Roman Numerals

According to today's criteria 1999 converted into Roman numerals is considered to be MCMXCIX which makes it almost impossible for them to interact with other numerals in a logical mathematical progression.

But the Romans themselves would have actually worked out the equivalent of 1999 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII which can be contracted to IMM thus facilatating the speed and ease of addition as follows:-

IMM+MDCCLXXVI = MMMDCCLXXV (2000-1)+(1776) = 3775

Alternatively using an abacus counting board:-

MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+MDCCLXXVI = MMMDCCLXXV (1999+1776 = 3775)

Subtraction:-

MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-MDCCLXXVI = CCXXIII (1999-1776 = 223) by cancelling out the numerals

Remember that: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M

Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1

QED

c

Additional Information:-

Under today's rules we would convert 19 and 29 into Roman numerals as XIX and XXIX which makes any form of interaction between other numerals quite difficult.

But there is evidence to suggest that the Romans themselves would have actually worked out the equivalent of 19 and 29 as XVIIII and XXVIIII then simplified them to IXX and IXXX which uses less numerals but of equal value thus making addition quicker and simpler as follows:-

IXX+IXXX = IIL (20-1)+(30-1) = (50-2)

IIL+LII = C (50-2)+52 = 100

Alternatively:-

XVIIII+XXVIIII = XXXXVIII (19+29 = 48)

XXXXVIII+LII = C (48+52 = 100)

Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1

Remember that: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

mdccxlix minus mcx-with-line-on-topxcix

Improved Answer:-

Latin numeracy is the same as Roman numerals and the way in which we work them out today differs in the way that the Romans actually did themselves because of changes made to the real rules governing the Roman numeral system during the Middle Ages presumably to make it easier to convert Roman numerals into Hindu-Arabic numerals that were gradually being introduced into Western Europe at the time.

As a consequence of these changes today we would write out the equivalent of 1999 and 1749 as MCMXCIX and MDCCXLIX which makes any form of mathematical interaction between them almost impossible.

But there is evidence to suggest that the Romans would have calculated the equivalent of the Hindu-Arabic numerals of 1999 and 1749 on an abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and MDCCXXXXVIIII then probably simplified them to IMM and IMDCCL respectively which makes subtraction to be quite straightforward as follows:-

IMM-IMDCCL = CCL (2000-1)-(1750-1) = 250

Remember that in mathematics a double minus becomes a plus and that a minus multiplied by a minus also becomes a plus as does a minus divided by a minus.

Alternatively:-

MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-MDCCXXXXVIIII = CCL (1999-1749 = 250) by cancelling out the numerals.

Latin numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1

QED

1543

Improved Answer:-

MDXLIII represents 1543 in Roman numerals but MCDXLIV represents 1444 in Roman numerals

Under today's rules governing the Roman numeral system 14, 1999 and 19 are officially XIV, MCMXCIX and XIX respectively thus restricting any form of mathematical operations with them.

But there is strong evidence to suggest that the Romans themselves in the past would have probably calculated the above numbers in either of the following formats:-

Abridged Version:

IXV+IMM = MMXIII (15-1)+(2000-1) = (2013)

MMXIII+IXX = MMXXXII (2013)+(20-1) = (2032)

Unabridged Version:

XIIII+MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MMXIII (14)+(1999) = (2013)

MMXIII+XVIIII = MMXXXII (2013)+(19) = (2032)

Remember that: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M

Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1

QED

Due to changes made to the real rules governing the Roman numeral system introduced during the Middle Ages, presumably to make it easier to convert Roman numerals into Hindu-Arabic numerals that were increasingly becoming the dominant numeral system in Western Europe at the time, today we would convert 1999, 64 and 99 into Roman numerals as MCMXCIX, LXIV and XCIX respectively which restricts collective mathematical interaction amongst them.

Furthermore the ancient Romans under no circumstances whatsoever wouldn't have converted the equivalent of 64 as LXIV because this could be construeded as an act of henious blasphemy against their most powerful of gods Jupiter which translates into Latin as IVPPITER and it is for the same reason that they always wrote out 4 as IIII instead of the abridged version of IV.

Nevertheless irrespective of todays modern notation of Roman numerals inasmuch that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest historically that the Romans would have probably calculated the aforementioned numbers in either of the following formats:-

IMM+ILXV = MMLXIII => (2000-1)+(65-1) = 2063

MMLXIII+IC = MMCLXII => 2063+(100-1) = 2162

Alternatively:-

MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+LXIIII = MMLXIII => 1999+64 = 2063

MMLXIII+LXXXXVIIII = MMCLXII => 2063+99 = 2162

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

For more larger and complicated calculations the Romans would have made use of an abacus counting device.

QED by David Gambell

what kind of numeral if roman than VIVVII

Another contributor's answer:

6057 is already a numeral set out in Arabic numerals.

Do you mean Roman numerals? If so then the answer is:

VILVII but with an horizontal bar above each of the first two numerals to indicate multiplication by a thousand.

So: 6000+50+5+2 = 6057

With great difficulty because in accordance with the rules and regulations governing todays Roman numeral system that were introduced during the Middle Ages nowadays we would convert 1499, 19 and 99 into Roman numerals as MCDXCIX, XIX and XCIX respectively which makes arithmetical operations with them quite difficult if not impossible at all.

But notwithstanding todays configuration of Roman numerals inasmuch that there is evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably calculated the equivalent of these numbers in either of the folllowing formats:-

IMD+IXX = MDXVIII => (1500-1)+(20-1) = 1518

MDXVIII+IC = MDCXVII => 1518+(100-1) = 1617

Alternatively:-

MCCCCLXXXXVIIII+XVIIII = MDXVIII => 1499+19 = 1518

MDXVIII+LXXXXVIIII = MDCXVII => 1518+99 = 1617

Remember: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=M

Roman numerals: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1

Note that if we added I to MCCCCLXXXXVIIII it would then become MD so in order for it to retain its original value we must subtract I from MD therefore it follows that:-

MCCCCLXXXXVIIII = IMD = 1499

QED

Due to changes made to the Roman numeral system during the Middle Ages today we would write out the equivalent of 14, 19, 49 and 99 into Roman numerals as XIV, XIX, XLIX and XCIX respectively in which mathematical interaction amongst them is almost impossible.

But there is strong historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have probably calculated the equivalent of these numbers in either one of the following formats:-

IXV+IXX = XXXIII => (15-1)+(20-1) = 33

XXXIII+IL = LXXXII => 33+(50-1) = 82

LXXXII+IC = CLXXXI => 82+(100-1) = 181

Alternatively:-

XIIII+XVIIII = XXXIII => 14+19 = 33

XXXIII+XXXXVIIII = LXXXII => 33+49 = 82

LXXXII+LXXXXVIIII = CLXXXI => 82+99 = 181

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