0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
A temperature of 20 c is equivalent to approximatly?
A temperature of 20 degrees Celsius is equivalent to approximately 68 degrees Fahrenheit. It is also equivalent to 293 Kelvin.
What is 'angel' in Polish?
Anioł is a Polish equivalent of 'angel'. An equivalent for 'little angel' is 'aniołek'.
What is the word celebration in Sanskrit?
No equivalent word in Sanskrit
What is equivalent to 0.06?
bdjk
Are .00042 and 0.42 equivalent?
No
What is CCLXXVII IN A NUMBER?
The Roman numeral of CCLXXVII is equivalent to 277
What is the Roman Numeral 277?
CCLXXVII
What is the number cclxxvii in roman numerals?
277.
What is 277 in roman numbers?
It is: 277 = CCLXXVII
How do you write 277 in roman numerals?
277 = CCLXXVII
What is CCLXXVII in roman numeral?
C represents 100 (There are 2 C's so this will be 200), L represents 50, X represents 10 (There are two X's so this will be 20), V represents 5 and I represents 1 (There are two I's so this will be 2) 100+50+20+5+2=277. CCLXXVII is 277.
What is 1776 plus 1499 and 1776 minus 1499 but showing all work and answers in Roman numerals?
Nowadays we would consider that the correct conversion of 1499 into Roman numerals to be MCDXCIX but then there is historical evidence to show that the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1499 on an abacus calculating device as MCCCCLXXXXVIIII and then logically abridged it to IMD in written format thus facilitating the speed and ease of the required calculations as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+IMD = MMMCCLXXV => 1776+(1500-1) = 3275MDCCLXXVI-IMD = CCLXXVII => 1776-(1500-1) = 277Note that in arithmetic -(1500-1) becomes 1-1500QED
6.4 and 6.40 equivalent or not equivalent?
yes these are equivalent
Is 3.0105 and 3.01005 equivalent or not equivalent?
Not equivalent
Is 1.0050 and 1.005 equivalent or not equivalent?
Equivalent
How would you actually subtract 1499 from 1776 in two different ways using only Roman numerals in both calculations?
The way we write out Roman numerals today differs in many respects as to the way that the ancient Romans actually did themselves inasmuch that nowadays we would write out Roman numerals in direct comparison with Hindu-Arabic numerals. For instance 1499 in Roman numerals today are considered to be MCDXCIX which inhibits mathematical interaction with other numerals in some kind of logical reasoning.But there is evidence to suggest that the Romans would have calculated the equivalent of 1499 on an abacus counting device as MCCCCLXXXXVIIII which was then probably abridged to IMD in written form thus facilatating the speed and ease of subtraction as follows:-MDCCLXXVI-IMD = CCLXXVII (1776)-(-1+1500) = (277) by cancelling out the numerals and adding I because --I is +IAlternatively:-MDCCLXXVI-MCCCCLXXXXVIIII = CCLXXVII (1776)-(1499) = (277) by cancelling out the numerals.Remember: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=100, 5*C=D and 2*D=MRoman numerals: M=1000, D=500< C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1QED
What is 1776 plus 1499 and 1776 minus 1499 but working out both calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Nowadays we would convert 1499 into Roman numerals as MCDXCIX which does not lend itself quite easily for the purpose of arithmetical operations but there is historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1499 in an abridged format of IMD thus facilitating the speed and ease of both calculations as follows-MDCCLXXVI+IMD = MMMCCLXXV => 1776+(1500-1) = 3275MDCCLXXVI-IMD = CCLXXVII => 1776-(1500-1) = 277Note that if we were to arrange MCDXCIX as M+CD+XC+IX then they too would add up to IMD.QED
