I would have thought the Roman Numeral for the number 95 would be VC. The C being 100 and the V, preceding it, being 5 and making the combination 95.
However, doing a crossword last night the puzzle provided three squares. My wife came up with XCV. Makes sense in that the X (10) reduces the C (100) to 90 and the V adds the five.
Are both correct?
No. Think of Roman numerals as a form of base 10.
XC+V = 90+5
VC is not a base-10 formulation.
Bingo.
Similarly 995 would be CMXCV, never VM
Note that the strict rule regarding the subtractive convention for Roman numerals is modern. It was not used in a consistent manner by the Romans, in medieval times, or even up until the turn of the 20th century:
I believe inscriptions on the Coliseum show a mix of conventions, including such things as “IL” for 49. As noted in that wiki article, there are holdovers such as “IIII” for 4 on watch faces.
As yabob pointed out, the whole “subtraction” thing with Roman numerals is largely a modern invention, and was rarely used by the Romans themselves, and there are plenty of examples where it has been, shall we say, inconsistent. I would say yes both are correct, but the latter is more standard.
LXXXXV = 50 plus 10 plus 10 plus 10 plus 10 plus 5
VC = 5 less than 100
LXLV = 50 plus (10 less than 50) plus 5
XCV = (10 less than 100) plus 5
All of them are correct, but the last one is the more accepted answer by modern standards while the first would be more common by ancient standards.
I seem to recall reading an article where the author downloaded four different computer apps which claimed they would convert Arabic numerals to Roman numerals. He put in a number that was just a little bit less than 2000 and the four apps gave four different answers.
Thanks. I always liked Roman numerals, and tend to use them frequently, and had often wondered what was the logic behind the rules.
An old column by some guy named Cecil something.
Two old threads. (And I do mean old.)
Me, I have no problem with MIM for 1999, for example.
I thought 1999 had a certain aesthetic appeal to it - “MCMXCIX”. But I wondered if the turn of the 21st century would put a stop to use of Roman numerals in movie credits and so on - “MM” just doesn’t create much of an impression. Nope. Didn’t stop them. I’m waiting to see if somebody finds something lacking in “Super Bowl L” in a couple years.
Since the OP has been answered…
What is 505?
DV?
DIIV?
Classical Roman Computer Messages:
Error CDIV: Nuntius non iveni
CCCCCIIIII = 5x100 + 5x1
DV = 500 + 5
Either of those is correct, but the second one is more accepted by modern standards.
DIIV would be 500 + (5-2) = 503, but the more common way of saying 503 is DIII.
I have read that the NFL will use “50” for that SB. And then go back to Roman numerals again after. I suspect part of the reason is the “lameness” of a single L for the game although they say not. Just want to especially celebrate the 50th SB.
Super Bowl L will be big, but not as big as Super Bowl XL was.
mmm
I love this site. Lots of wits on here. Me, I’m just a half-wit.
You should have signed this post “3,000.”
Not thinking of that will haunt me the rest of my days.
mmm
Oh, I. Dunno.