Yes, it does. The roman numeral is: O
There is not a Roman Numeral for 0.
there is no roman number which is defined for the numeral zero . 0 is always written as 0 .
there is no zero in roman numerals
There is no Roman numeral for 0 because they didn't feel it was important.
Almost every number has a Roman Numeral exept that one number - 0. Zero cannot be represented by any Roman Numeral.
There is not a Roman Numeral for 0.
there is no roman number which is defined for the numeral zero . 0 is always written as 0 .
The Roman numeral system is decimal but not directly positional and does not include a zero.
there is no zero in roman numerals
There is no Roman numeral zero.
There is no Roman numeral for 0 because they didn't feel it was important.
Almost every number has a Roman Numeral exept that one number - 0. Zero cannot be represented by any Roman Numeral.
The modern way of notating 1967 as a Roman numeral is now MCMLXVII but the ancient Romans would have probably wrote out the equivalent of 1967 as MDCCCCLXVII
The Hindu-Arabic numeral system which replaced the Roman numeral system.
No, the Romans had no concept for zero. This is an Arabic notion.
the answer to what is the roman numeral for 101 is CI
there is no roman numeral for itAnother answer: The Romans had no numeral to represent zero because there was no need for a zero in their system. We have 9 numbers plus the zero symbol. We add a zero on to the end of a number to convert it to tens and two zeros to convert it to hundreds and so on. The Romans simply had different symbols for tens and hundreds. For example we would write 1, 10, 20, 40, 50, 100 and 200 but the same numbers as Roman numerals would be I, X, XX, XL, L, C and CC, done quite simply with no need for a zero. In the middle ages monks, who still used Roman numerals and wrote in Latin, began to used the symbol N to represent zero (from the Latin Nullae meaning nothing).