71–80 of 270 posts
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.
semi literate populace did not have watches though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
To be a bit more explicit, you use the the die four (4) times, and get 4 Xs, 4 Vs, and 4*IIIII = 20 Is, which is exactly right for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII. Using IV would mean a 5 Vs, but only 4 Xs, and 17 Is, so you couldn't cut a full set with a single die without using a much larger die (= more work making and using the die) or having extra pieces (= wasted material) left over.
> 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…
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was “taught” them in history class I think but I can hardly make sense of anything beyond 100
In Britain the end credits for BBC programmes would finish with the final line: © BBC MCMXCVI I can generally figure them out before the line has hit the top of the screen. Of course, it was much easier a few years later: © BBC MM or now © BBC MMXXIV
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…
India. was taught roman numerals upto 1000 in elementary school math, 5th grade or so. Quickly forgot.
Verbally, the system seems to go thousand -> lakh -> crore -> thousand crore -> lakh crore, but then stop there, rarely extending to crore crore or inducting any farther.
Meanwhile commas don't seem to follow the verbal convention - instead showing up every two digits even after a crore, so a thousand crore looks more like ten hundred crore, and a lakh crore looks more like ten hundred hundred crore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was “taught” them in history class I think but I can hardly make sense of anything beyond 100
In Britain the end credits for BBC programmes would finish with the final line: © BBC MCMXCVI I can generally figure them out before the line has hit the top of the screen. Of course, it was much easier a few years later: © BBC MM or now © BBC MMXXIV
In Latin, sometimes numbers have synonyms, like 18 (two from twenty or eight and ten). In my mind, the Roman system was very obvious. Then I learned to read a little French, and had genuine curiosity about the reasoning behind this soixante-dix-neuf character. edit: sometimes I wonder if arithmetic arose simply from naming numbers
> 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…
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India. was taught roman numerals upto 1000 in elementary school math, 5th grade or so. Quickly forgot.
Indian numbers seem almost as messy as Roman numerals though. Verbally, the system seems to go thousand -> lakh -> crore -> thousand crore -> lakh crore, but then stop there, rarely extending to crore crore or inducting any farther. Meanwhile commas don't seem to follow the verbal convention - instead showing up every two digits even after a crore, so a thousand crore looks more like ten hundred crore, and a lakh cro…
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.
There is a similar thing with Hebrew numerals¹ where 15 and 16 are usually written as תו and תז to avoid what would otherwise be forms of the name of God. ⸻ 1. The Hebrew numeral system, like the Greek numeral system is an almost-decimal system in that different letters are used for each of the different values, but the letters change by place value as well as by their individual value, so, e.g., 21 is written כא whe…