it's XLIX.49 = XLIX
IL is equal to 49 in Roman numerals because 49 can be XXXXVIIII (4*10+9) or IL (-1+50) and not XLIX
According to today's rules 49 in Roman numerals is XLIX.But the Romans themselves would have most probably written the number 49 as XXXXVIIII which can be simplified to IL.
In today's notation of Roman numerals it is: XLIX. But the Romans themselves would have calculated 49 on an abacus counting board as XXXXVIIII and probably simplified it to IL by placing I to both sides of tne numerals.
In today's notation of Roman numerals 49 is given as XLIX. But the Romans themselves would have probably notated 49 as IL because it's a simplification of XXXXVIIII.
it's XLIX.49 = XLIX
IL is equal to 49 in Roman numerals because 49 can be XXXXVIIII (4*10+9) or IL (-1+50) and not XLIX
According to today's rules 49 in Roman numerals is XLIX.But the Romans themselves would have most probably written the number 49 as XXXXVIIII which can be simplified to IL.
In today's notation of Roman numerals it is: XLIX. But the Romans themselves would have calculated 49 on an abacus counting board as XXXXVIIII and probably simplified it to IL by placing I to both sides of tne numerals.
Because the modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system stipulates that 49 in Roman numerals is XLIX but the ancient Romans would have worked it out on an abacus counting device as XXXXVIIII and then probably abridged it to IL (50-1)
In today's notation of Roman numerals 49 is given as XLIX. But the Romans themselves would have probably notated 49 as IL because it's a simplification of XXXXVIIII.
Not a valid sequence for Roman numerals
988 = CMLXXXVIII in Roman numerals
Those Roman Numerals mean 1991.
"120" in Roman numerals is "CXX".
it means 1,150 in roman numerals
It does not mean anything because it is an invalid arrangement of Roman numerals