When a smaller number is before a larger, you subtract. XXL would be saying 20 subtrackted from 50, which is 30, when you could instead just write XXX. You always want the lowest possible number before adding a higher value to the equation. This also doesn't work, because looking at it another way this could say 20 plus 50 which is 70 and that is written LXX. So as to why it wouldn't work is either there is to many X's in front of the L, or it is written backwards.
Roman numerals are based on a specific set of letters representing different numeric values. XXL does not fit within this system because it breaks the established pattern. In Roman numerals, the letter X represents 10, and adding another X would indicate 10 + 10 = 20. To represent 40, the correct Roman numeral is XL.
XXL is not a valid numeral. You can use X (10) and XL (40), or you can use XX (20) and L (50), but you cannot use XXL.
The Roman numeral system does not use the letter A.
If you think to 1 (one) the Roman numeral is I.
No, the Roman numeral for 4 is IV, not llll. The use of llll is a common mistake, but traditional Roman numeral representations on clocks and other time-related devices use IV instead of llll for the numeral 4.
The Roman numeral M represents 1000. In ancient Roman use it did not always mean 1000, but it does today.
XXL is not a valid numeral. You can use X (10) and XL (40), or you can use XX (20) and L (50), but you cannot use XXL.
The Roman numeral system does not use the letter A.
If you think to 1 (one) the Roman numeral is I.
No, the Roman numeral for 4 is IV, not llll. The use of llll is a common mistake, but traditional Roman numeral representations on clocks and other time-related devices use IV instead of llll for the numeral 4.
The Roman numeral M represents 1000. In ancient Roman use it did not always mean 1000, but it does today.
The Romans did not use the letter p as a numeral, therefore xp is not a genuine Roman numeral.
To write the number 9 in Roman numerals, you would use the symbol 'IX'. This is made by combining the Roman numeral for 1, 'I', and the Roman numeral for 10, 'X', subtracting 1 from 10.
We still use Roman numerals to a certain extent today but the Roman numeral system was replaced by the Hindu-Arabic numeral system because it contained a zero symbol thus making arithmetical operations a lot easier whereas the Roman numeral system has no zero symbol and mathematical operations were much more difficult.
XXXL is not a real Roman numeral L = 50 and X = 10. Putting a 'smaller' letter in front of a 'larger' one was a way to signify "less than" so that XL = 40.... 10 less than 50. But the Romans would not have put three consecutive Xs in front of an L. Doing that would tend to indicate 30 less than 50, but that equals 20 and 20 was always represented by XX. Only one lesser numeral was ever put in front of a larger one. X = 10 XX = 20 XXX = 30 XL = 40 L = 50 LX = 60 LXX = 70 LXXX = 80 XC = 90 C = 100
48 written in roman numeral is XLVIII. Thank you
No. 50 in Roman numeral format is: L
It didn't make use of the zero symbol which wasn't needed in the Roman numeral system thus inhibiting its mathematical evolution.