Live data from Hacker News

How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

washingtoncitypaper.com

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re speaking from a position of bias and ignorance (we all do this sometimes, but it’s important to be aware of), with a lifetime of familiarity with Hindu–Arabic number notation and almost no experience reading/writing Roman notation or translating back and forth between written numbers and pebbles or other tokens on a counting board, which is how most calculations were done in Roman times (persisting to this day…

>You're speaking from a position of bias and ignorance I made a fairly concise point, but you're right about one thing >we all do this sometimes Because you most certainly just did >As for your specific concerns: the easy pattern is that the letter for a group of five literally looks like half of the letter for a group of ten. That's not the issue with the "easily repeatable pattern". The issue is this: >V = X/2, L =…

That was not a personal judgment, just a straight-forward factual assertion. (Unless you have spent a decade doing calculations on a counting board...?) Pretty well everyone, including myself, is speaking from a position of bias and ignorance when discussing Roman numerals and counting boards, because these are not pervasively used for basic calculation in our society. We should bear that in mind and try to get outside of our preconceptions before making off-hand judgments.

It’s very seldom that anyone in the Roman empire – or medieval Europe – would need bigger numbers than, say, one million, especially for writing final answers down. But at least one counting board we know about from 300 BCE probably had lines for 10 orders of magnitude, and it’s not like more couldn’t easily be added if necessary. http://www.akg-images.fr/archive/-2UMDHU23V18G.html

As for fractions: Roman fractions were mostly twelfths (think inches and ounces).

Roman numerals and counting boards are obviously not an ideal system for writing down very large or very precise numbers, as I said. I’m not here claiming that they are a better basis for society’s numeration than more strictly positional Hindu–Arabic numerals.

My point is that we shouldn’t be so hasty to dismiss them out of hand or exaggerate their flaws. They were a highly effective system for doing complex calculations: precisely estimating the positions of stars and planets centuries into the past/future, running a bureaucracy overlooking an empire of 60+ million people, building large-scale engineering projects, and so on.

When it comes to teaching, I can only go by my own anecdotal experience trying to teach young children about numbers, the writings of various elementary math teachers, and the fragmentary remnants of debates in medieval Europe. I don’t know of any modern peer-reviewed research about Roman or medieval European counting boards, sorry.

(There is lots of evidence that learning place value using Hindu–Arabic numerals is very difficult for children, compared to other concepts and skills, requiring several years of study before primary school students really figure it out.)

Seems like counting boards might make a partial comeback sometime though: https://vimeo.com/204368634

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#152
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird, I just installed it (via homebrew) and it's working for me

I used the version from the Ubuntu Xenial package repositories, and that perl was apparently from November 2015. I guess such is life when you go with long-term support and stable packages.

Ouch. That's older than first stable release :)

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#153
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

care to explain why this works?

Unicode has codepoints for roman numerals 1 through 12 and then the base symbols up to one hundred thousand (ↈ) which I just saw for the first time. That Perl allows them in integer literals is strange, but also logical in a weird way. (Now I wonder what other number systems it supports.) EDIT: Ok, so I installed perl6 (rakudo) just to test this out, and it apparently doesn't work out of the box. Pity.

[deleted]

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#154
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

care to explain why this works?

Unicode has codepoints for roman numerals 1 through 12 and then the base symbols up to one hundred thousand (ↈ) which I just saw for the first time. That Perl allows them in integer literals is strange, but also logical in a weird way. (Now I wonder what other number systems it supports.) EDIT: Ok, so I installed perl6 (rakudo) just to test this out, and it apparently doesn't work out of the box. Pity.

> EDIT: Ok, so I installed perl6 (rakudo) just to test this out, and it apparently doesn't work out of the box. Pity.

By any chance, was it from system packages that are likely outdated? You can get up-to-date packages [here](https://github.com/nxadm/rakudo-pkg/releases) or for Windows/Mac, use [Rakudo Star](http://rakudo.org/downloads/star/). Anything older than 2017.04 is ancient and anything older than 2015.12 precedes first stable release and is likely broken.

> Now I wonder what other number systems it supports

It goes by Unicode's definition of what's a digit or a number (using Nd and No) properties. Nd chars are "digits" and can be combined. `No` chars are "Numeric other" and can't be combined; can only use them as numeric literals. [Among other things](https://docs.perl6.org/language/unicode_texas.html#Numeric_c...), that includes Unicodey fractions. And as a cherry on top, you can use superscript chars to raise to a power:

    $ rakudo -e 'say ½ + 42²'
    1764.5
Here are all the Nd and No chars that can be used as numeric literals:

    $ rakudo -e 'put (^0x110000).grep(*.uniprop eq any )».chr'                                                                                                                                                                            
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ² ³ ¹ ¼ ½ ¾ ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩ ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹ ߀ ߁
    ߂ ߃ ߄ ߅ ߆ ߇ ߈ ߉ ० १ २ ३ ४ ५ ६ ७ ८ ९ ০ ১ ২ ৩ ৪ ৫ ৬ ৭ ৮ ৯ ৴ ৵ ৶ ৷ ৸ ৹ ੦ ੧ ੨ ੩
    ੪ ੫ ੬ ੭ ੮ ੯ ૦ ૧ ૨ ૩ ૪ ૫ ૬ ૭ ૮ ૯ ୦ ୧ ୨ ୩ ୪ ୫ ୬ ୭ ୮ ୯ ୲ ୳ ୴
    ୵ ୶ ୷ ௦ ௧ ௨ ௩ ௪ ௫ ௬ ௭ ௮ ௯ ௰ ௱ ௲ ౦ ౧ ౨ ౩ ౪ ౫ ౬ ౭ ౮ ౯ ౸
    ౹ ౺ ౻ ౼ ౽ ౾ ೦ ೧ ೨ ೩ ೪ ೫ ೬ ೭ ೮ ೯ ൘ ൙ ൚ ൛ ൜ ൝ ൞ ൦ ൧ ൨ ൩ ൪ 
    ൫ ൬ ൭ ൮ ൯ ൰ ൱ ൲ ൳ ൴ ൵ ൶ ൷ ൸ ෦ ෧ ෨ ෩ ෪ ෫ ෬ ෭ ෮ ෯ ๐ ๑ ๒ ๓ ๔ ๕
     ๖ ๗ ๘ ๙ ໐ ໑ ໒ ໓ ໔ ໕ ໖ ໗ ໘ ໙ ༠ ༡ ༢ ༣ ༤ ༥ ༦ ༧ ༨ ༩ ༪ ༫ ༬ ༭ ༮ ༯ ༰ 
     ༱ ༲ ༳ ၀ ၁ ၂ ၃ ၄ ၅ ၆ ၇ ၈ ၉ ႐ ႑ ႒ ႓ ႔ ႕ ႖ ႗ ႘ ႙ ፩ ፪ ፫ ፬ ፭ 
     ፮ ፯ ፰ ፱ ፲ ፳ ፴ ፵ ፶ ፷ ፸ ፹ ፺ ፻ ፼ ០ ១ ២ ៣ ៤ ៥ ៦ ៧ ៨ ៩ ៰ ៱ ៲ 
     ៳ ៴ ៵ ៶ ៷ ៸ ៹ ᠐ ᠑ ᠒ ᠓ ᠔ ᠕ ᠖ ᠗ ᠘ ᠙ ᥆ ᥇ ᥈ ᥉ ᥊ ᥋ ᥌ ᥍ ᥎ ᥏ ᧐ ᧑ 
     ᧒ ᧓ ᧔ ᧕ ᧖ ᧗ ᧘ ᧙ ᧚ ᪀ ᪁ ᪂ ᪃ ᪄ ᪅ ᪆ ᪇ ᪈ ᪉ ᪐ ᪑ ᪒ ᪓ ᪔ ᪕ ᪖ ᪗ 
     ᪘ ᪙ ᭐ ᭑ ᭒ ᭓ ᭔ ᭕ ᭖ ᭗ ᭘ ᭙ ᮰ ᮱ ᮲ ᮳ ᮴ ᮵ ᮶ ᮷ ᮸ ᮹ ᱀ ᱁ ᱂ ᱃ ᱄ 
     ᱅ ᱆ ᱇ ᱈ ᱉ ᱐ ᱑ ᱒ ᱓ ᱔ ᱕ ᱖ ᱗ ᱘ ᱙ ⁰ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ₀ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ ⅐ ⅑ 
     ⅒ ⅓ ⅔ ⅕ ⅖ ⅗ ⅘ ⅙ ⅚ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ⅟ ↉ ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮ 
     ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ ⑴ ⑵ ⑶ ⑷ ⑸ ⑹ ⑺ ⑻ ⑼ ⑽ ⑾ ⑿ ⒀ ⒁ ⒂ ⒃ ⒄ ⒅ ⒆ ⒇ ⒈ ⒉ 
     ⒊ ⒋ ⒌ ⒍ ⒎ ⒏ ⒐ ⒑ ⒒ ⒓ ⒔ ⒕ ⒖ ⒗ ⒘ ⒙ ⒚ ⒛ ⓪ ⓫ ⓬ ⓭ ⓮ ⓯ ⓰ ⓱ ⓲ 
     ⓳ ⓴ ⓵ ⓶ ⓷ ⓸ ⓹ ⓺ ⓻ ⓼ ⓽ ⓾ ⓿                
                    ⳽ ㆒ ㆓ ㆔ ㆕ ㈠ ㈡ ㈢ ㈣ ㈤ ㈥ ㈦ ㈧ ㈨ 
     ㈩ ㉈ ㉉ ㉊ ㉋ ㉌ ㉍ ㉎ ㉏ ㉑ ㉒ ㉓ ㉔ ㉕ ㉖ ㉗ ㉘ ㉙ ㉚ ㉛ ㉜ ㉝ ㉞ ㉟ ㊀ ㊁ ㊂ 
     ㊃ ㊄ ㊅ ㊆ ㊇ ㊈ ㊉ ㊱ ㊲ ㊳ ㊴ ㊵ ㊶ ㊷ ㊸ ㊹ ㊺ ㊻ ㊼ ㊽ ㊾ ㊿ ꘠ ꘡ ꘢ ꘣ ꘤ ꘥ 
     ꘦ ꘧ ꘨ ꘩ ꠰ ꠱ ꠲ ꠳ ꠴ ꠵ ꣐ ꣑ ꣒ ꣓ ꣔ ꣕ ꣖ ꣗ ꣘ ꣙ ꤀ ꤁ ꤂ ꤃ ꤄ ꤅ ꤆ 
     ꤇ ꤈ ꤉ ꧐ ꧑ ꧒ ꧓ ꧔ ꧕ ꧖ ꧗ ꧘ ꧙ ꧰ ꧱ ꧲ ꧳ ꧴ ꧵ ꧶ ꧷ ꧸ ꧹ ꩐ ꩑ ꩒ 
     ꩓ ꩔ ꩕ ꩖ ꩗ ꩘ ꩙ ꯰ ꯱ ꯲ ꯳ ꯴ ꯵ ꯶ ꯷ ꯸ ꯹ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
     9 𐄇 𐄈 𐄉 𐄊 𐄋 𐄌 𐄍 𐄎 𐄏 𐄐 𐄑 𐄒 𐄓 𐄔 𐄕 𐄖 𐄗 𐄘 𐄙 𐄚 𐄛 𐄜 𐄝 𐄞 𐄟 𐄠 𐄡 𐄢 𐄣 𐄤 𐄥 𐄦 𐄧 
     𐄨 𐄩 𐄪 𐄫 𐄬 𐄭 𐄮 𐄯 𐄰 𐄱 𐄲 𐄳 𐅵 𐅶 𐅷 𐅸 𐆊 𐆋 𐋡 𐋢 𐋣 𐋤 𐋥 𐋦 𐋧 𐋨 𐋩 𐋪 𐋫 𐋬 𐋭 𐋮 𐋯 𐋰 𐋱 
     𐋲 𐋳 𐋴 𐋵 𐋶 𐋷 𐋸 𐋹 𐋺 𐋻 𐌠 𐌡 𐌢 𐌣 𐒠 𐒡 𐒢 𐒣 𐒤 𐒥 𐒦 𐒧 𐒨 𐒩 𐡘 𐡙 𐡚 𐡛 𐡜 𐡝 𐡞 𐡟 𐡹 𐡺 𐡻 
     𐡼 𐡽 𐡾 𐡿 𐢧 𐢨 𐢩 𐢪 𐢫 𐢬 𐢭 𐢮 𐢯 𐣻 𐣼 𐣽 𐣾 𐣿 𐤖 𐤗 𐤘 𐤙 𐤚 𐤛 𐦼 𐦽 𐧀 𐧁 𐧂 𐧃 𐧄 𐧅 𐧆 𐧇 𐧈 𐧉 
     𐧊 𐧋 𐧌 𐧍 𐧎 𐧏 𐧒 𐧓 𐧔 𐧕 𐧖 𐧗 𐧘 𐧙 𐧚 𐧛 𐧜 𐧝 𐧞 𐧟 𐧠 𐧡 𐧢 𐧣 𐧤 𐧥 𐧦 𐧧 𐧨 𐧩 𐧪 𐧫 𐧬 𐧭 𐧮 
     𐧯 𐧰 𐧱 𐧲 𐧳 𐧴 𐧵 𐧶 𐧷 𐧸 𐧹 𐧺 𐧻 𐧼 𐧽 𐧾 𐧿 𐩀 𐩁 𐩂 𐩃 𐩄 𐩅 𐩆 𐩇 𐩽 𐩾 𐪝 𐪞 𐪟 𐫫 𐫬 𐫭 𐫮 𐫯 
     𐭘 𐭙 𐭚 𐭛 𐭜 𐭝 𐭞 𐭟 𐭸 𐭹 𐭺 𐭻 𐭼 𐭽 𐭾 𐭿 𐮩 𐮪 𐮫 𐮬 𐮭 𐮮 𐮯 𐳺 𐳻 𐳼 𐳽 𐳾 𐳿 𐹠 𐹡 𐹢 𐹣 𐹤 𐹥 
     𐹦 𐹧 𐹨 𐹩 𐹪 𐹫 𐹬 𐹭 𐹮 𐹯 𐹰 𐹱 𐹲 𐹳 𐹴 𐹵 𐹶 𐹷 𐹸 𐹹 𐹺 𐹻 𐹼 𐹽 𐹾 𑁒 𑁓 𑁔 𑁕 𑁖 𑁗 𑁘 𑁙 𑁚 𑁛 
     𑁜 𑁝 𑁞 𑁟 𑁠 𑁡 𑁢 𑁣 𑁤 𑁥 𑁦 𑁧 𑁨 𑁩 𑁪 𑁫 𑁬 𑁭 𑁮 𑁯 𑃰 𑃱 𑃲 𑃳 𑃴 𑃵 𑃶 𑃷 𑃸 𑃹 𑄶 𑄷 𑄸 𑄹 𑄺 
     𑄻 𑄼 𑄽 𑄾 𑄿 𑇐 𑇑 𑇒 𑇓 𑇔 𑇕 𑇖 𑇗 𑇘 𑇙 𑇡 𑇢 𑇣 𑇤 𑇥 𑇦 𑇧 𑇨 𑇩 𑇪 𑇫 𑇬 𑇭 𑇮 𑇯 𑇰 𑇱 𑇲 𑇳 𑇴 
     𑋰 𑋱 𑋲 𑋳 𑋴 𑋵 𑋶 𑋷 𑋸 𑋹 𑑐 𑑑 𑑒 𑑓 𑑔 𑑕 𑑖 𑑗 𑑘 𑑙 𑓐 𑓑 𑓒 𑓓 𑓔 𑓕 𑓖 𑓗 𑓘 𑓙 𑙐 𑙑 𑙒 𑙓 𑙔 
     𑙕 𑙖 𑙗 𑙘 𑙙 𑛀 𑛁 𑛂 𑛃 𑛄 𑛅 𑛆 𑛇 𑛈 𑛉 𑜰 𑜱 𑜲 𑜳 𑜴 𑜵 𑜶 𑜷 𑜸 𑜹 𑜺 𑜻 𑣠 𑣡 𑣢 𑣣 𑣤 𑣥 𑣦 𑣧 
     𑣨 𑣩 𑣪 𑣫 𑣬 𑣭 𑣮 𑣯 𑣰 𑣱 𑣲 𑱐 𑱑 𑱒 𑱓 𑱔 𑱕 𑱖 𑱗 𑱘 𑱙 𑱚 𑱛 𑱜 𑱝 𑱞 𑱟 𑱠 𑱡 𑱢 𑱣 𑱤 𑱥 𑱦 𑱧 
     𑱨 𑱩 𑱪 𑱫 𑱬 𖩠 𖩡 𖩢 𖩣 𖩤 𖩥 𖩦 𖩧 𖩨 𖩩 𖭐 𖭑 𖭒 𖭓 𖭔 𖭕 𖭖 𖭗 𖭘 𖭙 𖭛 𖭜 𖭝 𖭞 𖭟 𖭠 𖭡 𝍠 𝍡 𝍢 
     𝍣 𝍤 𝍥 𝍦 𝍧 𝍨 𝍩 𝍪 𝍫 𝍬 𝍭 𝍮 𝍯 𝍰 𝍱 𝟎 𝟏 𝟐 𝟑 𝟒 𝟓 𝟔 𝟕 𝟖 𝟗 𝟘 𝟙 𝟚 𝟛 𝟜 𝟝 𝟞 𝟟 𝟠 𝟡 𝟢 
     𝟣 𝟤 𝟥 𝟦 𝟧 𝟨 𝟩 𝟪 𝟫 𝟬 𝟭 𝟮 𝟯 𝟰 𝟱 𝟲 𝟳 𝟴 𝟵 𝟶 𝟷 𝟸 𝟹 𝟺 𝟻 𝟼 𝟽 𝟾 𝟿 𞣇 𞣈 𞣉 𞣊 𞣋 
     𞣌 𞣍 𞣎 𞣏 𞥐 𞥑 𞥒 𞥓 𞥔 𞥕 𞥖 𞥗 𞥘 𞥙 🄀 🄁 🄂 🄃 🄄 🄅 🄆 🄇 🄈 🄉 🄊 🄋 🄌

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#155
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unicode has codepoints for roman numerals 1 through 12 and then the base symbols up to one hundred thousand (ↈ) which I just saw for the first time. That Perl allows them in integer literals is strange, but also logical in a weird way. (Now I wonder what other number systems it supports.) EDIT: Ok, so I installed perl6 (rakudo) just to test this out, and it apparently doesn't work out of the box. Pity.

I'm not a compiler dev, but it looks fairly new and appears to have many other special Unicode ranges too, including camels and beer mugs??? https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/blob/beec02a6fa69e3ac290b4d...

That's just a helper script to generate tables for for .succ/.pred string increment/decrement methods. Nd and No chars as numeric literals were available since first stable release in December 2015

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many cases one can ignore division, but yes, as the article said that generally required an abacus. Multiplication doesn't in general require an abacus if you're trained in roman numerals. Let's take your "more complicated numbers", 42 * 13. Expand XLII * XIII = X * XLII + XLII + XLII + XLII, the first requires you to know a times table to see that it's CDXX, the rest you'd add mentally, LLL - XXX = CXX, so it's…

I think we can all agree addition is fairly easy. Multiplication, since it can be explained in terms of addition, it also not really that hard. Subtraction and division are harder, as I originally noted, and by extension division, are harder, as there is not one simple rule for conversion before subtraction that won't require additional conversions unless you go to the simplest form, which is unwieldy (along string o…

XLII – XIII = XXLIX, of course ;)

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#157
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About this particular case: why hasn't Euler's notation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notation_for_differentiation#E... ) become the clear winner? I mean, its the only one that is both not confusing for beginners (because it doesn't trick them into the "cool, let's `simplify` the dx at the denominator with the next one" mindset) and it also translates easily to code (or other 1D encoding), like you can write "secon…

I think a lot of my confusions when I first learned calculus would have been eliminated with a notation that clearly expressed that derivatives operate on whole functions , not on values. So the derivative of f(x) at x=0 is not some function of f(0), but it is derivative(f)(x). Also, even without derivatives, sometimes the expression f(x) refers to the whole function, sometimes just a particular value of it at a spec…

On the subject of annoying ambiguities in mathematical notations, I would like to point out the ridiculous convention of inverse function notation.

Is there any sensible rationale for sin^(-1)(x) meaning arcsin(x) while sin^2(x) means (sin(x))^2?

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#158

In 2017 we just do: $ perl6 -e 'say Ⅻ / Ⅲ' 4

care to explain why this works?

What do you mean?

Perhaps you mean "how" rather than "why". Others have answered with the gory "how" details.

Perhaps you mean "why would anyone think to make this work?" To the degree anyone thought "let's make this work", the "this" was adopting the full Unicode vision -- decent digital support for the many native languages humans use (from Arabic to Zulu).

Perhaps you mean "why" as in "why would someone write the underlying language/compiler code that makes Latin math work?" Some old languages, like Latin, just happen to have been automatically enabled too. Some compiler dev would have to write code to stop it working.

Perhaps you mean "why would weird Unicode characters be acceptable in a programming language's source code?" Because P6 defers to the Unicode standard by default for determining what languages and characters may be included in source code.

This in turn allows everyone on the planet to feel welcome to write code in their native language and/or use characters they're familiar with in their line of work. (For example mathematicians can use the appropriate mathematical symbols to express themselves in P6 code.)

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#159
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that notation was likely born out of convenience by people who wanted a shorthand for situations where it's easier to represent a number as a subtraction but it does make the number system more complicated.

Personally I wish we had a good notation and separate single-syllable pronunciation for negative digits –1 through –9, and were willing as a society to accept numbers written with a mix of positive and negative digits. Decimal arithmetic becomes quite a bit easier if you normalize your numbers to the digits from –5 to 5, and it would help prepare students for algebra.

An ugly thing about using negative digits with base ten (or any even base) is that you either have ambiguity on how to write numbers, or you have a different number of positive and negative digits.

For example, if you do base ten with digits EDCBA012345 (E=-5, D=-4, etc.) -- that's 11 digits -- then five can be written as 5 or 1E; fifteen is 15 or 2E, etc.

So you either:

- Accept that some numbers can be written in more than one way, which seems a huge disadvantage over what we have today.

- Rule out certain sequences of digits (E can only follow a negative digit, 5 can only follow a positive digit, if 5 follows a 0, then it depends on the digit before the 0, etc.). Not only is this inelegant, but it adds seemingly arbitrary rules for people to memorize when they're first learning how to write numbers.

- Remove one of the digits (e.g., remove E). Then things aren't symmetric around zero -- e.g. five is 5, but minus five is A5.

Re: How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

#160
post #80
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example: III represents 3 things, so III + II = IIIII For simple commerce application that is simpler, I just have to then remember that IIIII = V, and VV = X and XXXXX = L, LL = C. Armed with just those simple rules I could probably get by in the market place in Rome. I'm not sure having to look at all the possible conversions of a context free grammar to reduce the state to its minimum is actually easier than…

Just thinking about how they work here, it looks like Roman numerals are effectively a base 5 notation, with a special behavior for 5n - 1. In base 10 math there are 18 outcomes for adding two digits, and you have to do carry operations for 9 of them. With carries there are 20 and you have special cases for 10. In Roman numerals there are 10 outcomes, you have to do carries for 5 of them, special casing for two (4 an…

> Just thinking about how they work here, it looks like Roman numerals are effectively a base 5 notation, with a special behavior for 5n - 1.

This doesn't seem quite accurate. Roman numerals are organised around multiples of 5, whereas a base-5 system should be organised around powers of 5.

Post reply on HN