0
How would you calculate 1776 plus 549 and 1776 minus 549 but working out both calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
The modern way of expressing 549 in Roman numerals is now DXLIX but the ancient Romans would have probably worked it out on an abacus calculating device as DXXXXVIIII and then abridged it to IDL in wrtten format thus facilitating the speed and ease of calculations as follows:-
MDCCLXXVI+IDL = MMCCCXXV => 1776+(550-1) = 2325
MDCCLXXVI-IDL = MCCXXVII => 17776-(550-1) = 1227
Note that in mathematics -(550-1) becomes +1-550 and that if we were to use the elongated version of 549 instead of the abridged version the results would be exactly the same in both calculations.
QED
Wiki User
∙ 9y 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'
How would you work out 1776 plus 549 in two different ways and 1776 minus 549 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Roman numerals are entirely inappropriate for doing such calculations. I believe the people in Roman times did such calculations on an abacus or something similar - which is basically similar to converting them to the Arabic numbers we use. If you really want to do it in Roman numerals - which is basically NOT a good idea - you would have to keep the thousands, hundreds, etc. separate, and handle carry (for addition) and borrowing (for subtraction).
How would you correctly calculate 52 plus 49 and 52 minus 49 but working out both calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
The modern way of expressing 49 into Roman numerals is now XLIX but the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the equivalent of 49 on an abacus counting frame as XXXXVIIII and then wrote it out as IL thus expediently working out the required calculations as follows:-LII+IL = CI => 52+(50-1) = 101LII-IL = III => 52-(50-1) = 3Note that in mathematics -(50-1) becomes -50+1 and that if we were to use the longer version of 49 in the above calculations the results would be exactly the same.QED
How would you work out 1776 plus 9 in two different ways and 1776 minus 9 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
When 9 is converted into Roman numerals it is IX which is an abridged version of VIIII and so the required calculations are as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+IX = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+(10-1) = 1785MDCCLXXVI+VIIII = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+9 = 1785MDCCLXXVI-IX = MDCCLXVII => 1776-(10-1) = 1767MDCCLXXVI-VIIII = MDCCLXVII => 1776-9 = 1767Note that in mathematics -(10-1) changes to 1-10QED
What is mccxxix in Hindu Arabic numerals?
According to my calculations,mccxxix in Hindu Arabic numerals is 1229
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'
How would you work out 1776 plus 549 in two different ways and 1776 minus 549 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Roman numerals are entirely inappropriate for doing such calculations. I believe the people in Roman times did such calculations on an abacus or something similar - which is basically similar to converting them to the Arabic numbers we use. If you really want to do it in Roman numerals - which is basically NOT a good idea - you would have to keep the thousands, hundreds, etc. separate, and handle carry (for addition) and borrowing (for subtraction).
How would you correctly calculate 52 plus 49 and 52 minus 49 but working out both calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
The modern way of expressing 49 into Roman numerals is now XLIX but the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the equivalent of 49 on an abacus counting frame as XXXXVIIII and then wrote it out as IL thus expediently working out the required calculations as follows:-LII+IL = CI => 52+(50-1) = 101LII-IL = III => 52-(50-1) = 3Note that in mathematics -(50-1) becomes -50+1 and that if we were to use the longer version of 49 in the above calculations the results would be exactly the same.QED
How would you calculate 1776 plus 1449 and 1776 minus 1449 but showing both calculations worked out entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Today's modern way of expressing 1449 as Roman numerals is now MCDXLIX which prohibits sensible interaction with other numerals but the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1449 on an abacus counting device as MCCCCXXXXVIIII and probably abridged it to ILMD thus facilitating the speed and ease of calculations as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+ILMD = MMMCCXXV => 1776+(1500-51) = 3225MDCCLXXVI-ILMD = CCCXXVII => 1776-(1500-51) = 327Note that the results would be exactly the same if we were to use the longer version of the equivalent of 1449.QED
How are Roman Numerals related to Roman science?
Numerals are used for mathematical calculations. Mathematical calculations are used in science. This is the way Roman numerals related to Roman science.
How would you work out 1776 plus 9 in two different ways and 1776 minus 9 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
When 9 is converted into Roman numerals it is IX which is an abridged version of VIIII and so the required calculations are as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+IX = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+(10-1) = 1785MDCCLXXVI+VIIII = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+9 = 1785MDCCLXXVI-IX = MDCCLXVII => 1776-(10-1) = 1767MDCCLXXVI-VIIII = MDCCLXVII => 1776-9 = 1767Note that in mathematics -(10-1) changes to 1-10QED
What is mccxxix in Hindu Arabic numerals?
According to my calculations,mccxxix in Hindu Arabic numerals is 1229
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 did they use roman numerals in calculations?
The Romans did their calculations on an abacus counting device which was the equivalent to a primitive calculator.
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)
What is 1776 plus 249 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 249 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?
Under today's modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system the equivalent of 249 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be CCXLIX which does not lend itself quite easily to arithmetical operations but there exist credible evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have carried out the requested calculations as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+ICCL = MMXXV => 1776+(250-1) = 2025MDCCLXXVI+CCXXXXVIIII = MMXXV => 1776+249 = 2025MDCCLXXVI-ICCL = MDXXVII => 1776-(250-1) = 1527MDCCLXXVI-CCXXXXVIIII = MDXXVII => 1776-249 = 1527Note that in mathematics -(250-1) becomes -250+1 or as 1-250The above calculations were fairly simple and straight forward to work out but for more complicated calculations the Romans would make use of an abacus calculating device.QED
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
