adrian@mti.mti.com (Adrian McCarthy) (12/12/89)
Here's an interesting question somebody brought up here. Will 1990 be expressed as MCMXC or MXM in roman numerals? TeX says MCMXC, but MXM seems to make more sense. Is there a ``standard''? Aid. Standard disclaimers.
dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (D.A. Hosek) (12/12/89)
In article <859@mti.mti.com> adrian@mti.UUCP (Adrian McCarthy) writes: >Here's an interesting question somebody brought up here. Will 1990 >be expressed as MCMXC or MXM in roman numerals? TeX says MCMXC, but >MXM seems to make more sense. Is there a ``standard''? Well, if you say MXM, ancient Romans will be able to figure out what number you're referring to (our else, they'd figure you're a Hebrew who hasn't got the hang of vowels yet). However, TeX is correct. Despite their appearance, Roman numerals are essentially a decimal system. i.e., 990 (to simplify the example) is really CM XC or put together CMXC. 1999 will look especially pretty: MCMXCIX -dh -- "Odi et amo, quare id faciam, fortasse requiris? nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior" -Catullus D.A. Hosek. UUCP: uunet!jarthur!dhosek Internet: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu
igp@torch.co.uk (Ian Phillipps) (12/22/89)
adrian@mti.mti.com (Adrian McCarthy) writes: >Here's an interesting question somebody brought up here. Will 1990 >be expressed as MCMXC or MXM in roman numerals? TeX says MCMXC, but >MXM seems to make more sense. Is there a ``standard''? Genuine Roman use didn't have ANY subtractive method: thus 1990 would be MDCCCCLXXXX. Later (mediaeval?) abbreviations allowed <n><10n> to mean 9n, and <n><5n> to mean 4n. No other contractions are possible, so TeX is right. MXM "makes more sense", but who said Roman numerals were about sense?
moerbeek@fwi.uva.nl (Otto Moerbeek) (01/07/90)
igp@torch.co.uk (Ian Phillipps) writes: >Genuine Roman use didn't have ANY subtractive method: thus 1990 would be >MDCCCCLXXXX. Later (mediaeval?) abbreviations allowed <n><10n> to mean 9n, >and <n><5n> to mean 4n. No other contractions are possible, so TeX is right. Not completely true, the "subtractive" method was used in the republican period of the Roman Empire, but not in official documents and inscriptions. A very nice source for almost all number systems used almost everywhere is: "From One To Zero", by Georges Ifrah, Penguin. This book has a reproduction of an inscription where the subtractive principle is used. It uses an upside-down T for the value 50, and an infinity-sign for the value 1000. The system as we know it developed at the end of the republican period, and was common during the imperial period; use of the subtractive principle was very rare, but it is not true that the Romans didn't known the principle. Greetings, Otto -- Otto Moerbeek Email: moerbeek@fwi.uva.nl UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!uva!moerbeek or moerbeek%fwi.uva.nl@hp4nl.nluug.nl (only for dumb mailers)