0
What is the correct notation for 1999 in Roman numerals is it MCMXCIX or IMM giving reasons why?
Under today's guidelines governing the Roman numeral system 1999 converted into Roman numerals is officially MCMXCIX which doesn't seem to add up because:-
1000 = M which is M
900 = CM which is a simplification of DCCCC
90 = XC which is a simplification of LXXXX
9 = IX which is a simplification of VIIII
And:-
M+CM = CMM which is a simplification of MDCCCC (1900)
CMM+XC = XMM which is a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXX (1990)
XMM+IX = IMM which is a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII (1999)
Or:-
M+DCCCC = MDCCCC
MDCCCC+LXXXX = MDCCCCLXXXX
MDCCCCLXXXX+VIIII = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII
Now consider the following:-
M+CM+XC+IX = IMM (2000-1)
CM+XC+IX+M = IMM
XC+IX+M+CM = IMM
IX+M+CM+XC = IMM
No matter how the above numerals are arranged they will always add up to IMM or MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII in expanded format.
Examples of simplification of Roman numerals can be found in the book entitled 'History of Mathematics' volume 2 by David Eugene Smith first published in 1925 and ISBN 0486 204 308. For instance LXXXVIIIIS (89.5) is simplified to SXC (100-10.5)
Therefore it follows that for 1999 in Roman numerals IMM is more plausible than MCMXCIX.
What else can I help you with?
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 MIMImproved 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 MCM is a simplification of DCCCCXC is a simplification of LXXXXIX is a simplification of VIIIIThe 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 = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMMThe 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 is the equivalent of 1999 in Roman numerals giving satisfactory reasons why?
MCMXCIX From left to right [ M ] [ CM ] [ XC ] [ 1X ] [1000] + [1000 - 100] + [100 -10] + [ 10 -1] 1000 + 900 + 90 + 9 =1999 M = 1000 C = 100 X = 10 1 = 1
How did Indian numerals come to be called Arabic numerals?
Indian numerals came to be called Hindu- Arabic numerals for many reasons. Some of those reasons are because they were originated from India where they were using the numerals for 1 to 9 for more than 2,000 years. Arab traders then brought these numerals to the West, As a result, we call them Arabic numerals, or Hindu-Arabic numerals.
What is MDCCLXXVI plus MCMXCIX in Roman numerals giving reasons for your answer?
Mdcclxxvi + mcmxcix = mmmdcclxxvmdcclxxvi = 1000 (m) + 500 (d) + 200 (cc) + 50 (l) + 20 (xx) + 5 (v) + 1 (i) = 1776mcmxcix = 1000(m) + 900 (cm) + 90 (xc) + 9 (ix) = 1999⇒ mdcclxxvi + mcmxcix = 1776 + 1999 = 37753775 = 3000 (mmm) + 500 (d) + 200 (cc) + 50 (l) + 20 (xx) + 5 (v)= mmmdcclxxvImproved Answer:-In accordance with the new rules governing today's Roman numeral system, introduced during the Middle Ages and nearly one thousand years later when there were no Romans around to verify the authenticity of these new rules, 1999 in Roman numerals are reckoned to be MCMXCIX. But to add these numerals to MDCCLXXVI in some kind of logical manner is almost an impossible task.But in fact MCMXCIX probably equals IMM because by adding M+CM+XC+IX in the following manner their total sum is IMM:-M+CM = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMM which is probably a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII by placing I to both sides of these numerals.So: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MDCCLXXVI = MMMDCCLXXV (3775)Presumably the changes made to the Roman numeral system were made in order for them to be easier to convert into Hindu-Arabic numerals that at the time were being gradually being introduced into Western Europe.Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5, I=1
How did Indian numerals come to be called Hindu-Arabic numerals?
Indian numerals came to be called Hindu- Arabic numerals for many reasons. Some of those reasons are because they were originated from India where they were using the numerals for 1 to 9 for more than 2,000 years. Arab traders then brought these numerals to the West, As a result, we call them Arabic numerals, or Hindu-Arabic numerals.
Is MCMXCIX bigger or smaller than IMM in Roman numerals or are they both the same giving reasons why?
They are both the same because in todays modern notation of Roman numerals the equivalent of 1999 is MCMXCIX which means 1000+900+90+9 = 1999 But the ancient Romans would have probably gone for the simpler version of IMM which means 2000-1 = 1999
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 MIMImproved 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 MCM is a simplification of DCCCCXC is a simplification of LXXXXIX is a simplification of VIIIIThe 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 = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMMThe 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 are the two correct notations for 1999 in Roman numerals giving reasons why?
Under today's rules governing the Roman numeral system there is officially only one notation of 1999 when converted into Roman numerals and that is MCMXCIX which does not lend itself easily to the mathematical integration with other numerals.But the Romans themselves in the past would have actually calculated the equivalent of 1999 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and then probably abridged it to IMM (2000-1) in written form.So the two possible correct notations are: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and IMMPost Script:If MCMXCIX was expressed as M+CM+XC+IX then they too would be naturally abridged to IMM as follows:-M+CM = CMM (1000)+(1000-100) = (2000-100)CMM+XC = XMM (2000-100)+(100-10) = (2000-10)XMM+IX = IMM (2000-10)+(10-1) = (2000-1)QED
How do you work out 1776 plus 1999 in Roman numerals giving reasons for your answer?
Today we write out 1999 in Roman numerals as MCMXCIX because of changes made to the rules governing the Roman numeral system during the Middle Ages and to add these numerals to MDCCLXXVI is almost impossible. But the Romans themselves would have calculated 1999 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and probably simplified them to IMM by placing I to both sides of the numerals. So: MDCCLXXVI + (-I+MM) = MMMDCCLXXV (3775)
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.
Why did Babylonians develop numerals?
For exactly the same reasons why we need numerals today.
What is the equivalent of 1999 in Roman numerals giving satisfactory reasons why?
MCMXCIX From left to right [ M ] [ CM ] [ XC ] [ 1X ] [1000] + [1000 - 100] + [100 -10] + [ 10 -1] 1000 + 900 + 90 + 9 =1999 M = 1000 C = 100 X = 10 1 = 1
How did Indian numerals come to be called Arabic numerals?
Indian numerals came to be called Hindu- Arabic numerals for many reasons. Some of those reasons are because they were originated from India where they were using the numerals for 1 to 9 for more than 2,000 years. Arab traders then brought these numerals to the West, As a result, we call them Arabic numerals, or Hindu-Arabic numerals.
How did Indian numerals come to called Arabic numerals?
Indian numerals came to be called Hindu- Arabic numerals for many reasons. Some of those reasons are because they were originated from India where they were using the numerals for 1 to 9 for more than 2,000 years. Arab traders then brought these numerals to the West, As a result, we call them Arabic numerals, or Hindu-Arabic numerals.
What is MDCCLXXVI plus MCMXCIX in Roman numerals giving reasons for your answer?
Mdcclxxvi + mcmxcix = mmmdcclxxvmdcclxxvi = 1000 (m) + 500 (d) + 200 (cc) + 50 (l) + 20 (xx) + 5 (v) + 1 (i) = 1776mcmxcix = 1000(m) + 900 (cm) + 90 (xc) + 9 (ix) = 1999⇒ mdcclxxvi + mcmxcix = 1776 + 1999 = 37753775 = 3000 (mmm) + 500 (d) + 200 (cc) + 50 (l) + 20 (xx) + 5 (v)= mmmdcclxxvImproved Answer:-In accordance with the new rules governing today's Roman numeral system, introduced during the Middle Ages and nearly one thousand years later when there were no Romans around to verify the authenticity of these new rules, 1999 in Roman numerals are reckoned to be MCMXCIX. But to add these numerals to MDCCLXXVI in some kind of logical manner is almost an impossible task.But in fact MCMXCIX probably equals IMM because by adding M+CM+XC+IX in the following manner their total sum is IMM:-M+CM = CMMCMM+XC = XMMXMM+IX = IMM which is probably a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII by placing I to both sides of these numerals.So: MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MDCCLXXVI = MMMDCCLXXV (3775)Presumably the changes made to the Roman numeral system were made in order for them to be easier to convert into Hindu-Arabic numerals that at the time were being gradually being introduced into Western Europe.Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5, I=1
How did Indian numerals come to be called Hindu-Arabic numerals?
Indian numerals came to be called Hindu- Arabic numerals for many reasons. Some of those reasons are because they were originated from India where they were using the numerals for 1 to 9 for more than 2,000 years. Arab traders then brought these numerals to the West, As a result, we call them Arabic numerals, or Hindu-Arabic numerals.
What were Roman Numerals useful for?
In the same way that arithmetic is useful today for many reasons
