Download disabled

The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.

Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.

If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.

The bold version of xe Inktrap. Had to make a whole bunch of composites to make this. See also
  • Info:
    Created on 23rd May 2011. Last edited on 23rd May 2011.
  • License:
  • Categories:
  • Sets:
    • -
  • Tag:
    • -
  • Fave Tags:
    • -

    A preeetty cool font! (You outdoes yourself each day, dear xeno).
    Comment by elmoyenique 23rd may 2011
    You outdo yourself every hour! I can't believe some of the stuff you have made. At any rate, thank you so much.
    Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 23rd may 2011
    Love the Font, Xeno. I know it's a lot to ask, but could you take a look at my font, Tyrant. Suggestions or comments would be much appreciated!
    Comment by sailordude97 24th may 2011
    I did... before I looked at your comment here. I made a suggestion for the Z. Thanks for the compliment.
    Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 24th may 2011
    Congratulations! FontStruct Staff have deemed your FontStruction worthy of special mention. “xe Inktrap Bold” is now a Top Pick.
    Comment by Rob Meek (meek) 30th may 2011
    Excellent, and highly deserving of the top pick! Love those numerals, and all the gappy ink traps work pretty well in this bold weight (perhaps the regular version could keep the same half-brick gap distance?) That & is freakin’ hot! ૐ/10
    Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 30th may 2011
    Wow! Thanks! That makes my day.

    @williaum: I agree. I'll get to work on that. Thanks for the compliment, and the rating... I guess.
    Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 31st may 2011
    Ha ha, just a little multi-entendre – and compliment. Do you want an explanation, or are you just pulling my leg? ;)

    • I sometimes get referred to as will.i.30 (so 30/10)
    • ૐ is symbolic of the sound/vibration/energy/consciousness of all manifest reality (so > ∞/10)
    • You play your own hyperbolic rating game for humor, praise, meta-commentary on rating systems, and other inherent mind-bending qualities (e.g. “93046571834576134905618394561039468913745893475198370459138467/10, as usual”)

    There are less coherent meanings folded into my irreverent reverie, but I will leave you with these to ponder. :)
    Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 31st may 2011
    @will.i.ૐ: Is it a prime?
    Comment by Frodo7 31st may 2011
    @Frodo7: : )))

    In its three-, five-, and seven-fold sense, A-U-M-_ may indeed be seen as prime. Zero and one, though, are perhaps closer analogs, neither prime nor composite.

    Is it a “prime directive”? Why, Yes! :)

    In Mayan cosmology, twelve is supposed to be all things we can see [related? There is a fifth figure (which is made out of twelve pentagons), the dodecahedron—this God used as a model for the twelvefold division of the Zodiac. —Plato], and the thirteenth is something, uncalculated, unknown, unmeasurable, unbuyable, unsellable, that can’t be killed so it’s called the thirteenth. So we say ‘Thirteen thankyous’ to make sure everything got some gratitude. —Martín Prechtel
    Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 31st may 2011
    Wow. Just wow.

    I get it now. I didn't before, I just thought it was a little play on your name. Either way, I found it fascinating. But some of it I do not understand... I'll just have to put my puny brain to work... get these rusty gears a-turnin'.
    Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 31st may 2011
    @will.i.ૐ: Just out of curiosity I tried to run the "Primality Test" on the long number above. Sadly, the online application can't process numbers longer than 16 digits. Your number is 62.
    9304657183 4576134905 6183945610 3946891374 5893475198 3704591384 67
    I apologize for my careless question you couldn't possibly answer unless you had a super computer the size of a fridge. In the meantime I've learned about prime numbers more than I ever wanted to know. Did you know, you can actually patent very large numbers, usually primes, and there are million dollar prizes for them. Large corporation, banks use those numbers for Public Key Cryptography.
    Comment by Frodo7 1st june 2011
    @Frodo7: I was going to make a post that, when I go off on my little tangents, you all should not take me too seriously or completely at face value. I do speak from my heart, and rarely intend to deceive outright as much as inspire deeper thought. But sometimes the intentional logical breaks and my not-entirely-unsarcastic stabs at humor translate not very well and end up misleading. I am no master of riddles.

    It might not have helped much to say this, as I already humorously misunderstood your question. Didn’t you want to know the primality of . I like that question. What a delightful and unexpected paradox to ponder; you know how much I love thinking inside the paradox!

    The number I quoted above was the rating xenophilius recently gave in response to my Djangogh. I think we can safely assume it is an uncalculated, if not random, string.

    And, please, no apologies necessary (except from me for how I appropriated Plato and Martín’s words!) I can answer your question directly: the number is not prime. My certainty is neither a gamble nor otherwise probabilistic. Can you tell me how I arrived at such a definite conclusion?

    Previously, I was aware of the unclaimed $250,000 prize from the Electronic Frontier Foundation for identifying the first billion+ digit prime. Tell me more. Large (and small) primes have always held a preeminent mystique, and more recently we have discovered some ways to bend them to our will – mostly due to their inscrutability! I did enjoy very much reading about large primes, and other exotic sequences, as a child. Still do!

    Finally, I must add that the idea of a human or corporation owning a number is only slightly less reprehensible to me than the idea of any of us owning a genome. Truly, if there’s any truth to it, it is the other way around and we belong to them. Call me platonic! I say the conscious potential exists before any of us arrive on the scene to mess things building pyramids about playing king of the hill! ;)
    Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 1st june 2011
    @will.i.ૐ: "... when I go off on my little tangents..." I like that. We don't take ourselves too seriously, that's certain. You are one of the creative people who's mind is so curiously constituted. I really enjoyed our dialog above including your quotes from Plato and Martin Prechtel. Never mind any possible misunderstandings, they are insignificant.

    More about large prime numbers. I think, my information is antiquated: I lost count at 4 million digit primes. So they raised the bar to 1 billion digits?
    Unbelievable. How could anyone handle such a large number? Say, you've found one, and you would like to submit your claim / application to the US. Patent and Trademark Office. How could you do that?
    Printed on paper. Average 8x10 paper, 12pt Roman font, single spaced page could have up to 4000 characters. The whole number would fill 250,000 pages, or 250 hefty tomes 1000 pages each. No chance.

    Go digital. I'm not sure you could fit that much data on a DVD-R. However, you could put it on a multi gigabyte memory card or USB pendrive. The question remains: how could you possibly display 250000 pages of data?

    I agree with you: it is unacceptable that individuals or corporations could patent and own such things as numbers or (human) genes, regardless how much they've invested in related research. My point is, that one can't invent something that was always there, one can only discover it. Numbers are essential part of nature. Not just the positive integers, but special numbers, such as Pi and Phi, too. The US. patent system is more than controversial to accept patent claims with zero inventive element.
    Comment by Frodo7 2nd june 2011
    I really enjoy listening to you guys squabble over this. Well, not squabbling. I dunno.
    Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 2nd june 2011
    No matter the discussion
    I love this font ;)
    Comment by Michel Troy ~UrbanPixel~ (Upixel) 4th june 2011
    Wow to both the font and the discussion.
    Comment by Agent Demonic Ladybug 29th june 2011
    Yeah, I have no idea what they are talking about.
    Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 29th june 2011

    im a 2023 guy

    Comment by RYvett (DDDaniel) 21st may 2023

    Also of Interest


    Get the world’s leading font editor for OSX.

    More from the Gallery

    xe Inktrapby Logan Thomason (xenophilius)
    xe/kx Italic Dottsby Logan Thomason (xenophilius)
    xe Lusumby Logan Thomason (xenophilius)
    xe serutagilby Logan Thomason (xenophilius)
    Dawn Chorusby four
    STF_DOBINI BALWAUM (Inline)by Sed4tives
    Avensys Inlineby Frodo7
    STF_BOOTSHAUSby Sed4tives

    From the Blog


    The Numbers Competition


    16 Years of FontStruct


    Gridfolk: Interview with Zephram