0
Roman Numerals
Questions and answers related to the symbols used by the ancient Romans to represent numbers. These include the numerals: I, V, X, L, C, D and M.
14,167 Questions
What is the connection with Hindu Arabic numerals and that which involves angles?
This question has already been answered by myself but someone else has entirely deleted the original answer probably for plagiarizing purposes so here we go again:-
It is written that at one time in the distant past the Hindu-Arabic numerals or digits of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 0 were once encoded with secret geometrical symbols inasmuch that the first digit of 1 had either an arc or an angle of 36 degrees hidden in it and then thereafter each consecutive digit was increased by increments of 36 degrees by means of arcs and angles or a combination of both in which the digit 0 finally consisted of 360 degrees.
As a consequence of these concealed codes the digit degree sum of any number from 1 to infinity would always finally total to 9 degrees as the following example shows:-
Digit degree sum of 2357 = 36*(2+3+5+7) = 612 => 6+1+2 = 9 degrees
Over the past thousands of years Hindu-Arabic numerals have been transformed into the configuration that we use today but the zero figure at one time probably resembled a circle which even today consist of ten 36 degree arcs amounting to 360 degrees.
QED
Nowadays we would convert 998,001 into Roman numerals as CMXCVMMMI with lines above the first five numerals to indicate multiplication by a thousand and 1999 as MCMXCIX in which the ancient Romans would have probably discarded them as the scribblings of a child because the way we write out Roman numerals today differs in many respects in the way that the Romans actually did themselves thus preventing logical interaction of these numerals.
But notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there is historical evidence to suggest that the Romans would have abridged their numeracy system whenever possible as for example IX (10-1) is an abridged version of VIIII (9) and so it's quite feasible that the Roman equivalent of 998,001 and 1999 could have been calculated together in either of the following formats:-
(IIM)I+IMM = (M) => [1,000,000-2000+1]+[2000-1] = 1,000,000
Alternatively:-
(DCCCCLXXXXVIII)I+MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = (M) => 998,001+1999 = 1,000,000
Note that numerals within brackets indicate multiplication by a 1000 and that todays practice of over lining numerals to indicate multiplication by a 1000 was introduced during the Middle Ages along with other rules still governing todays Roman numeral system.
Remember: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M
Values: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1
QED by David Gambell
Numbers that equal an eighteen perimeter?
what type of polgon is it?
quadrilateral:6,7,3,2 and a bunch any way i cant go on because this is boring.
How do you write the roman numeral for the year 1911?
MCMXI is the number 1911 in roman numerals. This is a notation used earlier for representing numbers.
Nowadays we would convert the equivalent of 990, 1915 and 2095 into Roman numerals as CMXC, MCMXV and MMXCV respectively which makes addition of them quite difficult but there is credible evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have calculated the sum of these numbers in either of the following formats:-
A: XM+CMMXV = CMMMV => (1000-10)+(2015-100) = (3005-100) => 2905
CMMMV+VMMC = (V) => (3005-100)+(2100-5) = 5000
B: DCCCCLXXXX+MDCCCCXV = MMDCCCCV => 990+1915 = 2905
MMDCCCCV+MMLXXXXV = (V) => 2905+2095 = 5000
Note that MMMMM is the equivalent of (V) which means 1000*5 = 5000 and that for more complicated calculations the ancient Romans would have made use of an abacus calculating device.
QED
Under todays rules (which had nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages) governing the Roman numeral system we would convert the equivalent of 14, 18 and 19 into Roman numerals as XIV, XVIII and XIX respectively which are a mishmash of numerals that are incapable of being added together in some sort of a logical pattern.
Yet there is evidence to suggest that the Romans themselves in the past would have probably used either of the following formats to add together these numbers:-
IXV+IIXX = XXXII (15-1)+(20-2) = (32)
XXXII+IXX = XXXXXI = LI (32)+(20-1) = (51)
Alternatively:-
XIIII+XVIII = XXXII (14)+(18) = (32)
XXXII+XVIIII = XXXXXI = LI (32)+(19) = (51)
Remember: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L
Roman numerals: L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1
Notwithstanding todays modern notation of Roman numerals inasmuch that there is compelling historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have notated and subtracted the equivalent of 444 from 1999 using either of the following formats:-
IMM-IVLD = MDLV => (2000-1)-(500-56) = 1555
Remember that in arithmetic a double minus becomes a plus.
Alternatively by cancelling out like numerals:-
MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-CCCCXXXXIIII = MDLV => 1999-444 = 1555
Todays rules governing the Roman numeral system were compiled and introduced during the Middle Ages so therefore it follows that they had little or even nothing to do with the original Roman way of calculating.
Values: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1
Note: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M
QED by David Gambell
How do you write numerical values 637353233?
637,353,233 = six hundred thirty-seven million, three hundred fifty-three thousand, two hundred thirty-three.
Nowadays we think that the equivalent of 9 in Roman numerals is only IX whereas in fact IX is an abridged version of VIIII in ancient Roman numerals thus facilitating the conversion and calculations of the given Hindu-Arabic numerals into Roman numerals in several ways as follows:-
MDCCLXVII+VIIII = MDCCLXXVI => 1767+9 = 1776
MDCCLXVII+IX = MDCCLXXVI => 1767+(-1+10) = 1776
MDCCLXVII-VIIII = MDCCLVIII => 1767-9 = 1758
MDCCLXVII-IX = MDCCLVIII => 1767-(-1+10) = 1758
Note that in mathematics that -(-1+10) is equivalent to +1-10 and so -(-I+X) is equivalent to -VIIII
Notwithstanding todays modern configuration of Roman numerals inasmuch that there is substancial evidence to qualify the fact that the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1 to 2000 on an abacus counting device as follows:-
1 to 9: I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII and VIIII
10 to 90: X, XX, XXX, XXXX, L, LX, LXX, LXXX and LXXXX
100 to 900: C, CC, CCC, CCCC, D, DC, DCC, DCCC and DCCCC
1000 and 2000: M and MM
To select any numerals simply write them out in descending order as in the examples: 1776 = MDCCLXXVI and 1666 = MDCLXVI
Note that sometimes it's possible to abridge numerals thus using less numerals but of equal value as the following examples show:-
4 = IIII => IV (5-1)
9 = VIIII => IX (10-1)
19 = XVIIII => IXX (20-1)
49 = XXXXVIIII => IL (50-1)
1999 = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII => IMM (2000-1)
The way we write out Roman numerals today is because the real rules governing the Roman numeral system were changed in the Middle Ages presumably to make Roman numerals more compatible with Hindu-Arabic numerals that were being intoduced into Western Europe at the time.
QED by David Gambell
Where do you find hindu arabic number system and roman system?
The Hindu-Arabic system of numeracy is what we use today that is 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 .... etc.
The Roman system of numeracy was used before the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic system in the Middle Ages and consisted of 7 symbols each having different values.
Improved Answer:-
Due to changes made to the original rules once governing the Roman numeral system introduced during the Middle Ages nowadays we would convert 1999 and 1769 into Roman numerals as MCMXCIX and MDCCLXIX but there exist credible historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have worked out the equivalent of 1999 and 1769 on an abacus calculating device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and MDCCLXVIIII which then can be abridged to IMM and IMDCCLXX in written format thus facilitating the speed and ease of the three required calculations as follows:-
IMM+IMDCCLXX = MMMDCCLXVIII => (2000-1)+(1770-1) = 3768
MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+MDCCLXVIIII = MMMDCCLXVIII => 1999+1769 = 3768
MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-MDCCLXVIIII = CCXXX => 1999-1769 = 230
QED
1 mile and 40 inches is nuch bigger.
1 mile and 40 inches is nuch bigger.
1 mile and 40 inches is nuch bigger.
1 mile and 40 inches is nuch bigger.
What is the roman numerable for 6?
The roman numeral for 5 is V and 1 is I, since 6 is one more after 5 the roman numeral for 6 is VI.
Doing arithmetic with Roman numerals is exasperating, and imho a pointless waste of time, except to demonstrate the obvious superiority of our "normal numbers," which use base-10 radix / positional notation that includes a zero digit as a placeholder. I'd venture to say science & technology -- commerce, too -- could never have developed in recent centuries if we still used Roman numerals for calculations.
However, this web site explains some methods:
http://turner.faculty.swau.edu/mathematics/materialslibrary/roman/
Why don't use numbers in variable?
The number that we used now 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6…. This invented by Indian people and it represent by number of angle EX: 1 in one angle , Z =two angle and so on ..
It's very accurate and disengage even when the Greek scantest (Archimedes &…..) invent the Zero they find out the "O" is the only symbol can be insert with this set of number ( it come out from SET ELGABRA and it define as a set of intersection of two separate sets and call null set)
Roman used the "dash" symbol on their number which has a mitigation points when they start to use decimal point and zero
In fact we are own a great appreciation to the Greek scientists not to Arabic please read the history
The way we write out Roman numerals today differs in many respects to how the ancient Romans actually did themselves inasmuch that today we would convert 1488 and 1999 into Roman numerals as MCDLXXXVIII and MCMXCIX respectively thus inhibiting any mathematical interaction between them.
But there is evidence to suggest that the Romans would have probably subtracted the equivalent of the given numbers in either of the following formats:-
IMM-IIXMD = DXI => (2000-1)-(1500-12) = 511
Alternatively by cancelling out the numerals:-
MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-MCCCCLXXXVIII = DXI => 1999-1488 = 511
Note: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M
Values: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1
QED by David Gambell
What are the two correct ways of enscribing 1999 into Roman numerals?
Under today's modern rules governing the Roman numeral system 1999 is considered to be MCMXCIX which makes it almost impossible for any form of numerical interaction with other numerals.
But it can be proven that the Romans themselves in the past would have actually calculated the equivalent of 1999 as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which can be methodically contracted to IMM (2000-1) yet retaining its original numerical value and therefore facilitating the speed and ease of mathematical operations with other numerals.
Note that if: -I+MM = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII
Then it follows that: MM = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+I
QED
