posted on April 3, 2001 02:33:44 PM
That might well be it.. I put into a roman numeral/arabic numeral calculator and it kept coming back as an Invalid Number the MDCD way... 8)
posted on April 3, 2001 11:31:59 PM
I thought I read somewhere (long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away) that the "subtracting" number (in this case "C" ) could only be one number away from the number it is subtracting from. In other words, "C" can ONLY come before "D" (the next highest number) and cannot come before "M" (which is two numbers higher).
Without eBay, I might have a real life...
[ edited by mcbrunnhilde on Apr 3, 2001 11:34 PM ]
posted on April 4, 2001 10:47:57 AM
You can only subtract powers of 10...
I, X, and C are the only letters that can be subtracted...
And you can't subtract a number that is 10 times less than the number you're subtracting from...
(I.E., MIM for 1999 is invalid because I is 1000 times less than M, and MXM for 1990 is also wrong)
posted on April 4, 2001 11:16:39 AM
6 years of advanced Latin. They did it incorrectly.
If it's supposed to be 1902, the correct way is MCMII
I thought I read somewhere (long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away) that the "subtracting" number (in this case "C" ) could only be one number away from the number it is subtracting from
Not correct. You can do CM to equal 900, CD to equal 400, but not XM to equal 990. XL = 40. IV = 4, IX = 9 but IL does not equal 49.
It is also incorrect to try to state 400 as CCCC, it must be done as CD.
I = ones
V = five
X = tens
L = fifty
C = 100
D = 500
M = 1000
We had to do advanced math problems only using Roman Numerals..I remember those days w/less than fond memory.
posted on April 4, 2001 12:39:26 PM
Eventer, thanks so much for providing the correct info. I knew I had read about some kind of restriction about which numbers could go in front of others and which couldn't, but I was obviously confused! Gee, you never know WHAT kind of experts you'll get on this board!
posted on April 4, 2001 01:46:19 PM
Well, the two things that I remember from my studies years ago are (1) the Romans didn't always follow their own "rules" when it came to how to form various numbers [Doorway numbers at the Colosseum in Rome (c.80AD) show 40 as XL but 44 as XLIIII rather than XLIV], and (2) common modern usage has also been pretty flexible as well [Many timepieces from the 16th century on up have 4 represented as "IIII" instead of the more correct "IV"].
Just as spelling is not completely fixed and can vary from region to region and from one period to the next, the rules for roman numerals have changed as well.
There are three rules about these smaller numerals which are placed to the left of a bigger one and subtracted.
* Only I, X, and C can be used in this way; V, L, and D cannot and of course M cannot because it is the biggest numeral anyway.
* Only one smaller number can be placed to the left. So 19 can be depicted XIX but 18 cannot be written XIIX. XIIX would have a certain ambiguity to it as it could be construed as 11+9=20 rather than 10-2+10=18.
* The subtracted number must be no less than a tenth of the value of the number it is subtracted from. So an X can be placed to the left of a C or an L but not to the left of an M or a D. Another way of looking at this rule is that each power of ten is dealt with separately. So 49 is XL IX (without the spaces), not IL
The Romans strictly represented units, tens, hundreds, and thousands as separate items in their numbers. That is probably because the numerals represented numbers as they were depicted on an abacus - a calculating machine using pebbles or beads which were arranged from right to left in columns of units, tens, hundreds, thousands etc. That means that 99 could be represented as XCIX - 90+9 but never as IC. Similarly, 999 cannot be IM and 1999 cannot be MIM. A consequence of this strict place rule is that an I can only be used to the left of a V or an X; an X can only be used to the left of an L or a C. And a C can only be used to the left of a D or an M.
So the only possible Roman numerical combinations for 1999 are the following
M (CM or DCCCC) (XC or LXXXX) (IX or VIIII) 1000----900------------------90------------------9
In theory that allows eight different ways of depicting 1999
However, in the Roman examples of Roman numbers which I have seen, where the subtraction rule was used for part of a number but not all of it, then it is the smaller end where it is not used. So you get XLIIII but not XXXXIV. So I would rule out the four examples above which break that rule, leaving as possibilities
Some scholars say that the second is the more accurate, strictly Roman, depiction because the number 9 was usually written VIIII rather than IX. That was certainly true on the Colosseum at Rome where doorway 29 is marked XXVIIII. Others maintain that the fourth, longest version is the purest and would have been most widely understood - you could interpret it simply by counting. The third example may have no genuine Roman validity at all.
However, between Roman times and the medieval period, the principles of writing numbers in Roman numerals were codified and the subtractive principle was always used. So today - and for hundreds of years - educated people would use the most concise form - MCMXCIX. And that is what you should see on monuments and copyright notices this year.
Of course, even according to these rules, you can't write 1902 as MDCDII, since D is not a valid number for subtraction....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Apr 4, 2001 01:48 PM ]
Gee, you never know WHAT kind of experts you'll get on this board!