Jump to content

Talk:Roman numerals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Supposed crossword puzzle use

[edit]
  • The notation ID for 499 or IM for 999 is used in crossword puzzles.

I removed this bit, because (a) it is not clear what it means. Clues give words, not numbers, so on the face of it, this is backwards; (b) crossword setters play games with language, so unless extremely clear and significant these games do not belong here. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing some crossword puzzle had the clue "499" and the answer was "ID", and same for IM. However I think there has to be a link to the crossword puzzle as a reference for this information to stay. It is mildly interesting in that, along with the Excel thing, shows how common the "anything subtracts" idea is in modern times. Spitzak (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sequences

[edit]

Opening a question regarding linking Roman Numerals with sequences, and the Wikipedia article Sequences. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, or where, is your question? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for roman numerals

[edit]

Please see MCM and read right to left

MCM

M1100

100 or -100

Please indicate such ambiguities SOMEwherein the page

[1]

References

  1. ^ no sources
Thank you for listening!
[edit]
 Not done for now: You'll still need reliable sources to back up that claim. I'm sure you can find one somewhere. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request § Other additive forms

[edit]


... and there are instances such as IIIIII and XXXXXX rather than VI or LX.
            → change to →
... and there are also instances of IIIIII and XXXXXX substituting for VI or LX.

24.19.113.134 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That would be misleading. The Romans used both forms; we should not indicate that either IIIIII and XXXXXX or VI and LX were mere substitutes, and these are examples rather than the only such instances. NebY (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks @NebY, but that's because I misunderstood (from the existing text) that the appearance on "tombstones" was exclusively a post-Roman usage, especially considering the context of the previous paragraph. If it is instead as you say, that it is a genuine Roman usage, then perhaps the section could clarify this somehow, for example by swapping the ordering of the last two paragraphs of Roman numerals § Other additive forms 24.19.113.134 (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - we had two paragraphs about ancient uses, two paras about modern ones, and then jumped back in time with that last one. I've moved it to follow the first two. Thanks. NebY (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit request: possibly problematic picture placement

[edit]

The article begins:

Roman numerals ... are written with combinations of letters from the Latin alphabet, each letter with a fixed integer value. Modern style uses only these seven:
I V X L C D M
1 5 10 50 100 500 1000

However, with my phone in portrait page orientation instead of landscape, the page shows File:CuttySarkRomNum.jpg before the seven letters and their Arabic numeral "translations", so the article seems to say:

Roman numerals ... are written with combinations of letters from the Latin alphabet, each letter with a fixed integer value. Modern style uses only these seven:
XXII
XXI
XX
XIX
XVIII
XVII
XVI
XV
XIV
XIII

Please move the picture to prevent the article from displaying in such a confusing, misleading way, realizing that the display is prone to change based on what device a reader uses and if the user tilts the device this way or that (and possibly also depending on what browser and zoom settings are in use).

Thanks. Wishing you safe, happy, productive editing. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]