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
On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
81–90 of 270 posts
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#82In 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
Yeah, the 90s in french always tripped me out. 91 = quatre-vingt-onze = four-twenty-eleven
I never can decide, but I think you have made the correct point. For me, it was "four twenties, nine and ten", which was only funny because one said "sixty, nine and ten". I dunno, I love it and it terrifies me.
The first time I went abroad, I was in a wine caveau and paying the teller. When she said the price, my mind went blank -- pitch black. She said "five" impatiently in every language I spoke -- even latin -- and I kept wondering, yes, but what and five?
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#83> 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…
One cool thing about the purely additive notation is that you can then add numbers together by just gathering up all their characters, sorting largest to smallest, and combining any groups of 5 or more.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#84I 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'd say it's good to be exposed to for a short few lessons at a young age. My friends and I found endless fascination with them and enjoyed inventing our own numbering systems. It helped a lot when I had to think in other bases like binary or hexadecimal, because my perspective had been broadened by roman numerals. But I'd say maybe not waste too much time on it. Kids will play with whatever they play with, you can l…
I taught my son a senary method for similar reasons, and also because hexagons are the bestagons. 12s are quite useful not only for time telling (since they give a nice number of ways to divide an hour) but also for evenly splitting the musical octave, and for counting with flesh between knuckles on one hand.
We do base twelve in our household. It's easier to hold in my head than base thirty-six.
Edit: I was halfway joking but I'm noticing that the 12-hour clock is very elegantly conveyed using base-36 hand gestures. The "hands" of the clock bring in this case literal human hands.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senary#Finger_counting
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#85> 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.
The distance of time between us and the Romans is less (by ~1,000 years) than the time between the Romans and the building of the pyramids
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#86Prior of this, I thought the clock in my home has a misprint or a defect product because of it use IIII instead of IV
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you consider the so-called Byzantines to be Romans (and you should, for lots of reasons), the Roman state was at least a notable regional power all the way from the mid 300s BCE all the way up to 1204 - that's around 1500 years. And it existed for a few hundred years more on either end. Truly boggles the mind.
Found the gold player with conq knowledge
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Indian Empire is older than Roman Empire if i'm not wrong and even America had emires before Europeans colonized. You need to read more history
He's comparing countries to ancient empires.
Not locations.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#89> 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.
[deleted]
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#90> 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.
I mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years.