0
What is the correct conversion of 1999 into roman numerals is it MCMXCIX or IMM giving detailed reasons as to why and why not in your answer?
You can write it as MCMXCIX, but a shorter (and equally valid) way would be MIM...
Take the example 19 which is XIX - following that, 2,000 would be MM - therefore one less than 2,000 is MIM
Improved answer as follows:-
Today we write out 1999 in Roman numerals as MCMXCIX because M=1000, CM=900, XC=90 and IX=9. Therefore it logically follows that M+CM+XC+IX=MCMXCIX as in the case of the Hindu-Arabic numerals. But the Roman numeral system does not contain a zero symbol for place value purposes. So the Romans probably wrote out the equivalent of 1999 as IMM because:-
M is M
CM is a simplification of DCCCC
XC is a simplification of LXXXX
IX is a simplification of VIIII
The sum of M+DCCCC+LXXXX+VIIII = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and by placing I to both sides of these numerals they can be simplified to IMM. In fact the Latin word for IMM is 'undeduomillia' which literally means one from two thousand.
Alternatively the sum of M+CM+XC+IX can be worked out with the same result in the following manner:-
M+CM = CMM
CMM+XC = XMM
XMM+IX = IMM
The rules governing today's Roman numeral system aren't the same rules as the Romans actually used because they were modified during the Middle Ages presumably in order to make it easier for merchants to convert them into Hindu-Arabic numerals and vice versa.
What else can I help you with?
Is the year 1999 converted into roman numerals as mcmxcix correct if not can you explain why?
It is incorrect because the Roman numerals that represent 1999 are MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which, when I is placed to the left and right hand sides of them, can be simplified to IMM (2000-1). The numerals MCMXCIX are in fact a set of numerals that represent: M-C+M-X+C-I+X (1000-100+1000-10+100-1+10) which, when cancelled down, equals IMM. Likewise, the numerals M+CM+XC+X are a set of numerals that represent: M-C+M-X+C+X which, when cancelled down, equals MM. Working out Roman numerals is a good prerequisite to learning Algebra because it gives you the confidence to understand and associate letters and symbols with numbers. David Gambell, Merseyside, England.
How do you write 49 in roman numerals?
The correct answer is = XLIX. Only I, X, and C can stand before a larger numeral to subtract from it, and they can't stand in front of numerals more than ten times their value; IX for 9 is fine, but we can't write IL for 49 or IM for 1,999-we have to write XLIX or MCMXCIX.
How do you write 1998 in roman numerals?
MCMXCVIII (M for 1000, CM for 900, XC for 90, and VII for 8) Another contributor's answer: The above conversion of 1998 into Roman numerals is conventionally correct but VII in Roman numerals is 7 and VIII is 8.
Which is correct for 1999 in Roman numerals MCMXCIX or IMM and why?
Either way is correct - however IMM should be written MIM. Working from the right-hand side - if the next letter to the left is lower - you subtract it.Improved Answer:-In accordance to the rules governing the Roman numeral system 1999 in Roman numerals is generally reckoned to be MCMXCIX. But these rules were made during the Middle Ages and centuries after when the Romans were no longer around for reference purposes.Notwithstanding the above there's strong evidence to support the fact that the Romans themselves would have actually calculated 1999 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and then by placing I to both sides of these numerals probably simplified them to IMM (-1+2000=1999)It's interesting to note that when MCMXCIX is set out in the format of M+CM+XC+IX they total up to IMM because the Romans could have possibly added them up in the following manner:-M+CM = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMMHindu-Arabic conversion:-1000+900 = 19001900+90 = 19901990+9 = 1999Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1
How do you spell numerals?
The way you just spelled it.
Is the year 1999 converted into roman numerals as mcmxcix correct if not can you explain why?
It is incorrect because the Roman numerals that represent 1999 are MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which, when I is placed to the left and right hand sides of them, can be simplified to IMM (2000-1). The numerals MCMXCIX are in fact a set of numerals that represent: M-C+M-X+C-I+X (1000-100+1000-10+100-1+10) which, when cancelled down, equals IMM. Likewise, the numerals M+CM+XC+X are a set of numerals that represent: M-C+M-X+C+X which, when cancelled down, equals MM. Working out Roman numerals is a good prerequisite to learning Algebra because it gives you the confidence to understand and associate letters and symbols with numbers. David Gambell, Merseyside, England.
How do you write 49 in roman numerals?
The correct answer is = XLIX. Only I, X, and C can stand before a larger numeral to subtract from it, and they can't stand in front of numerals more than ten times their value; IX for 9 is fine, but we can't write IL for 49 or IM for 1,999-we have to write XLIX or MCMXCIX.
How do you write 1998 in roman numerals?
MCMXCVIII (M for 1000, CM for 900, XC for 90, and VII for 8) Another contributor's answer: The above conversion of 1998 into Roman numerals is conventionally correct but VII in Roman numerals is 7 and VIII is 8.
Which is correct for 1999 in Roman numerals MCMXCIX or IMM and why?
Either way is correct - however IMM should be written MIM. Working from the right-hand side - if the next letter to the left is lower - you subtract it.Improved Answer:-In accordance to the rules governing the Roman numeral system 1999 in Roman numerals is generally reckoned to be MCMXCIX. But these rules were made during the Middle Ages and centuries after when the Romans were no longer around for reference purposes.Notwithstanding the above there's strong evidence to support the fact that the Romans themselves would have actually calculated 1999 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and then by placing I to both sides of these numerals probably simplified them to IMM (-1+2000=1999)It's interesting to note that when MCMXCIX is set out in the format of M+CM+XC+IX they total up to IMM because the Romans could have possibly added them up in the following manner:-M+CM = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMMHindu-Arabic conversion:-1000+900 = 19001900+90 = 19901990+9 = 1999Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1
How do you spell numerals?
The way you just spelled it.
Why is the year 1999 correct in roman numerals as mdcccclxxxxviiii or imm and not as mcmxcix?
Because the Roman numerals MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII add up to 1999 and by placing I to the left and right hand sides of these numerals they can be simplified into IMM (2000-1). The numerals MCMXCIX in fact represent M-C+M-X+C-I+X which when simplified leaves -I+M+M = IMM (2000-1). Numerical values: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1. David Gambell, Merseyside, England. Conventionally accept wisdom tells us that MCMXCIX (1000 + 900 + 90 +9) and MCMXCVIIII (1000 + 900 + 90 + 5 + 4) both mean 1999, although the former is more popular as it is shorter. The alternative mentioned above, IMM is incorrect on two counts. According to the website Algebra.com Roman numerals read from left to right and always start with the highest value numeral, as I (1) is patently less than MM (2000) IMM is clearly wrong. Also while I may preceed V or X it should not be placed in front of any higher value numerals.
What is the correct roman numerals for 44?
XLIV
What are the correct ways of calculating and expressing 1776 plus 223 entirely in Roman numerals showing detailed work?
The equivalent of 1776 and 223 converted into Roman numerals are MDCCLXXVI and CCXXIII respectively and under todays rules they officially add up to MCMXCIX which is supposed to be the equivalent of 1999. But the ancient Romans would have probably calculated these numerals together on an abacus counting board as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which is the equivalent of 1999 and by placing I to both sides of these numerals systematically reduced them to IMM which is the equivalent of 2000-1 = 1999. The real rules governing the original Roman numeral system were changed during the Middle Ages presumably to make the system more compatible friendly with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system that was gradually being introduced into Western Europe at the time. QED by David Gambell
What are the two correct ways to work out 1999 in Roman numerals if one of them is not MCMXCIX?
The ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1999 on an abacus counting board as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and then abridged it to IMM (2000-1) in written format which answers your question.However, the equivalent of todays 1999 inRoman numerals when expressed as M+CM+XC+IX then they too become abridged to IMM as follows:-M+CM = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMMQED by David Gambell
What is 36 in Roman numerals?
The correct roman numeral for 36 is XXXVI
What is CCCLX VII in roman numerals?
367 if i'm correct
How would you subtract 1776 from 1999 in Roman numerals giving reasons for your answer?
In today's terms 1999 and 1776 expressed in Roman numerals are MCMXCIX and MDCCLXXVI respectively. To find the difference of these numerals is almost impossible because of the way that 1999 is expressed despite the fact that 1776 is correct. But the Romans would have probably expressed these numbers in the following manner IMM and MDCCLXXVI. IMM is a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII So: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII - MDCCLXXVI = CCXXIII (223) by cancelling out the numerals. Check: MDCCLXXVI + CCXXIII = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = IMM when simplified The way we work out Roman numerals today is different in the way that the Romans actually did themselves because the rules governing the Roman numeral system were changed in the Middle Ages. Presumably to make it easier to convert Roman numerals into Hindu-Arabic numerals that were gradually being introduced into Western Europe.
