0
How would you add together 1776 and 1499 in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals in step by step stages with explanations?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Todays modern rules governing the Roman numeral system as we know them today were introduced during the Middle Ages and as a result nowadays we would convert 1499 into Roman numerals as MCDXCIX which makes them incompatible for additional purposes with the Roman equivalent of 1776 which is correctly enumerated as MDCCLXXVI.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there is evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have added together the equivalent of 1776 and 1499 in either of the following formats:-
A: MDCCLXXVI+IMD = MMMCCLXXV => 1776+(1500-1) = 3275
B: MDCCLXXVI+MCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MMMCCLXXV => 1776+1499 = 3275
Note that the above calculations are pretty easy to work out but for more complicated calculations the ancient Romans would have used an abacus calculating device.
QED
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How would you actually add together 1666 and 1999 in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals throughout both calculations with explanations?
See answer to question: ' How do you add together 1666 and 1999 in two different ways using Roman numerals'
What is the sum of 1999 and 2014 added together in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
MIM + MMXIV = MMMXIII or MMCXCIX + MMXIII = MMMXIII There is only one way to write the solution (3013)
How would you actually add together 1999 and 14 in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Notwithstanding todays modern conversion of 1999 and 14 into Roman numerals which are MCMXCIX and XIV respectively inasmuch that there exist credible evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have added together the equivalent of 1999 and 14 in either of the following formats:- A: IMM+IXV = MMXIII => (2000-1)+(15-1) = 2013 B: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+XIIII = MMXIII => 1999+14 = 2013 Not that for more complicated calculations the ancient Romans would have used an abacus calculating device.
How would you add together 51 plus 49 in two different ways and 51 minus 49 in two different ways but showing all calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Doing arithmetic with Roman numerals is exasperating, and imho a pointless waste of time, except to demonstrate the obvious superiority of our "normal numbers," which use base-10 radix / positional notation that includes a zero digit as a placeholder. I'd venture to say science & technology -- commerce, too -- could never have developed in recent centuries if we still used Roman numerals for calculations. However, this web site explains some methods: http://turner.faculty.swau.edu/mathematics/materialslibrary/roman/
How would you actually add together 666 and 999 in two different ways all in Roman numerals with explanations?
Notwithstanding todays modern conversion of 999 into Roman numerals which are CMXCIX inasmuch that the ancient Romans in all probability would have added together the equivalent of 666 and 999 in either of the following formats:-A: DCLXVI+IM = MDCLXV => 666+(1000-1) = 1665B: DCLXVI+DCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MDCLXV => 666+999 = 1665QED
What is the sum of 999 plus 14 plus 1987 added together in two different ways but showing all work and answers entirely in Roman numerals?
Cmxcix + xiv + mcmlxxxvii = mmm. It should be all in capital letters, but the system changed them.
How do you spell alltogether?
The word "altogether" (completely, entirely) has a different meaning from "all together" (a collected group).
How would to add together 1999 and 3001 in two different ways showing both calculations entirely in Roman numerals?
When in Rome do as the Roman do and the ancient Romans would have probably added together 1999 and 3001 in either of the following ways:- IMM+MMMI = (V) => (2000-1)+3001 = 1000*5 = 5000 MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+MMMI = (V) => 1999+30001 = 5000 Note that in todays modern configuration of Roman numerals 1999 is now considered to be MCMXCIX
How would you actually add together in two different ways 19 plus 62 plus 19 entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Nowadays we would express 19 in Roman numerals as XIX but in ancient Rome the equivalent of 19 was XVIIII or IXX thus facilitating the speed and ease of addition in either of the following formats:-IXX+LXII = LXXXI => (20-1)+62 = 81LXXXI+IXX = C => 81+(20-1) = 100Alternatively:-XVIIII+LXII = LXXXI => 19+62 = 81LXXXI+XVIIII = C => 81+19 = 100Note that the Latin word for XVIIII is novemdecim and and for IXX it is undeviginti but there is no Latin word for todays notation of 19 as XIX
How would you add together 777 and 999 in two different ways with all work shown entirely in Roman numerals?
To add 777 and 999 in Roman numerals, you can first convert the numbers to their Roman numeral equivalents. 777 is DCCCLXXVII and 999 is CMXCIX. Method 1: Add the two Roman numerals: DCCCLXXVII + CMXCIX = MDCCC LXXVI Method 2: Convert both numbers to their Arabic numeral equivalents, add them together, and then convert the sum back to Roman numerals: 777 + 999 = 1776, which can be written as MDCCLXXVI in Roman numerals.
How would you actually add together in two different ways 9 plus 19 plus 1999 entirely in Roman numerals?
The wrong way and the right way which is as follows:- IX+IXX = XXVIII => (10-1)+(20-1) = 28 XXVIII+IMM = MMXXVII => 28+(2000-1) = 2027
How would you actually add together 1 plus 90 plus 1900 in two different ways but showing all your work entirely in Roman numerals from start to finish with explanations?
In todays modern configurations of Roman numerals the equivalent of 1, 99 and 1900 are now officially set out as I, XCIX and MCM respectively which makes mathematical interaction amongst them quite difficult.Yet there is evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably added together the equvalent of the given numbers in either of the following formats:-A: I+IC+CMM = MM => 1+(100-1)+(2000-100) = 2000B: I+LXXXXVIIII+MDCCCC = MM => 1+99+1900 = 2000Note that for more complicated arithmetical problems the ancient Romans would have made use of an abacos calculating board.QED
