Type Battle 40 // Typophile's 10th Anniversary

Zara Evens's picture

This week's battle: Draw the number 10, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Typophile.

To celebrate our 10th anniversary, we are inviting everyone to draw the number 10! After collecting the best entries, we plan to incorporate them back into our logo for this year and then perhaps even create some limited edition artifacts for the community.

Winner take all, no holds barred. May the best designer win.

// REQUIREMENTS

- Solution must be typographic and contain only the numerals "1" and "0".
- Numerals must be custom drawn. No use of existing fonts!
- Image size: 550 width x 400 height. 72 dpi*
- Color: Black and White
- Format: PNG, GIF or JPG (Preferred in that order. Make sure there are no spaces in the name)
- Please keep an EPS or other vector formatted file on hand in the event we choose your design.

*Please try to keep your file sizes to a minimum! 50k per file max.

// ABOUT TYPOPHILE TYPE BATTLES

This is your chance to flex your type muscles on a weekly basis. You have one week to create and submit your entry. Anyone may submit a design response to the challenge. You may enter as often as you wish. Post anytime. Critiques and comments are welcome throughout the game, from participants and spectators alike. Smack talk is encouraged.

As with any street battle, there is no panel of judges and no prize — only the ability to call yourself the best on the block.

Link directly to this battle: http://www.typophile.com/battle40
Link to the battle directory: http://www.typophile.com/typebattles

Arno Enslin's picture

I see 11s in Arno's last entry.

Well, I would not say, that my attempt of the ten is clear, if you don’t know, that it is a ten. I did know that before. But eleven? The idea behind of it is, that nothing remains nothing. The arrow above nothing means "There is nothing.", while the figure zero means "I am something, but I mean nothing." I always was in the opinion, that the zero is the most fascinating number. In nature nothing does not exist. Otherwise it would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. The maximum of nothing is "almost nothing". Nothing is bursting the human mind in the same way as infinity.

In this way (my contribution) I could describe numbers on an endless number line. All zeros after the ten would not have an arrow above.

ihoff's picture

Fascinating, Arno. Quantum physics meets typography. Thank you for teaching me something about nothing ;) Read this with interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Would that be why 'singularity' is called that instead of, say, 'nothingness'?

myobie's picture

Sorry, just bored today.

dezcom's picture

Nice one, Riccardo!

riccard0's picture

Thank you, Chris! :-)

metti's picture

Hi - my first one too :)

Arno Enslin's picture

@ Riccardo

I think the zero should over- and undershoot a bit.

riccard0's picture

@Arno: Of course you’re right! :-) In my defence I should say that it was from my part more an exercise in geometric optical effects than a proper logo (let alone typeface). And that very well explain one of the reasons why I will never be an accomplished graphic designer… ;-)

Arno Enslin's picture

@ Riccardo

Well, all you had to do is to cut a bit of the one at its buttom and drag it down a bit.

@ ihoff

Would that be why 'singularity' is called that instead of, say, 'nothingness'?

I just saw your question. I am not a physicist, but singularities (in black holes with a wide event horizon) seem to be very stable in contradiction to virtual particles in the vacuum. So the gravitation field gives evidence of the existence of something. On the other side you could ask, how real those things are, that we can’t see, and whether the universe exists, if nobody is there, who observes it. (Not only singularities, but everything, that is only for moments in our consciousness or that is pure theory. This consideration gives room for speculations about the possibility of a simulation of that, which we call reality, because the simulation only had to take into account the content of your or my consciousness – even not the contents of the consciousness of all humans, because every human individual only sees cuttings of some other individuals – temporarily. Otherwise the computer [in a wide sense of that term], which would be required for the simulation, would require more interactions between particles in every moment, than particles exist in the universe.) That’s the main reason, for which I hope, that the mankind survives or becomes replaced by another terrestrial species in the course of the biologic evolution or the evolution of a synthetical intelligence, that was developed by a biologic terrestrial species. There are millions of people, who believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, although it is absolutely unevident, that it exists. (I only believe in nature, but not in Gods or substitutes of Gods. On the other side zero or infinity make it almost impossible, to believe in nothing.) But if we are the only creatures in universe, our self destruction would eliminate the only observer of the universe. And then the universe would be the most conceivable waste of beauty.

dezcom's picture

I thought a singularity was when the gravitation of an object had compressed it to the ultimate density at which point it was ripe for explosion and its particles, once again, in a search for entropy.

Arno Enslin's picture

@ Chris

As I said, I am not a physicist, but in the theory (probably there is more than one theory), there is a singularity in every black hole. If Hawking is right, then black holes irradiate and loose energy/mass. As smaller the hole, as more energy/mass it looses through emission. And in the end it explodes. But when it explodes, its mass is almost zero. That is odd, because if you believe in the big bang, it has started with a singularity (with the mass of the universe). With regard to the time and the stability the big bang singularity is probably an exception from our point of view, because there was nothing outside that singularity – the big bang singularity was the only possible point of view – and therefore there was nobody, who was able to compare the lifetime of that singularity with any processes. There was no relation to anything, because the big bang singularity was everything. You could not say, how long the big bang singularity has existed, before it has exploded.

However, the zero is fascinating. (There is an ingenious idea about full and empty zeros in the beginning of the book Picnic at the Way Side by the brothers Strugatzki. Really ingenious.

There is a book with short stories about singularities, which I likewise can recommend, but I don’t know, if it was translated into English: Singularities by Peter Schattschneider.)

dezcom's picture

Ultimate mass breeds terminal velocity, or " i ate so much I exploded" ;-)

My assumption was that if all things of the universe are compressed into one singularity and that singularity has the sum of all gravitational forces acting on it, if there is no more "space" for compression, that force must cause explosion--starting the cycle again until all things become yet another singularity.

dezcom's picture

I will look for the book in English! Thanks, Arno!

Something somewhere between G.Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form” and Michael Polanyi’s “The Tacit Dimension”?

Arno Enslin's picture

@ Chris

As far as I have understood, singularities have no volume, independed from their mass. And their own mass compresses them. But let’s assume, time does not end for the case, that the universe ends in a singularity again and that there is an observer of the singularity with our feeling of time. Then it may exist for billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of years, until something happens, that brings it to explosion. But because there is no observer, it would not matter, if it directly after compression explodes. There does not seem to be a difference between infinity and zero with regard to the time in case of the big bang singularity.

dezcom's picture

Hmmm, I guess I have always thought singularities or at least the "big" one had consumed all energy and mass, therefore there was none left outside of it and that the only "force" remaining was its own gravitation which was relentless and would continue beyond ultimate mass causing ultimate explosion? Then again, I am old, forgetful, naive, a romantic, and definitely NOT a physicist :-)

ihoff's picture

Great discussion and thanks for the book suggestions.

PLEASE_CANCEL_ME's picture

Thought I would get a head start on next year.

Sanchit Sawaria's picture

Ten.
and im late!

dezcom's picture

Yup, almost time for 11 ;-)

Holy Donuts's picture

Ihoff
Keady
Stickley

YES!

ihoff's picture

wow. thanks holy donuts and erno.

riccard0's picture

While the last Type Battle listed is still #39 (http://typophile.com/typebattles), I propose to extend this one for another year:

dezcom's picture

;-)

deadsea's picture

I am a newbie :) and this is my first battle :)Even if it is too late, one year :) I did it..

Greater Albion Typefounders's picture

Simple casual elegance....

riccard0's picture

One’s always better off to an early start ;-)

dezcom's picture

The 12th day of Christmas ;-)

riccard0's picture

Four years. It could become a tradition! ;-)

Dr_No's picture

Hello, all ... New Kid On The Block here, and these are my first entries ... enjoy and be gentle - it's my first time ...

timd's picture

Now we are teen

5star's picture

13

n.

Syndicate content Syndicate content