February 15, 2020, 08:13 AM
Pipe SmokerRoman numerals
I can interpret Roman numerals easily. But I once had a computer programming exercise: write a program to convert any Arabic number to the equivalent Roman numeral, using the language FORTH.
I searched the web for “How to write Roman numerals”. I found lots of links, but
every damned one of ‘em was an explanation of how to read ‘em rather than how to write ’em.
Here’s why I was interested in info about writing Roman numerals: consider the number 999. The conventional Roman numeral form would be CMXCIX. But I wondered if the ancient Romans might’ve used this shorter form for convenience in everyday commerce: IM. (1000 - 1)
In the end, I just gave up and wrote the program to produce the conventional Roman numeral form.
Serious about crackers. February 15, 2020, 10:34 AM
senza nomeIn Perl:
quote:
use Number::Convert::Roman;
$c = Number::Convert::Roman->new;
print $c->arabic('IV'); # prints 4
print $c->roman(4); # prints IV
February 15, 2020, 04:09 PM
flashguyquote:
Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I can interpret Roman numerals easily. But I once had a computer programming exercise: write a program to convert any Arabic number to the equivalent Roman numeral, using the language FORTH.
I searched the web for “How to write Roman numerals”. I found lots of links, but every damned one of ‘em was an explanation of how to read ‘em rather than how to write ’em.
Here’s why I was interested in info about writing Roman numerals: consider the number 999. The conventional Roman numeral form would be CMXCIX. But I wondered if the ancient Romans might’ve used this shorter form for convenience in everyday commerce: IM. (1000 - 1)
In the end, I just gave up and wrote the program to produce the conventional Roman numeral form.
I believe that the subtractive rule requires that only the next smaller unit be used, so "IM" would be invalid; however an exception seems to exist regarding "D"--900 is written as "CM, not "DCD".
flashguy
Texan by choice, not accident of birth February 15, 2020, 05:21 PM
Pipe Smoker^^^^^^^^
Re: “I believe that the subtractive rule requires that only the next smaller unit be used, so "IM" would be invalid”
Somewhat correct although, for the standard form, IX is legal and VX isn’t, despite the fact that “V” is the next smaller unit.
But my point was that the ancient Romans might’ve cheated when cheating yielded a much shorter string than the standard form whose meaning was nonetheless clear.
Serious about crackers. February 15, 2020, 05:26 PM
sigfreundAccording to the article I linked, the conventions for how the numerals were combined were not hard and fast in actual use.
“The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. ... Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or ‘two from twenty’; the number 19 was undeviginti or ‘one from twenty’.”
► 6.0/94.0
To operate serious weapons in a serious manner. February 15, 2020, 07:50 PM
sigcrazy7I’m 11001100 years old. Is that easier than Roman Numerals? It’s certainly more useful.
Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus February 15, 2020, 08:51 PM
mikeyspizzaThe Romans fucked up and forgot one, which led to their downfall. What's the Roman numeral for zero?
For example VII-VII=?
February 15, 2020, 09:39 PM
jhe888We learned them XLV years ago when I was in elementary school.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. February 15, 2020, 10:36 PM
Krazeehorsequote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I’m 11001100 years old. Is that easier than Roman Numerals? It’s certainly more useful.
Are you sure you don't have an extra digit in there?
_____________________
Be careful what you tolerate. You are teaching people how to treat you.
February 15, 2020, 11:30 PM
flashguyquote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I’m 11001100 years old. Is that easier than Roman Numerals? It’s certainly more useful.
You're 204 years old? Wow! You must have incredible genes.
(11001100 in binary could also be expressed as CC in hexadecimal. It's enumerated as (12 x 16) + 12, which is 192 + 12 = 204. Even dropping 1 zero would only drop it to 102, which is still pretty old. If you dropped the 2 right-hand zeroes, the value would be 51--much more reasonable.
(As it happens, reading your entry from left to right also gives a value of 51, but that's not the usual way of reading in this country.)
flashguy
Texan by choice, not accident of birth February 16, 2020, 08:41 AM
Oat_Action_Manquote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
According to the article I linked, the conventions for how the numerals were combined were not hard and fast in actual use.
“The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. ... Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or ‘two from twenty’; the number 19 was undeviginti or ‘one from twenty’.”
This is most definitely the case. In actual ancient texts (i.e. not manuscripts of ancient texts copied in the medieval or later period), you definitely see no standardization of numeration. Graffiti is the gold standard for this type of analysis, since inscriptions on buildings tended to be done by professional hands. I dare say that IIII is far more common than IV in the graffiti that happen to have numbers. You even see IIIIIIII or similar in texts like shopping lists or invoices.
----------------------------
Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter"
Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time.
February 16, 2020, 01:39 PM
Oz_ShadowIf you really want to see confusion, show them an analog clock with Roman numerals.
February 16, 2020, 11:59 PM
flashguyquote:
Originally posted by Oz_Shadow:
If you really want to see confusion, show them an analog clock with Roman numerals.
Or even better--an analog clock with NO numberals!
flashguy
Texan by choice, not accident of birth February 17, 2020, 05:01 PM
Texas Bob C.Darn Romans got a different numeral for every number. Geesh!
February 17, 2020, 05:10 PM
lymanquote:
Originally posted by MikeinNC:
I’m L years old, and I know them.
yep,
I'm LVI
https://chandlersfirearms.com/chesterfield-armament/
February 17, 2020, 05:57 PM
220-9erquote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
We learned them XLV years ago when I was in elementary school.
Me too and I'm glad I did just for bragging rights. Otherwise, one of the least useful things I learned in school.
___________________________
Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible.
February 17, 2020, 06:09 PM
skonieI just quized my 16yo daughter. She’s GTG.
February 17, 2020, 07:03 PM
ss9961I can’t remember how to write 1,1000,51,6, and 500 in Roman numerals. IM LIVID !!
Stolen from someplace online that I can’t recall.