# How would you evaluate 1776 plus 249 in two different ways and 1776 minus 249 in two different ways showing all four calculations in Roman numerals with explanations?

Under today's modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system 249 in Roman numerals is considered to be CCXLIX but the ancient Romans would have probably evaluated the above in any of the following formats:-

A: MDCCLXXVI+ICCL = MMXXV => 1776+(250-1) = 2025

B: MDCCLXXVI+CCXXXXVIIII = MMXXV => 1776+249 = 2025

C: MDCCLXXVI-ICCL = MDXXVII => 1776-(250-1) = 1527

D: MDCCLXXVI-CCXXXXVIIII = MDXXVII => 1776-249 = 1527

*QED*

### 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… Read More

### How would you work out 19 plus 9 in four different ways and 19 minus 9 in four different ways but calculating all eight calculations completely in Roman numerals from start to finish with explanations?

Since you ask how I would do it: I would forget about doing this in Roman; rather, I would convert everything to arabic numbers, which are much more appropriate for such calculations.

### How would you evaluate 49 plus 19 in two different ways and 49 minus 19 in two different ways showing all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

In today's modern conversion of Roman numerals 49 and 19 are now considered to be XLIX and XIX respectively but the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the above as follows:- IL+IXX = LXVIII => (50-1)+(20-1) = 68 XXXXVIIII+XVIIII = LXVIII => 49+19 = 68 IL-IXX = XXX => (50-1)-(20-1) = 30 XXXXVIIII-XVIIII => 49-19 = 30 For more complicated calculations the Romans would use an abacus calculating device.

### 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 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 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) = 1785 MDCCLXXVI+VIIII = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+9 = 1785 MDCCLXXVI-IX = MDCCLXVII => 1776-(10-1) = 1767 MDCCLXXVI-VIIII = MDCCLXVII => 1776-9 = 1767 Note that in mathematics -(10-1) changes to 1-10 QED

### Why do not you use roman numerals always?

We have discontinued the use of Roman numerals for everyday needs because they can be clumsy and awkward to use for quick calculations. We have discontinued the use of Roman numerals for everyday needs because they can be clumsy and awkward to use for quick calculations. We have discontinued the use of Roman numerals for everyday needs because they can be clumsy and awkward to use for quick calculations. We have discontinued the use of… Read More

### What is mccxxix in Hindu Arabic numerals?

According to my calculations, mccxxix in Hindu Arabic numerals is 1229

### How would you calculate 19 plus 9 in two different ways and 19 minus 9 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirly in Roman numerals with explanations?

The modern way of expressing 19 in Roman numerals is now XIX but the ancient Romans would have expressed it as IXX or as XVIIII because their equivalent Latin words are 'undeviginti' and 'novemdecim' respectively but there is no Latin equivalent for XIX and thus it logically follows that:- IXX+IX = XXVIII => (20-1)+(10-1) = 28 XVIIII+VIIII = XXVIII => 19+9 = 28 IXX-IX = X => (20-1)-(10-1) = 10 XVIIII-VIIII = X => 19-9… Read More

### How would you work out 1776 plus 444 in two different ways and 1776 minus 444 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The modern way of expressing the equivalent of 444 into Roman numerals is now CDXLIV which does not lend itself quite easily for the purpose of calculations but there is historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked it out on an abacus counting device as CCCCXXXXIIII and then logically abridged it to IVLD in written format thus facilitating the speed and ease of the required calculations as follows:- MDCCLXXVI+IVLD = MMCCXX… Read More

### How would you work out 99 plus 1776 in two different ways and 1776 minus 99 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Nowadays the modern way of converting 99 into Roman numerals is now considered to be XCIX but back in the past the ancient Romans would have worked it out on an abacus calculating board as LXXXXVIIII which can be logically abridged to IC thus facilitating the speed and ease of the required calculations as follows:- MDCCLXXVI+IC = MDCCCLXXV => 1776+(100-1) = 1875 MDCCLXXVI+LXXXXVIIII = MDCCCLXXV => 1776+99 = 1875 MDCCLXXVI-IC = MDCLXXVII => 1776-(100-1) =… Read More

### 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.

### How would you work out 1776 plus 549 in two different ways and 1776 minus 549 in two different ways but doing all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Latin numeracy is the same as Roman numerals and under the modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system the equivalent of 549 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be DXLIX but there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked it out on an abacus counting device as DXXXXVIIII which can be abridged to IDL thus expediating the speed and ease of the required calculations as follows… Read More

### What is 1776 plus 999 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 999 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we know them today now governing the Roman numerals system had nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and as result of these rules the equivalent of 999 converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be CMXCIX which hardly lends itself quite easily for the purpose of mathematical operations but there exist credible evidence to show that the ancient Romans would have worked out… Read More

### What is 1999 plus 1776 added in two different ways and 1999 minus 1776 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we know them today now governing the Roman numerals system had absolutely nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and as a result of these rules 1999 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be MCMXCIX which hardly lends itself quite easily for the purpose of arithmetical operations but notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist credible evidence to support the premiss that… Read More

### 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) = 2025 MDCCLXXVI+CCXXXXVIIII = MMXXV => 1776+249 = 2025 MDCCLXXVI-ICCL = MDXXVII => 1776-(250-1) =… Read More

### Why don't you use roman numerals?

They're great for clocks, but try doing basic calculations with them. The Romans had no representation for the number zero. It was the Greeks who invented Zero as a number. Therefore calculations with Roman numerals is extremely difficult.

### How would you calculate 9.5 plus 8.5 in two different ways and 9.5 minus 8.5 in two different ways but calculating all four calculations completely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The equivalent of 0.5 or 1/2 as a Roman numeral is S and so therefore the required calculations are as follows:- SX+SIX = XVIII => (10-0.5)+(10-1.5)= 18 VIIIIS+VIIIS = XVIII => 9.5+8.5 = 18 SX-SIX = I => (10-0.5)-(10-1.5) = 1 VIIIIS-VIIIS = I => 9.5-8.5 = 1 Note that in mathematics -(10-1.5) changes to 1.5-10 QED

### How would you calculate 1149 plus 19 in two different ways and 1149 minus 19 in two different ways but please show all work and answers in Roman numerals with explanations?

Notwithstanding today's modern usage of Roman numerals inasmuch that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the required calculations as follows:- IMCL+IXX = MCLXVIII => (1150-1)+(20-1) = 1168 MCXXXXVIIII+XVIIII = MCLXVIII => 1149+19 = 1168 IMCL-IXX = MCXXX => (1150-1)-(20-1) = 1130 MCXXXXVIIII-XVIIII = MCXXX =>1149-19 = 1130 Note that in today's modern conversion of 1149 and 19 they are now MCXLIX and XIX Note that in mathematics -(20-1) changes to -20+1 Note that… Read More

### 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) = 3225 MDCCLXXVI-ILMD = CCCXXVII => 1776-(1500-51) = 327 Note that the results would be exactly… Read More

### Why are Roman numerals generally not used in mathematics?

Roman Numerals are not used in calculations, because there is no easy way to do them, as there is with the decimal numbers that we use today.

### 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 599 plus 219 added in two different ways and 599 minus 219 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we now know them today governing the Roman numeral system had absolutely nothing to with the ancient Romans whatsoever because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and so as a result nowadays 599 and 219 are now considered to be DXCIX and CCXIX in Roman numerals which hardly lends themselves quite easily towards arithmetical operations but there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked out the… Read More

### 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) = 101 LII-IL = III => 52-(50-1) = 3 Note that in mathematics -(50-1) becomes -50+1 and that if we were to… Read More

### How would you calculate 1776 plus 549 and 1776 minus 549 but working out both calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

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… Read More

### How would you work out 1776 plus 499 in two different ways and 1776 minus 499 in two different ways but showing all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Nowadays the modern way of converting 499 into Roman numerals is now considered to be CDXCIX but there exist credible evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the equivalent of 499 on an abacus counting device as CCCCLXXXXVIIII and then logically abridged it to ID in written format thus facilitating the speed and ease of the aforesaid required calculations as follows:- MDCCLXXVI+ID = MMCCLXXV => 1776+(500-1) = 2275 MDCCLXXVI+CCCCLXXXXVIIII =… Read More

### How would you calculate 3001 plus 1999 in two different ways and 3001 minus 1999 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The modern way of converting 1999 into Roman numerals is now considered to be MCMXCIX but the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1999 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and then probably abridged it to IMM thus facilitating the speed and ease of the required calculations as follows:- MMMI+IMM = (V) => 3001+(2000-1) = 5000 MMMI+MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = (V) => 3001+1999 = 5000 MMMI-IMM = MII => 3001-(2000-1) = 1002 MMMI-MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII… Read More

### 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… Read More

### How would you add together 1999 plus 199 plus 19 in two different ways but showing all calculations and answers entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

With great difficulty because under today's modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system the equivalent of 1999, 199 and 19 when converted into Roman numerals are now considered to be MCMXCIX, CXCIX and XIX respectively which does not lend themselves quite easily conducive to logical mathematical operations amongst themselves but notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist credible historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have calculated the required calculations as follows… Read More

### What is the sum of 1999 plus 19 added together in four different ways entirely in Roman numerals giving explanations?

Under today's modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system we would convert the equivalent of 1999 and 19 into Roman numerals as MCMXCIX and XIX respectively which makes them almost impracticable for arithmetical operations but there is historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the required calculations in any of the following formats:- IMM+IXX = MMXVIII => (2000-1)+(20-1) = 2018 MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+IXX = MMXVIII => 1999+(20-1) = 2018 IMM+XVIIII… Read More

### What is 1767 plus 9 added in two different ways and 1767 minus 9 subtracted in two different ways but working out all calculations from start to finish in Roman numerals?

Nowadays we think that the equivalent of 9 in Roman numerals is only IX whereas in fact IX is an abridged version of VIIII in ancient Roman numerals thus facilitating the conversion and calculations of the given Hindu-Arabic numerals into Roman numerals in several ways as follows:- MDCCLXVII+VIIII = MDCCLXXVI => 1767+9 = 1776 MDCCLXVII+IX = MDCCLXXVI => 1767+(-1+10) = 1776 MDCCLXVII-VIIII = MDCCLVIII => 1767-9 = 1758 MDCCLXVII-IX = MDCCLVIII => 1767-(-1+10) = 1758… Read More

### 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 in Roman numerals with work shown?

Nowadays 249 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be CCXLIX but the ancient Romans probably worked out the required calculations as follows:- MDCCLXXVI+ICCL = MMXXV => 1776+(250-1) = 2025 MDCCLXXVI+CCXXXXVIIII = MMXXV => 1776+249 = 2025 MDCCLXXVI-ICCL = MDXXVII => 1776-(250-1) = 1527 MDCCLXXVI-CCXXXXVIIII = MDXXVII => 1776-249 = 1527 For more complicated calculations the Romans would have made use of an abacus calculating device. QED

### How would you work out 1776 plus 99 in two different ways and 1776 minus 99 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals?

Not withstanding today's modern notation of Roman numerals in as much that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the required calculations as follows: MDCCLXXVI+IC = MDCCCLXXV => 1776+(100-1) = 1875 MDCCLXXVI+LXXXXVIIII = MDCCCLXXV => 1776+99 = 1875 MDCCLXXVI-IC = MDCLXXVII => 1776-(100-1) = 1677 MDCCLXXVI-LXXXXVIIII = MDCLXXVII => 1776-99 = 1677

### 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) = 3275 MDCCLXXVI-IMD = CCLXXVII => 1776-(1500-1) = 277 Note that… Read More

### How would you calculate 1149 plus 19 in two different ways and 1149 minus 19 in two different ways but showing all work and answers using only Roman numerals with satisfactory explanations?

Save yourself the trouble and convert the numbers to arabic numbers (the numbers we usually use).

### What is 1999 plus 666 added in two different ways and 1999 minus 666 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we know them today now governing the Roman numeral system had absolutely nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and as a result of these rules the equivalent of 1999 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be MCMXCIX which hardly lends itself quite easily for the purpose of mathematical operations but notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist credible evidence to support… Read More

### How would you actually add together 1999 plus 2000 plus 2001 in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals from start to finish with explanations?

Notwithstanding the fact that nowadays we would officially convert 1999 into Roman numerals as MCMXCIX inasmuch that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the equivalent of 1999 as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which can be abridged to IMM thus making two possibilities of adding together the equivalent of these numbers as follows:- A: IMM+MM+MMI = (VI) => (2000-1)+2000+2001 = 6000 B: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+MM+MMI = (VI) => 1999+2000+2001 = 6000 Note that the above calculations are fairly simple… Read More

### How would you add together 1776 and 1499 in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals in step by step stages with explanations?

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… Read More

### How would you work out 1999 plus 1888 in two different ways and 1999 minus 1888 but working out all three calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Nowadays the modern way of converting 1999 into Roman numerals is now considered to be MCMXCIX but there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1999 on an abacus calculating device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which can be abridged to IMM thus facilitating the speed and ease of the three required calculations as follows:- IMM+MDCCCLXXXVIII = MMMDCCCLXXXVII => (2000-1)+1888 = 3887 MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+MDCCCLXXXVIII = MMMDCCCLXXXVII => 1999+1888 = 3887… Read More

### How would you add together 1999 plus 19 plus 199 in two different ways but showing both calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Because of the changes made to the rules now governing the Roman numeral system introduced during the Middle Ages nowadays 1999, 19 and 199 when converted into Roman numerals are now configured as MCMXCIX, XIX and CXCIX respectively which restricts some sort of sensible arithmetical interaction amongst them. Notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have added together the given numbers in either of the following… Read More

### What is 1776 plus 89.5 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 89.5 subtracted in two different ways entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules now governing the Roman numeral system as we know them today had nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle ages but there exist credible evidence to show that the ancient Romans would have worked out all four calculations in the following formats:- MDCCLXXVI+SXC = MDCCCLXVS => 1776+(100-10.5) = 1865.5 MDCCLXXVI+LXXXVIIIIS = MDCCCLXVS => 1776+89.5 = 1865.5 MDCCLXXVI-SXC = MDCLXXXVIS => 1776-(100-10.5) = 1686.5 MDCCLXXVI-LXXXVIIIIS = MDCLXXXVIS =>… Read More

### What is 1218 plus 558 added in two different ways and 1218 minus 558 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The following answers are self explanatory:- IIMCCXX+IIDLX = MDCCLXXVI => (1220-2)+(560-2) = 1776 MCCXVIII+DLVIII = MDCCLXXVI => 1218+558 = 1776 IIMCCXX-IIDLX = DCLX => (1220-2)-(560-2) = 660 MCCXVIII-DLVIII = DCLX => 1218-558 = 660 Note that the rules as we now know them today governing the Roman numeral system had little or nothing to do with the ancient Romans whatsoever because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and so therefore the Romans would have… Read More

### What are Roman numarals?

Romans used another system of numbers, very difficult to do any math calculations with, and missing the concept of zero. The Arabic numerals we use today successfully replaced the unwieldy Roman numerals.

### How would you add together 31 plus 19 in two different ways and 31 minus 19 in two different ways showing all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals?

The modern way of expressing 19 into Roman numerals is now XIX but the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the above calculations as follows: A: XXXI+IXX = L => 31+(20-1) = 50. B: XXXI+XVIIII = L => 31+19 = 50. C: XXXI-IXX = XII => 31-(20-1) = 12. D: XXXI-XVIIII = XII => 31-19 = 12.

### What is 28 plus 22 added in two different ways and 28 minus 22 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we now know them today governing the Roman numeral system has and had absolutely nothing to do with the ancient Romans whatsoever because the present rules were introduced during the Middle Ages but notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist credible evidence to show that the Romans would have worked out the required calculations as in the following formats:- IIXXX+XXII = L => (30-2)+22 = 50 XXVIII+XXII = L => 28+22 =… Read More

### How would you add together 199 plus 114 plus 199 in two different ways using Roman numerals throughout both calculations?

In today's modern way of expressing Roman numerals 199 and 114 are now considered to be CXCIX and CXIV respectively but there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the above calculations in either of the following formats: A: ICC+ICXV+ICC = DXII => (200-1)+(215-1)+(200-1) = 512 B: CLXXXXVIIII+CXIIII+CLXXXXVIIII = DXII +> 199+114+199 = 512 For more extensive and complicated calculations the Romans would have used an abacus calculating… Read More

### How would you add together 1776 plus 1999 in two different ways and subtract 1776 from 1999 working out all three calculations entirely in Roman numerals?

It is now generally accepted that the modern way of expressing 1999 into Roman numerals is now MCMXCIX but the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the above as follows:- A: MDCCLXXVI+IMM = MMMDCCLXXV => 1776+(2000-1) = 3775 B: MDCCLXXVI+MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MMMDCCLXXV => 1776+1999 = 3775 C: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-MDCCLXXVI = CCXXIII => 1999-1776 = 223 The above calculations are fairly easy and straightforward but for more complicated calculations the Romans would have used an abacus… Read More

### How would you work out 1776 plus 999 in two different ways and 1776 minus 999 in two different ways showing all four calculations from start to finish entirely in Roman numerals?

The modern way of expressing 999 as Roman numerals is CMXCIX but there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably calculated the equivalent of the given numbers as follows:- MDCCLXXVI+IM = MMDCCLXXV => 1776+(1000-1) = 2775 MDCCLXXVI+DCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MMDCCLXXV => 1776+999 = 2775 MDCCLXXVI-IM = DCCLXXVII => 1776-(1000-1) = 777 MDCCLXXVI-DCCCCLXXXXVIIII = DCCLXXVII => 1776-999 = 777 The above calculations are fairly simple and straightforward to work out but for… Read More

### What is the sum of 1999 plus 1769 added together in two different ways and 1999 minus 1769 but please work out all three calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations and answers?

Improved Answer:- Due to changes made to the original rules once governing the Roman numeral system introduced during the Middle Ages nowadays we would convert 1999 and 1769 into Roman numerals as MCMXCIX and MDCCLXIX but there exist credible historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1999 and 1769 on an abacus calculating device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and MDCCLXVIIII which then can be abridged to IMM and IMDCCLXX… Read More