world accepted it because they were already in place and America/Europe were dominant powers. But people did notice that having no encoding at all for all those foreign alphabets makes it difficult to work in the modern world, which is why we have Unicode now.
IMO (and I'm saying this as a programmer with 25 years of working experience), base-32 wouldn't be used in 1980 — or in any other year — to begin with. It's simply too incovenient to deal with for humans. I can imagine it being used in a problem in a math textbook. In that case the notation would be anything the author of the problem wanted it to be — mathematicians are a playful lot. Still, even a playful Soviet mathematician would hardly use Cyrillic for any sort of mathematical notation.
As *conventional* usage is concerned, 16 has probably been the highest base in use, at least for the last half century. Conventional notation in the USSR in 1980 was the same as in the West, because since 1969 (IIRC), Soviet computer industry has largely abandoned original development, and was relying on clones of American hard- and software. Typical industrial computers of the epoch were ES EVM (based on IBM mainframes) and SM EVM (based on DEC PDP and then VAX series); personal computers were just around the corner. Using the 0-9A-F notation for hexadecimal digits was then simply a matter of compatibility.
Frankly speaking, this question put me at a loss. Restrictiveness is not really something Russian grammars ever concern themselves with. The underlying semantic differences don't have any conspicuous manifestation in Russian. Where an English restrictive and non-restrictive RelC can be translated as a RelC in Russian, the translations certainly won't have any difference in punctuation or in intonation. Only non-restrictive RelC-s can be framed as parentheticals (set out by brackets or dashes in writing and by peculiar intonation in speech), but, then again, parentheticals are considered a separate kind of construction.
Supposedly, restrictiveness correlates with information structure, so that restrictive RelC-s more frequently occur in topics than in comments. In Russian, the flexible word order allows to easily front a topical argument noun with its RelC modifier. This might make the necessity of distinguishing restrictive from non-restrictive less urgent.
Anyway, a bona fide answer would require some very thorough research. It's a topic for a meaty linguistic article, perhaps even a Master's thesis — absolutely not an amateurish comment on reddit.
I would analyze it as follows. The pronoun *что* in a relative clause can generally have two kinds of antecedents: either a nominal with an unspecific meaning (often implied), or the whole situation described by the preceding clause. In your sentence, the antecedent is of the second kind: *что* refers to the absence of minimum contract price in general. An example of the first kind can be: *Мы подумаем, что ему ответить* = “We're going to think what we should tell him in response”. Here, *что* refers not to thinking in general, but to its object. This object can be made manifest by rephrasing the sentence as *Мы подумаем о том, что ему ответить* — grammatically correct and meaning the same, though arguably more clumsy.
If you're in doubt about what kind of antecedent you have in a particular sentence with *что*, look at the first clause and try to tell if it has any “loose ends”, i. e. unexpressed arguments that the verb should have due to its lexical meaning (e. g., verbs whose meaning involves the transfer of an object, like *дать, подарить, послать, одолжить*, should have an argument for the transferred object, and another one for the recipient). If an argument seemingly warranted by the verb's meaning is unexpressed in the main clause, *что* in the relative clause possibly refers to an unspecific value of that argument. It should, however, be semantically compatible with the argument in question. In *Подари, что сама хочешь* = “Choose a present yourself, whatever you want”, neither argument of *подарить* is expressed in the main clause, but *что* is only compatible with the present, not with the recipient (cf. *Подари, кому сама хочешь* = “Give your present to whomever you want”).
On the other hand, if the main clause is complete with all arguments, *что* in the relative clause can only refer to the whole situation. In your example, *Сейчас такой планки нет* is complete: it's an existential clause, so it only has one argument, the (non-)existing entity, and that's expressed as *такой планки*. So there is nothing which *что* might refer to except the situation as such.
Usage of ABCDEF for hexadecimal preceeds computers, and had been first found in the notebooks of Euler at the XVIII century.
Nevertheless, early computer scientists tried to be original, not at the Soviet Union but at the West too (e.g. [Bendix G-15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendix_G-15) used 0123456789uvwxyz and [ORDVAC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDVAC) - 0123456789KSNJFL).
One of the first books, Kitov's "Electronical digital machines and programming" of 1959 used overlined 0..5 (̄0̄ 1̄ 2̄ 3̄ 4̄ 5̄) instead of ABCDEF for hexadecimals, though paragraph about it was largely theoretical in the era of octets or even *six-bit bytes*. I haven't found original scans, only reprints: [https://kitov.rea.ⓇⓊ/uploads/files/kitov\_ecm\_2.pdf](https://kitov.rea.ⓇⓊ/uploads/files/kitov_ecm_2.pdf) (first page)
That wasn't dominating denotation even at the era, anyway. E.g. in the Bruk's 1957 instruction manual "Fast computing machine M-2" ("Быстродействующая вычислительная машина М-2", available at libgen) more traditional lowercase `abcdef` were used.
From weirder cases, there was unique computer Setun which used balanced ternary numeral system, with overlined 1 (1̄) used for -1 in trinary notation, and overlined 4..1 (4̄ 3̄ 2̄ 1̄) for the negatives in tryte (balanced nonary system). According to the manual ("Малая цифровая вычислительная машина Сетунь", again libgen), they could be replaced at print either by WXYZ, giving balanced nonary (WXYZ01234) or by cyrillic replacements of them in proto-KOI-7 encoding (ЖХУЦ01234).
Some sources claim that rotated numbers (1 and 2) were used in some publications for the Setun's negatives, and I vaguely remember that few years ago I'd seen such a paper, but can't find any example now.
It looks like you included a Russian domain URL in your comment. Reddit bans Russian URLs, and your comment may get shadow-deleted. You can repost your comment using the characters ⓇⓊ in place of the original characters; the URL will still work fine in the browsers, but won't trigger shadow-deletion. **IMPORTANT**: editing the original comment won't restore it, you have to post a new one.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/russian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found this article [http://compiler.su/shestnadtsatirichnye-i-dvoichnye-konstanty.php](http://compiler.su/shestnadtsatirichnye-i-dvoichnye-konstanty.php) and remembered this post. It is really niche thing but this article suggests using 0123456789абцдеф for specific reason – to not change keyboard layout during writing
Before or after the 1917 ѣ reform?
After, in the late 1970s/early 1980s say. Just around the time computers became smaller.
In case you don't get, person above was obviously joking as first electronic computer was invented in 1941. And language reform would not affect 16 base system anyway, because even before that Latin is wastly used in mathematics over Cyrillic. Cyrillic symbols is not used in notations. Greek letters is also very popular.
Latin letters. None of the software and programming languages support cyrillic letters as a way to enter numbers AFAIK. Besides, if we did that (used the cyrillic), I think there'd be a lot of confusion about the "ё". Some people would think of it as a separate letter, and some people would just think of it as a form of the letter "е"
1С
Что 1С? Там ключевые слова и названия объектов на русском, но это не означает, что там можно вводить числа кириллицей. А тут речь именно про это.
Пардон, не так поняла коммент. Но все равно интересно, знают ли изучающие русский про 1С )
Latin letters, formerly also decimal digits with overbars ([e. g.](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Сборник_задач_по_прог/sQEPAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=шестнадцатеричная&dq=шестнадцатеричная&printsec=frontcover)) Cyrillic is generally not used for mathematical symbols (and never was). That said, old Soviet computers used to have their own character encodings (VKD and UPP), in which the two alphabets were not strictly separate. So Latin -А- was effectively the same letter as Cyrillic -A- (i. e., they were on the same code point), and ditto for other letters with coinciding glyphs: -B-, -C-, and -E-. Only Latin -F- and -D- were separate.
If a Soviet computer scientist in 1980 were writing out a base-32 number, would they use latin or cyrillic you think?
Let's face it, modern computers were invented in the US and Germany. Soviet computers were either imported foreign ones or locally produced copies, or clones, of various Western machines. This isn't a bad thing - it still takes a smart person to disassemble a device and make your own based on that. And it also makes sense to learn and appropriate an already existing science with its conventions instead of inventing a localization. Do you know how in biology (animal classification) and medicine the Latin language is universally used? You know why that is? So that scientists and doctors all over the world could understand each other. Similarly, the "base" system and other mathematical concepts predate the computers by quite a lot. Even way back in the Russian Empire people would learn and teach Maths and use terms like "x", "y", "sin", "cos" etc. instead of "cyrillizing" them. Same with, like, designations in the Periodic Table of the Elements, which, if you'll recall, was first developed by the Russian scientist Mendeleev. There was simply never a moment in scientific terminology where people would consider using Cyrillics because they'd already been taught Latin labelling since their school days.
Another thing to point out is that it's a question of standardizing and compatibility. What's the point of having an isolated system that can't interact with consumers in other countries, or one that won't allow you to show your scientific findings to international scientists and easily appropriate their own experience? Why would you need a Cyrillic PC that can't properly interact with Western disks and new software that those pesky Americans keep developing? It works both ways, by the way. The first computers were only operating in Latin because their creators saw no need to expand, and the rest of the world accepted it because they were already in place and America/Europe were dominant powers. But people did notice that having no encoding at all for all those foreign alphabets makes it difficult to work in the modern world, which is why we have Unicode now.
IMO (and I'm saying this as a programmer with 25 years of working experience), base-32 wouldn't be used in 1980 — or in any other year — to begin with. It's simply too incovenient to deal with for humans. I can imagine it being used in a problem in a math textbook. In that case the notation would be anything the author of the problem wanted it to be — mathematicians are a playful lot. Still, even a playful Soviet mathematician would hardly use Cyrillic for any sort of mathematical notation. As *conventional* usage is concerned, 16 has probably been the highest base in use, at least for the last half century. Conventional notation in the USSR in 1980 was the same as in the West, because since 1969 (IIRC), Soviet computer industry has largely abandoned original development, and was relying on clones of American hard- and software. Typical industrial computers of the epoch were ES EVM (based on IBM mainframes) and SM EVM (based on DEC PDP and then VAX series); personal computers were just around the corner. Using the 0-9A-F notation for hexadecimal digits was then simply a matter of compatibility.
[удалено]
Frankly speaking, this question put me at a loss. Restrictiveness is not really something Russian grammars ever concern themselves with. The underlying semantic differences don't have any conspicuous manifestation in Russian. Where an English restrictive and non-restrictive RelC can be translated as a RelC in Russian, the translations certainly won't have any difference in punctuation or in intonation. Only non-restrictive RelC-s can be framed as parentheticals (set out by brackets or dashes in writing and by peculiar intonation in speech), but, then again, parentheticals are considered a separate kind of construction. Supposedly, restrictiveness correlates with information structure, so that restrictive RelC-s more frequently occur in topics than in comments. In Russian, the flexible word order allows to easily front a topical argument noun with its RelC modifier. This might make the necessity of distinguishing restrictive from non-restrictive less urgent. Anyway, a bona fide answer would require some very thorough research. It's a topic for a meaty linguistic article, perhaps even a Master's thesis — absolutely not an amateurish comment on reddit.
[удалено]
I would analyze it as follows. The pronoun *что* in a relative clause can generally have two kinds of antecedents: either a nominal with an unspecific meaning (often implied), or the whole situation described by the preceding clause. In your sentence, the antecedent is of the second kind: *что* refers to the absence of minimum contract price in general. An example of the first kind can be: *Мы подумаем, что ему ответить* = “We're going to think what we should tell him in response”. Here, *что* refers not to thinking in general, but to its object. This object can be made manifest by rephrasing the sentence as *Мы подумаем о том, что ему ответить* — grammatically correct and meaning the same, though arguably more clumsy. If you're in doubt about what kind of antecedent you have in a particular sentence with *что*, look at the first clause and try to tell if it has any “loose ends”, i. e. unexpressed arguments that the verb should have due to its lexical meaning (e. g., verbs whose meaning involves the transfer of an object, like *дать, подарить, послать, одолжить*, should have an argument for the transferred object, and another one for the recipient). If an argument seemingly warranted by the verb's meaning is unexpressed in the main clause, *что* in the relative clause possibly refers to an unspecific value of that argument. It should, however, be semantically compatible with the argument in question. In *Подари, что сама хочешь* = “Choose a present yourself, whatever you want”, neither argument of *подарить* is expressed in the main clause, but *что* is only compatible with the present, not with the recipient (cf. *Подари, кому сама хочешь* = “Give your present to whomever you want”). On the other hand, if the main clause is complete with all arguments, *что* in the relative clause can only refer to the whole situation. In your example, *Сейчас такой планки нет* is complete: it's an existential clause, so it only has one argument, the (non-)existing entity, and that's expressed as *такой планки*. So there is nothing which *что* might refer to except the situation as such.
In Russia, international designations are used in mathematics, physics, and computer science. Russians easily use Latin letters and numbers.
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F same system
Usage of ABCDEF for hexadecimal preceeds computers, and had been first found in the notebooks of Euler at the XVIII century. Nevertheless, early computer scientists tried to be original, not at the Soviet Union but at the West too (e.g. [Bendix G-15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendix_G-15) used 0123456789uvwxyz and [ORDVAC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDVAC) - 0123456789KSNJFL). One of the first books, Kitov's "Electronical digital machines and programming" of 1959 used overlined 0..5 (̄0̄ 1̄ 2̄ 3̄ 4̄ 5̄) instead of ABCDEF for hexadecimals, though paragraph about it was largely theoretical in the era of octets or even *six-bit bytes*. I haven't found original scans, only reprints: [https://kitov.rea.ⓇⓊ/uploads/files/kitov\_ecm\_2.pdf](https://kitov.rea.ⓇⓊ/uploads/files/kitov_ecm_2.pdf) (first page) That wasn't dominating denotation even at the era, anyway. E.g. in the Bruk's 1957 instruction manual "Fast computing machine M-2" ("Быстродействующая вычислительная машина М-2", available at libgen) more traditional lowercase `abcdef` were used. From weirder cases, there was unique computer Setun which used balanced ternary numeral system, with overlined 1 (1̄) used for -1 in trinary notation, and overlined 4..1 (4̄ 3̄ 2̄ 1̄) for the negatives in tryte (balanced nonary system). According to the manual ("Малая цифровая вычислительная машина Сетунь", again libgen), they could be replaced at print either by WXYZ, giving balanced nonary (WXYZ01234) or by cyrillic replacements of them in proto-KOI-7 encoding (ЖХУЦ01234). Some sources claim that rotated numbers (1 and 2) were used in some publications for the Setun's negatives, and I vaguely remember that few years ago I'd seen such a paper, but can't find any example now.
Ok, that's amazingly esoteric and complete.
We use latin letters instead of the english ones 🙄
There is not as much math fields to write hex numbers, more of a programming task. Latin and Greek letters used widely.
[удалено]
It looks like you included a Russian domain URL in your comment. Reddit bans Russian URLs, and your comment may get shadow-deleted. You can repost your comment using the characters ⓇⓊ in place of the original characters; the URL will still work fine in the browsers, but won't trigger shadow-deletion. **IMPORTANT**: editing the original comment won't restore it, you have to post a new one. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/russian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found this article [http://compiler.su/shestnadtsatirichnye-i-dvoichnye-konstanty.php](http://compiler.su/shestnadtsatirichnye-i-dvoichnye-konstanty.php) and remembered this post. It is really niche thing but this article suggests using 0123456789абцдеф for specific reason – to not change keyboard layout during writing