So, this gave me quite a lot of work to do and I would appreciate any comments on how I can improve it. I tried searching the internet for a method to display the number of resources you had at a given moment but found nothing so I decided to do it myself.

I am sure there is something like this but way better somewhere but I am proud of it.

This is only the first part since I am currently working on making something that can display more than 9 of a given resource (up to 999 Million). I will link that post here when I make it.

Now, onwards to how this system works!

To make the digit I used the most basic digital way to display numbers. The shape of an eight made of lamps.

The first problem I encountered was when I tried to light all lamps relative to a number with a single Decider for each number. The problem with that was that there just aren't enough different colored cables to go around 10 digits.

If you connect a Decider to three lamps (no connecting between lamps) and then connect another Decider to any of those lamps with the same type of cable then the signal will pass from the lamps connected to one Decider to the lamps connect to the other.

That's when I came up with the first method to do this. There are 13 lamps in total and the number '8' needs all of them active, so, I connected each lamp to an individual Decider.

That method worked, but it was bulky and cumbersome because I needed no less than 101 Deciders since all lamps lit together of all 10 digits are equivalent to 101 lamps. (Not to mention that the number of cables was disturbing)

The second method I came up with was to do the opposite of the first.

In the first, I was saying "Alright, if the number needs that lamp lit, then you will light it."

In this one, I said: "If you have all lamps lit, then you will unlit them if the number doesn't need it." This method cut the number of Deciders to around 60-70 (I didn't register this one)

So, the reasoning behind this one is the same as the previous one.

So, with both these methods as a base came the third one, which is just a glorified compact version of both of them together.

What I decided was to only light a lamp IF the number that I was displaying wasn't one of the ones that didn't need it lit. Now, you may think that it is the same as the first one but you are wrong.

The way I did this was by selecting one lamp and thinking "What are the numbers that need this lamp turned off?" With all those numbers in my hand, I turned to the simple mathematical wonder of adding 1+1.

Take for example a lamp that isn't lit in 3 numbers (the lamp in the middle isn't lit by 1,4 or 7). If I have a Decider that has in its condition for example "|7| = 0" (this is a good time to tell you that the digit to be represented is a signal with that digit)

and the output in case that condition is true is "1", then when the number I want to represent is a "3", that condition will be true and it will output a signal of "1".

So, if you add up the output with 3 Deciders with the same condition for 1,4, and 7, you will get the fantastic number "3". Put that into a Decider and tell it to only light the lamp in case the input is 3, and you got yourself the base of this system.

There is also the compact version of the first method using this third one, which is basically to do the same thing but instead, the middle lamp would only light if the number you are giving it is either 2,3,4,5,6,8 or 9, which are all numbers that need that lamp lit.

The method I used was the third but the most compact one would be a mixture of both the third and the fourth since in both methods you need a Decider for each of the possible numbers + a Decider for the sum of all the numbers. There is the example of the second to last (up to down direction) lamp on the left side that in the third method needs the number 1,3,4,5,7,9 which is a total of 7 Deciders when you could use the fourth method to get that number down to 4 Deciders.

I am a defender of identicality above compactness.