On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV • Hacker News Board

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#31

Post by somat » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:23 AM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #7

But its not Doc Brown can’t be wrong: https://clickamericana.com/wp-content/uploads/Back-to-the-Fu...

Nicely symmetrical around the 5 and the 10. Which makes me want to produce this cursed set of roman numerals.

IIIIV IIIV IIV IV V VI VII VIII VIIII

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#32

Post by bityard » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:23 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #10

I wonder how much Roman numerals are even taught any longer. Maybe 5 years ago now I was traveling with a friend who went to a solid US suburban high school outside of a major city. Younger than me but certainly not young. And she asked me what a date written in Roman numerals was in the numbering system we normally use. I was somewhat floored. Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How m…

I don't think they are taught widely, but that's because their use is fairly niche and they are easy to learn in any case. There are lots of fields where you not get by easily without knowing them or at least figuring them out for yourself. Historians and lawyers come to mind, for example.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#33

Post by tylerneylon » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:26 AM UTC

I had heard that IV might be considered sacrilegious, as the god Jupiter would have once been spelled IVPPITER, as I was used for modern J and V for modern U.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#34

Post by Waterluvian » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:44 AM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #15

> The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. Using "IIII" instead of "IV" isn't even necessarily wrong. Rome was a big empire with a widely-distributed populace that lasted for a thousand years. The usage of numerals changed over time and according to context: "While subtractive notation for 4, 40 and 400 (IV, XL and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times, additive notation to represent these numbers…

I can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#35

Post by withinboredom » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:48 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #34

kibwen wrote: post #15

> The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. Using "IIII" instead of "IV" isn't even necessarily wrong. Rome was a big empire with a widely-distributed populace that lasted for a thousand years. The usage of numerals changed over time and according to context: "While subtractive notation for 4, 40 and 400 (IV, XL and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times, additive notation to represent these numbers…

I can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.

I guess it depends on how hard it is to make a V vs. an I. For all we know, V's are more expensive.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#36

Post by jhanoncomm » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:53 AM UTC

ghostly_s wrote: post #23

IMHO there's an obvious reason not mentioned: due to their position on the dial and convention IV and VI would typically be depicted upside down, increasing the likelihood of confusing them—particularly with a semi-literate populace.

The way I read a watch ignores the numbers anyway (arabic or roman) and I know where 9 is etc.

if the device is upside down it is evident and I don’t even try to read it, I right the clock or take off and restrap the watch.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#37

Post by Vitaly_C » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:55 AM UTC

I vaguely recall this was an important fact to know for a 90s puzzle video game.

Maybe it was The Seventh Guest? Or Myst?

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#38

Post by fsckboy » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:55 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #34

kibwen wrote: post #15

> The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. Using "IIII" instead of "IV" isn't even necessarily wrong. Rome was a big empire with a widely-distributed populace that lasted for a thousand years. The usage of numerals changed over time and according to context: "While subtractive notation for 4, 40 and 400 (IV, XL and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times, additive notation to represent these numbers…

I can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.

the point is that you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times and get what you need for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

this is not for modern manufacturing of millions, it's for one at a time clockmaking in a little shop, for which it's a pretty efficient way to accomplish the task and doesn't require keeping an inventory

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#39

Post by eru » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 1:58 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #10

I wonder how much Roman numerals are even taught any longer. Maybe 5 years ago now I was traveling with a friend who went to a solid US suburban high school outside of a major city. Younger than me but certainly not young. And she asked me what a date written in Roman numerals was in the numbering system we normally use. I was somewhat floored. Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How m…

Well, not everything needs to be taught in school.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#40

Post by ahartmetz » Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 2:00 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #10

I wonder how much Roman numerals are even taught any longer. Maybe 5 years ago now I was traveling with a friend who went to a solid US suburban high school outside of a major city. Younger than me but certainly not young. And she asked me what a date written in Roman numerals was in the numbering system we normally use. I was somewhat floored. Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How m…

The most important use for teaching Roman numerals that I see is learning that bad abstractions (here: a number system) can be made to work, but they still suck. The solution is to find better abstractions. Maybe it inspires curiosity in how (well) modern maths works.