El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] Use for months as well as yearsIt's not very common, but you do sometimes see dates written as 4.viii.06 or (as I prefer) 4.VIII.06. A letter I opened this morning had a postmark from Coventry with 1-VIII. Yes, I believe in entomology (and perhaps other biological sciences) the month is written with Roman numerals. This is in order to avoid confusion--in some areas people put month first, while in others people put day first. Is this worth noting in the "Other Modern Usage" section? Sigil VII 07:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [edit] Numerals Caused Slow DevelopmentI've read somewhere that Roman numerals were partly responsible for slowing the development of science and math. This was purely because they are harder to deal with, and it takes even a trained user longer to add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers written in Roman numerals that it does someone using Arabic numerals. This greater barrier to entry, as it were, resulted in less research. Is this true? -- ansible Maybe yes, maybe not: they certainly could not interact with "our" computing system because of lenght (in chars) of single numbers, which is variable too. For instance: number 77 is expressed in arabic with two chars only, while LXXVII needs six. But the worse is that number 78 needs seven chars (LXXVIII).
But this does not mean that there are operations that you cannot perform with them too. If you try to calculate a square root of some number, you will get the same result with both systems. Maybe obviously this would require a different use of the space. On the other side, every calculation in roman numbers requires a logical scheme that is different from arabic system. I could not say which is the best: if you are latin-minded (and you are consequently used to decline words, verbs and other object of same frequency making use of a sort of "on-the-fly" developping), you will find it as natural as today we find arabic ones, the longer time only depending on writing. I think that it is only that arabic system was used by phoenician merchants in the whole Mediterranean area well before that Rome had an influence over a similarly extended territory. A fact is that Rome created the widest empire of ancient world using its numbers, and another fact is that we use arabic system; opinions might evaluate whether it is better for us, but keep in mind that we were born "within" this mentality. I do think however, that it would be quite complicated to eventually revert our system now :-) In Latin class I had learned the exact opposite of what Ansible suggested. From what I understand, the Roman numeral system is supposedly really easy to count on your hands with. Essentially, the Roman numerals were quicker to add and subtract with, whilst Arabic numerals are easier to mulitiply with. Just some thoughts... --BlackGriffen
I would like to quote Georges Ifrah from "The Universal History of Numbers": Anyone who reflects on the universal history of written number-systems cannot be but struck by the ingeniousness of this system, since the concept of zero, and the positional value attached to each figure in the representation of a number, give it a huge advantage over all other systems thought up by people through the ages. -Calypso
I certainly agree that culture and 'progress' are complex topics. It seems to me, though, that the tools (physical and mental) that are available to people drastically change their outlook on the world. Mathmatics is the basis of science and technology, and arithmetic is the starting point of it all. It seems to me that entire new opportunities became available to us, when we switched numbering systems. However, I'd like to have some references before I write up an encyclopedia article about it. Are there any good studies of history where fundamental practices changed because of better math? Like some example from military history, where someone, because they were able to figure out their logistics better, were able to win some battle. --ansible
Of course culture is terribly complex, and I certainly did not want to reduce the success of Western culture (or, let's say, the current dominant position of Western culture in economic terms) to the adoption of a certain numerical system. In any case, the main point of my previous post is that the Arabic numerals are intrinsecally better for doing mathematics than the Roman numerals are. --Calypso
Indeed. The very word "abacus" is a Latin one, though nowadays abaci are chiefly identified with East Asia. --167.206.188.3 07:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) I would agree with the original post here. Roman numerals do not use a system with an identifiable base. Because there is no standard system for putting particular numerals in place, there is no way to line them up. That's not to say that the arabic numerals themselves were superior, but the organization ceratinly was. You can, for example, line up 153 × 802 vertically very easily, with each digit occupying it's own place. Even with placeholder zeros you could not do this using roman numerals. Simply by memorizing a multiplication table from 0-9, one can multiply and divide any number vertically in this way in arabic numerasl, but not in roman ones. This is why many medieval European mathematicians and astronomers began to use arabic numerals - because they saw the convenience (so claimed and documented by the men themselves, not just conjectured later by historians). Integer exponentiation is not easy with arabic numerals, but requires conversion to multiplication, so one might imagine an even more convenient number system. Exponentiation and its inverse, logarithmetic, with noninteger solutions are still extremely difficult in arabic numerals, but would require infinite iterative processes in any number system (since they result in irrational numbers). So yes, I think (and have heard in History once or twicethe conversion from roman to arabic numerals was in many ways a result of convenience.75.187.197.2 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] A note about Unicode roman numeral symbolsⅡ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ Ⅺ Ⅻ are all in unicode. But don't replace the ISO Roman numerals with them. Morwen says they have been deprecated from Day 1 and are there just for compatibility issues. WhisperToMe 17:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Clocks?This article was just cited in an Associated Press story today,with its mention of a supposed Roman ruler ordering a change from "IV" to "IIII",which as I understood it was older(subtractive notation being an innovation even if during classical times).However,the article refers to an "incorrectly" made clock...in Roman times there were sundials,but not clocks!(Could the ruler have been more modern?)--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com I just corrected (= deleted) this. IIII was very common before the middel ages. It was only in the middel ages that roman numerals where "standarized". When mulitiplication and division became important the rules listed on the page where developed. For a roman it was much more natural to actually write IIII than IV. Generally romans didn't like subtractions. And they even wrote IC for 99. It was a bit more normal to use IX than IV, but VIIII was still heavilly used. Maybe a new section ought to be added about Roman numberals as used in the ancient times. (That is: write so you are understod as the only rule it seems.) Many of these variations have survived because people tend to see them in old books and arcitetctual places. Anyone that understands norwegian might want to incorporate some of the information there about older practices from there. I noticed that the clock section says it's traditional to use "IIII" rather than "IV" on clocks, and gives a number of reasons why. But I've never seen a clock with "IIII" on it. All the Roman numeral clock faces I've ever seen had "IV" on them. Is this something that was done in Classical times (on sundials, I guess), or is this a European/American thing or something? --209.108.217.226 22:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC) The Romans had both sundials and clocks (notwithstanding any article - online or otherwise - which says they had only sundials). Their water clocks (clepsydrae) were based on Graeco-Egyptian patterns, often fairly ingenious in design and manufacture, and could be mechanically sophisticated. There's an excellent Wiki article on them. Pompey Magnus is known to have off-handedly requested a clepsydra to curtail the long-winded speechifying of senators in debates. Further references to these timepieces may be found in any decent encyclopedia, or from original citations (free of charge) online at the Perseus website at Perseus-Tofts; enter its Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary database using clepsydra as search term. Once the entry is found, pointers lead to various other publications for cross-referencing. dmadams 82.153.120.113 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC) [edit] Roman ArithmeticFor those that might be inclined, I have added an article on Roman arithmetic which instructs the reader how to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication and division operations using Roman numerals without converting them to Arabic numerals. Once you get the hang of it, it is rather easy, but not as easy at using Arabic. denorris 05:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Impact of Greek notation system on Romans: positional or non-positional?The following was removed from the article: But that can't be true because many Romans were educated in Greek whose astronomers used Greek numerals in such a positional notation system, including a special symbol for zero. The Romans could have simply transcribed the Greek version into Latin characters if they had a need for such a system. The Greeks did not use a positional notation system. Ptolemy (circa 85 - circa 165 AD) used ο (ouden) to represent nothing (Number Words and Number Symbols, Karl Menninger, 1969, pp 399) but this is only part of the necessary ingredients for a positional notation system. In Greek numerals, a count of one is represented by α (mia) and a count of ten is represented by ι (de´ka). A Greek positional notation system would have a count of ten represented by α (mia) in the tens column followed by ο in the units column (αο instead of just ι). In a further example, the numerals to represent a count of eleven would have been αα. However, the ancient Greeks would have used ια just as the Romans used XI and not II. I have shown in Roman arithmetic that it is possible to perform the four basic arithmetic functions (addition, substraction, multiplication and division) using Roman numerals without a positional notation system. No doubt the Greeks used similar approaches. However, the Greeks did have a character to present each count from 1 to 10 (a decimal system) while the Romans only used 2 characters; one to represent 1 and the other to represent 5 (a bi-quinary coded decimal system). Regardless, they were not decimal positional notion systems. That had to wait for the concept of zero as a number in the 6th century. --Denise Norris 19:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Flipped CI don't get how the flipped C works. Can someone explain it better? lysdexia 08:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) What I was told in Latin class boils down to this: originally, the Romans used the Greek letter Phi (Φ), which was unused in their own alphabet, to denote the number 1,000. To denote half its value (i.e., 500), they halved the letter Phi, resulting in the regular "hardware representation" I+reverse C, which in turn was standardised into D. Reversed-C on its own I've never seen (but that doesn't mean it may not exist). This, by the way, contradicts what the first paragraph says about I+reverse C being an old representation of M, I think someone's got it confused with D. Correct this? — Cwoyte 14:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC) The reverse-C is the "apostrophic C" [U+2183]. The notation (|) for 1000 is likely to be the origin of the M symbol, rather than M-for-mille. Each level of bracketing multiplies the represented value by 10: ((|)) = 10,000; (((|))) = 100,000. Half symbols were used to represent half the value: |) = 500 [hence D]; |)) = 5000, |))) = 50,000. However, there may be no evidence for numbers greater than 100,000 were represented in this way -- the overbar being used instead (later?): single overbar (with small drops, [ on its side) for x 1000; full-three sides for x 100,000. The overbar multiplication was apparently not applied to I,V, L (?). I have really been looking for fractional notations: The reverse-C appears as '1/4' in some contexts. It is useful to remember that arithmatic was performed on Abaci, not with the written numbers (as we would with Arabic/Indian numerals). Roman numerals are a direct representation of what is on the Abicus. --Sawatts 11:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) [edit] Barney is Satan?I highly doubt that this joke could possibly qualify as encyclopedic. Can we remove it and its associated redirect Barney is Satan? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and delete it. — Cwoyte 14:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC) Actually, I took the step and edited the Barney bit out. As for the Barney is Satan redirect, I do not know how to remove that. — Cwoyte 22:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Romans used arabic numbers in lists?I wonder what the sentence
intends to say. Romans certainly didn't use 1, 2, or 3. The arabic numbers entered europe long after the fall of the Roman empire. According to Georges Ifrah, Universalgeschichte der Zahlen, the Codex Vigilanus from 976 C.E. is the oldest european work containing arabic numbers. The sentence seems to require some historical context. Given the fact that this context is not given, I suggest to remove the sentence. --Kune 22:40, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC) [edit] Is MIM ok for 1999?The article said:
The last sentence is wrong. MIM for 1999 is not kosher, any way you look at it. So I removed the last sentence. Egil 07:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) That last sentence reflects that fact that - "kosher" or not - some people do it anyway. Since the role of Wikipedia is not to proclaim what's right, but to describe what's done, I've restored a slightly modified version of that statement. Tverbeek 15:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One point of that section is that the question of "correct" usage isn't as simple as you state. Not only has usage varied somewhat with time and place, the Romans themselves exhibited some inconsistency in their usage, and a degree of personal preference seems to have been involved. Certainly we can and should spell out the usage that's most prevalent, but since no one can find the original RFC or ISO standard for them, the position that there is an indisputable standard for "correct" usage - and that you have it - seems hard to justify. Tverbeek 20:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The usage XIIX for 18 is attested in actual usage in medieval times, and I think IC for 99 is also. People who actually wrote and read these numerals could communicate unambiguously with a slightly more flexible version of "The Rules", so who are we to be throwing around epithets such as "patent nonsense"? My guess is that "The Rules" were written by printers round about the time that they standardized spelling. Tverbeek is right. Cbdorsett 07:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How about VL for 45? I for one don't think this is a 'decimal' system, so the rule about subtracting exactly one-tenth seems suspect. Aleš Wikiak 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Food for thought: Roman numerals were not inspired by a decimal number system... or does anyone care to provide a reference to a document proving otherwise?
--Aleksandar Šušnjar (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) A not mathematically inclined friend of mine said that IVC = 100-4 feels better than IVC = 100-5-1. Here's an interpretation of all strings over {I,V,X,L,C,D,M} that treats the unambiguous cases correctly. -- This software was written in 2008 and is granted to the public domain. roman :: String -> Integer roman xs = rom (map val xs) val 'I' = 1 val 'V' = 5 val 'X' = 10 val 'L' = 50 val 'C' = 100 val 'D' = 500 val 'M' = 1000 rom [] = 0 rom xs = let (ys,zs) = salm xs in last ys - rom (init ys) + rom zs salm xs = spaf (== foldr1 max xs) xs -- split after leftmost maximum spaf p (x:xs) = if p x then ([x],xs) else let (ys,zs) = spaf p xs in (x:ys,zs) -- 85.179.144.165 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] "There was no need for a zero" ...?The are lengthy learned discussions on this talk page about zero; I haven't read it all, so this may be silly: I think the comment "There was no need for a zero." on the entry "Zero" in the long table of numerals should go; it seems to arise from a confusion of the digit zero and the number zero: The was no need for a digit zero, as e.g. CI clearly means 101, not 11, 110, 1001, or whatever. But the entries in this table are not digits; they are numbers (e.g. 1999). A Roman farmer owning zero cows had as much (or as little) need for the number zero as a modern farmer. -- But perhaps the table should be a table of digits, or rather should be split into two tables?--Niels Ø 10:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Jove?The clause
needs context or explanation. I assume this is a taking-the-name-of-the-lord-in-vain kind of thing, but it's too vague as is. Besides, the whole reason we use Rx for recipe instead of just R] is because Rx resembled the symbol for Jove. So why write Rx but avoid IV? kwami 05:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC) [edit] 5000 - Isn't it an overlined V?According to a book I have the value for the 5,000 roman numeral is RyanJ
[edit] unclear sentenceI don't understand what is meant by the sentence "so as to not confuse the first two digits of the century with the first two digits of most, if not all, of the years in the century." Is it just me, or does this need to be reworded?
[edit] Z for 7It says at Talk:English alphabet that the Romans used Z for 7. Where is the source of this?? Georgia guy 01:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I/J 1 V/U 5 s 7 X 10 O 11 F 40 L 50 S 70 R 80 N 90 C 100 Y 150 K 151 (yes, that's a 151-- don't ask) T 160 H 200 E 250 B 300 P/G 400 D/Q 500 M/φ 1000 Z 2000
--- All these other letters were "medeival Roman numerals." Some are listed in dictionaries, others less commonly so, but none were ever used in actual ancient times. Still, they should be listed here, as they indeed are considered "Roman numerals." However, I heard that Z represented 2 000, not 7. No, I do not have a good source; I got this information from an "answers" page (not on google, but somewhere else; I found it during a google search), but if you find a good unabridged dictionary and looked up each letter individually you could find a nearly infallible source, given the research put into these. By the way, where did you get that "CIƆ" from? I've never seen that before as a representation for 1,000. Is Ɔ=D=500, then? 75.187.197.2 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] By the numbersWhile this is an interesting analysis of numerals, what about Roman numbers? What were the names? In Arabic, 1=one→first, so forth. What was Roman? Trekphiler 08:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Using only the first three numeralsIt's mentioned that Roman numerals are often used in English for movie titles and other things that come in series. I've noticed, though, that often only the first three in a series are represented this way, with subsequent ones represented with Arabic numbers. Often, also, the first in a series is not given a number at all. For example, Intel makes chips called the Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, and Pentium 4. This way they avoid the problem of using IIII or IV. Maybe some note should be made of this. --Alkali Jack Not always true. Rocky used Roman numerals for all five instalments, even Bart Simpson notes this: "Rocky V, that was the fifth one!" Superman also used Roman numerals up to Superman IV, and Star Trek did up to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The Police Academy series used Arabic numerals for instalments 2 through 6; can't remember if they used a numeral at all for the 7th film. Also, whenever a movie uses Roman numerals for instalments, IV is always used for four. Bricks J. Winzer 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [edit] Year in Roman numeralsSome articles about years now have Roman numerals, but should that be used for very ancient years?--Jusjih 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [edit] Roman numeral for 1/2?In the article Roman_Republican_coinage, there are a couple of hints that the Romans may have used the symbol S as a Roman numeral representing 1/2. The sestertius was a coin equal in value to 2+1/2 asses, and its value was marked with IIS or HS. Another coin, the Semis, had a value of 1/2 as, and its value was marked with the symbol S. The as itself was marked with the value I. This suggests that S may have been the Roman numeral for 1/2. --B.d.mills 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Origin" for the use of the D letter used in Roman numeralsRead a text some years ago, that said the following about the D in the roman numerals (The following how I recall the sentence): D was used as 500, because it is the first letter of Demi-mille, which means "half of thousand", which is 500. Can anyone substantiate this? -Hecko 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roman Numerals in Musical AnalysisIn harmonic (musical) analysis, lower-case roman numerals are used to indicate minor triads while upper-case roman numerals are used for major triads. Assuming the chart in the article refers to the degrees in the major scale, the supertonic, mediant and submediant should be indicated with lower-case numerals. I changed the chart to reflect this. The leading tone triad is diminished. It should be lower-case with a superscript 'o' to the right of it. I can't figure out how to add the superscript. Maybe someone else can. I have seen certain dictionaries that use upper-case roman numerals all around while giving a brief explanation of harmonic analysis. However, as a theory and composition student, I use this system just about every day and I can say that, without exception, the lower-case roman numerals are used for these triads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis wright 21 (talk • contribs)
[edit] MM and mm to indicate millionI was hoping to find mentioned in this topic, the use of MM and mm to indicate million, and the history of that practice. After introducing this subject I thought one of the experts would incorporate it. After a few months no one did, so I added it to “other modern usage…” Now I see that it has been removed. Too bad, because when you read a financial report it is common to see both MM and mm to indicate million. However it is difficult to find the definition in writing. Of course it is easy to infer the definition but it would be nice to find it in writing somewhere. [edit] Archaic?It's beyond me why anyone is still using this archaic system! It tends to be popular among academics with a fetish for ancient things.
[edit] DoubtIn a printed book dated of 1668, I found the following: Nec aliter ediderat Fr. Raphelengius anno cIɔIɔxcyI What on earth did he mean with cIɔIɔxcyI? --Ciacchi 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How do you write roman numerals on a computer keyboard?well? Pece Kocovski 01:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article has been defacedSeveral juvenile quips (such as "D-bar is Danny Nickles" and "Barney is Satan") have been placed in the text. In most instances, the sense of the original text is lost. — Unknown 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This sentence is extremely confusingRules regarding Roman numerals often state that a symbol representing 10^x may not precede any symbol larger than 10^x+1. For example, C cannot be preceded by I or V, only by X (or, of course, by a symbol representing a value equal to or larger than C). The "For example ... " part is the thing which is confusing. The first sentence says (for x = 2): A symbol representing 100 ( = C) may not precede any symbol larger than 1000 ( > M). But then it says: For example, C cannot be preceded by I or V, only by X. I absolutely cannot see any correlation between the 10^x / 10^x+1 rule and the I/V/X rule, because V ( =5) will require a logarithm equation to be expressed as 10^x. ;) -andy 80.129.84.239 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roman Numerals...are a right fine pain in the ass. When I become Lord of the Internet, this is all that the Wikipedia text shall say. Just a friendly "thanks" to those of you who managed to write this impressive beast. --70.108.140.252 12:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [edit] PronouncementHow were roman numbers originally pronounced? For example, these days the number CMLX (1960) would just be pronounced as 'nineteenhundred sixty', because the reader first converts it to decimal notation, and pronounces the number accordingly. Did the romans actually say 'C M L X' ? 82.94.235.106 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "It is worth noting"It is said:
In fact it is most definitely not worth mentioning this, imnsho, because the fact is, the Roman numeral for 1 is I which also means I no less than Ic might have in the past. I'm removing this line from the article text because it simply doesn't make sense to state. D. F. Schmidt 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC) [edit] "Unwrapped Flakes"The following sentence seems to be speculative "original research" and tangential to the page topic:
I have removed it. Alki 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [edit] Chemistry use of IV
This explanation makes no sense at all, both IIII and IV represent 4. I have never seen IIII used to represent 4 in science literature, however without a source that states that only IV can be used I wouldn't say IIII is unacceptable. 211.28.194.8 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [edit] Link to on line roman numeral calculatorThere is a roman numeral calculator at: http://www.guernsey.net/~sgibbs/roman.html?# I wanted to add this to external links but there is no edit link. Also, there is some vandalism on the page in the link section but I cannot get at the section to remove it so I hope that someone else can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanKorte (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC). [edit] Movie Credits"They are also sometimes used in the credits of movies and television programs to denote the year of production, particularly programs made by the BBC." It has been my own experience that they are not just sometimes, but very, very often used in such instances. I can't say anything for particularly the BBC, though. Is there any way this can be backed up? 69.95.237.253 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC) I thought that roman numerals were often used in copyright notices (including movie credits) in order to obfuscate the actual year the movie was created so that people don't dismiss the movie as being outdated. Can anyone verify this? Jesushouston 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scheme code for conversion to Roman numeralsThis code is in Scheme. I'm putting it here for verification before introducing into the main article. I claim this code with correctly romanize integers from 1 (I) to 3888 (MMMDCCCLXXXVIII), if not further. I submit that this code would improve the article by clearly and concisely exhibiting how romanization is performed. I wrote this code; any ownership I have is forfeit. Please respond with criticism/improvements and comments. When you feel the code has been sufficiently verified, please move it to the article. 74.130.9.41 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (define romanize (lambda (n) (cond [(>= n 1000) (string-append "M" (romanize (- n 1000)))] [(>= n 900) (string-append "CM" (romanize (- n 900)))] [(>= n 500) (string-append "D" (romanize (- n 500)))] [(>= n 400) (string-append "CD" (romanize (- n 400)))] [(>= n 100) (string-append "C" (romanize (- n 100)))] [(>= n 90) (string-append "XC" (romanize (- n 90)))] [(>= n 50) (string-append "L" (romanize (- n 50)))] [(>= n 40) (string-append "XL" (romanize (- n 40)))] [(>= n 10) (string-append "X" (romanize (- n 10)))] [(>= n 9) (string-append "IX" (romanize (- n 9)))] [(>= n 5) (string-append "V" (romanize (- n 5)))] [(>= n 4) (string-append "IV" (romanize (- n 4)))] [(>= n 1) (string-append "I" (romanize (- n 1)))] [else ""]))) [edit] Scheme code for conversion from Roman to Arabic numeralsThis code is in Scheme. I'm putting it here for verification before introducing into the main article. I claim this code with correctly arabicize Roman numerals from I (1) to MMMDCCCLXXXVIII (3888), if not further. I submit that this code would improve the article by clearly and concisely exhibiting how arabicization is performed. I wrote this code; any ownership I have is forfeit. Please respond with criticism/improvements and comments. When you feel the code has been sufficiently verified, please move it to the article. Please notice this is considerably more difficult than romanization! Notice that incorrectly formatted Roman numerals will fail, at the cost of some extra error-checking code. This could easily be removed if thought too confusing to be worthwhile. In particular, the error-checking has that I may only subtract V and X, X may only subtract L and C, and C may only subtract D and M. V, L, D, and M may not subtract. For example, given the incorrectly formatted numeral IC, this code will throw an error, not 99 (99 is properly written XCIX). Also note that only I, V, X, L, C, D, and M are supported. Notice arabicizing the empty string will return 0. 74.130.9.41 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (define arabicize (lambda (s) (let ([len (string-length s)]) (cond [(eq? 0 len) 0] [(eq? 1 len) (let ([fc (substring s 0 1)]) (cond [(string=? "I" fc) 1] [(string=? "V" fc) 5] [(string=? "X" fc) 10] [(string=? "L" fc) 50] [(string=? "C" fc) 100] [(string=? "D" fc) 500] [(string=? "M" fc) 1000] [else (error "Cannot parse incorrectly formatted Roman numeral")]))] [else (let ([fc (substring s 0 1)] [sc (substring s 1 2)] [restone (substring s 1 len)] [resttwo (substring s 2 len)]) (cond [(string=? "I" fc) (cond [(string=? "V" sc) (+ 4 (arabicize resttwo))] [(string=? "X" sc) (+ 9 (arabicize resttwo))] [(or (string=? "L" sc) (string=? "C" sc) (string=? "D" sc) (string=? "M" sc)) (error "Cannot parse incorrectly formatted Roman numeral")] [else (+ 1 (arabicize restone))])] [(string=? "V" fc) (+ 5 (arabicize restone))] [(string=? "X" fc) (cond [(string=? "L" sc) (+ 40 (arabicize resttwo))] [(string=? "C" sc) (+ 90 (arabicize resttwo))] [(or (string=? "D" sc) (string=? "M" sc)) (error "Cannot parse incorrectly formatted Roman numeral")] [else (+ 10 (arabicize restone))])] [(string=? "L" fc) (+ 50 (arabicize restone))] [(string=? "C" fc) (cond [(string=? "D" sc) (+ 400 (arabicize resttwo))] [(string=? "M" sc) (+ 900 (arabicize resttwo))] [else (+ 100 (arabicize restone))])] [(string=? "D" fc) (+ 500 (arabicize restone))] [(string=? "M" fc) (+ 1000 (arabicize restone))] [else (error "Cannot parse incorrectly formatted Roman numeral")]))])))) [edit] RoMaN nUmERalsRoman numerals is a numbers in a different language eg I is 1 II is 2 III is 3 IX is 4 and X is 5 ect.
[edit] Unicode chartShould the chart be replaced with {{Unicode chart Number Forms}}:
[edit] other system?i have read that R should mean 250 and N 900... [this unsigned entry was moved from the middle of an entry above]
ok now i am taking latin 1 on virtual virginia and one of the web sites that my perfessor gave to us was a web page that said that for the roman numeral 4, 5 and 6 they would put llll, lllll, and llllll some times is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.73.88 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Finger origin for I, V, and XI have been told in school that the origin of using I's as units came from counting on one's fingers, where fingers resemble I's. V's resemble the space between the forefinger and the thumb when all five fingers are extended. X's resemble two V's put together. C simply represents "centum," and M "mille." I think the origins of L and D are listed. (Aren't they?) The origins of bars are obvious shorthands using previous symbols. Is this true, and can anybody find a source for it?75.187.197.2 (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Bullet Points instead of asterisks in "Modern Usage"How about a bullet pointed list instead of asterisks in "Modern Usage"? Asterisks look a bit shoddy and are not a suitable list marker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.83.161 (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This Article May Be All Wrong in Two Essential Points - Origin of Subtractive Numerals and Origin of Etruscan NumeralsThis article describes the use of "subtractive" numerals as something going back to classical Roman times, with a taboo against "IV" as an abbreviation of Jupiter. In one paragraph the Jupiter concept is stated as fact, in another as a possibility. The development of subtractive Roman numerals is usually described as a Medieval innovation -- any claim of being a classical Roman practice needs citations and hopefully a coin or something showing it in use. The "Jupiter" concept for IV may be completely unfounded and also requires a citation -- and should be presented as a theory not fact unless there are actual classical Roman sources describing this taboo rather than modern speculation. The origin of Etruscan numerals is described as being "tally stick" notches, and not alphabet letters. But all of the Etruscan "notch" symbols shown are actually letters of the Greek-derived Etruscan alphabet which you will find here: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10300.pdf. And the Greeks had a system of using Greek letters as numbers (a simple, Roman-like system using a few letters in archaic times, a more complicated system using the full alphabet in classical times). So the entire "notch" concept needs LOTS of references and should be presented as a possible alternative if it can be supported at all. This entire article looks like some inaccurate impressions and speculations by a math major and not a sound scholarly resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.148.166 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proper Images/Unicode Encoding for Etruscan CharactersSee previous comment on likely errors in this article about the nature of the Etruscan numeral system. The Etruscan numerals are currently shown in imitated form using a combination of Latin alphabet letters and numbers, Greek Lambda, a mathematic "circled plus" symbol, and some garbled character put in markup ["span class="Unicode"]⋔[/span]. They should all be actual Unicode characters which you will find here: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10300.pdf Wikipedia pages are served in Unicode-encoding (UTF-8) so these characters can be typed directly into the page code. But as you likely don't have an Old Italic keyboard layout handy, you can use numbered Unicode entities (ampersand-x-number-semicolon) instead. But as most readers wont have an Old Italic font installed, each letter should actually be presented as an in-line graphical image (which you'll have to draw, the Unicode chart images are copyrighted), with the Unicode ampersand-x-number-semicolon code as its alt tag. Sorry that I don't have time to do this myself -- and I don't know what the missing "?" character is supposed to be anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.157.152 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Symmetry
This doesn't seem to make any sense. Square-faced timepieces I've seen have the numbers in the exact same order as for round-faced ones. 10 is diametrically opposite 4, and 8 is opposite 4 with respect to a vertical axis. -- Smjg (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I read this idea about visual symmetry some years ago, and it didn't make sense either. But I think the mistake is considering the visual symmetry just between the numbers 8 and 4. Your eyes don't behave as a pendulum bouncing back and forth between those two positions of the clock. A visual appeal (I wouldn't call it symmetry) makes a lot more sense if you divide the whole face of the clock in three parts: The 1st part (the four hours 1 to 4) will contain only Is; the 2nd part (the four hours 5 to 8) will be the only part with Vs in it; and the 3rd part (the four hours 9 to 12) will be the only part with Xs in it. -- Vikfra (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
?