Why the distinction when talking about Roman numerals and the number 3 (for example)? Aren’t they both numerals?
Also, is this a prostitue?
A number is a concept for a certain value or amount. A numeral is the squiggly thing you write down to stand for a number.
Yes, it is a prostitute.
I don’t see much of a difference for everyday usage, but I think it’s the distinction between the concept and the descriptor.
Mamma Mia! Whoot!
That’s an almost recognizable human figure.
Who killed Slug?
A one-legged prostitute at that. I assume her name is Eileen.
Very annoyed that Uncle Cece has made the statement that the square root of 41786 is exactly equal to the number at the end. That’s a rounded value; the square root in question is irrational. Uncle Cece knows better. 
Umm, the prostitute?
Despite the sign she’s carrying, the woman looks more like an X than a V.
And is this the first time that Slug has depicted a bare female breast, complete with nipple, for a column? Not that he hasn’t come awfully close before, of course.
Number — concept
Numeral — symbolic or written representation of that concept of value or quantity or however you are defining “number”
Figure — specific typographical character or shape of written representation used in numeral system
That’s why skaters make a “figure 8” rather than a “numeral 8”—they’re drawing a shape, not representing a value or quantity.
There are many ways to write “three” down. But there is only one number three (in the Natural Numbers, etc.). Humans knew all about three long before they learned to write.
The numeral/number distinction was clearly explained to me in second grade. It took me a few minutes to get the idea. It’s not all that hard to understand.
Are we sure it isn’t just covered by something filmy and diaphanous?
The female should really be holding “VI”. That is in Latin, sex.
Cecil says:
Yes, I recall reading that and I’ve seen IIII on Roman monuments, etc. I can’t recall seeing IIIIIIIII (9) or IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (19) though, for example. Wouldn’t they have had to use subtractive notation for larger numbers for the sake of space-saving on the stone if nothing else?
No, 9 would be VIIII, and 19 would be XVIIII. I don’t think there’d ever be a need for more than four of any one symbol.
Ah, I understand now. Only subtractive notation was not used, additive notation was fine.