On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
museum.seiko.co.jp
On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
1–10 of 270 posts
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#2Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#3Instead of having an exception to the rule, make the exception the rule -> It would have been great if IX was XIIII too.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#4Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#5Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#6Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#7Doc Brown can’t be wrong:
https://clickamericana.com/wp-content/uploads/Back-to-the-Fu...
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#8Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#9VIIIIX
For each clock, you make 4 of these, and split each block into numbers the following way:
V IIII I X
VI III IX (mirror the IX for 11)
VII II IX
VIII IIX
This lets you mass produce watch numbers with a minimum of wasted material.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#10Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How many hours do you spend in school drilling how Roman numerals are constructed rather than teaching something else. I suppose it's nice enough for those who encounter them when traveling. But pretty far on the not-essential end of the axis.