I am suspicious of your claim that vertical bars around a value multiply it by ten. I can’t find that mentioned in your sources. Are you sure that’s accurate?
This is really cool! I remember learning Roman numerals in grade school and for some reason I never questioned how they did fractions. Maybe I figured that like the zero they just didn't have them. Thanks for sharing all this neat stuff.
I'm so glad I found this channel, I usually struggle with finding little channels with good content but this one is truly amazing. I hope the channel gets bigger 😁
2:19 Last time I study Roman numerals there are rules on subtractions that are allowed. Like You can only use I for V and X, X for L and C, C for D and M So there is no such thing as LD (only CDL)
That is the common implementation and is used by most converters. Some people object to the idea of only one correct answer even when others are still mathematically reasonable.
We really appreciate the free educational videos that teach about history from a different perspective. Most students in schools today don't get to learn about these things this way.
1:01 I memorize earlier ones as following: I is one finger, hence 1; V is a palm with a thumb sticking out, hence 5 (hand has five fingers) X is two arms crossed, hence 10.
@@mrcryptozoic817 V, Venus 5th day of the week Friday, planet passes between Earth and the Sun 5 times every 8 years. X, The crucifixion cross of Christ, Given valve of 10 to add an extra fake 1000 years to the calendar, e.g. date X345 (345 after Christ's birth) -------> 1345AD Also I = 1 , (iesus, Jesus) i345 ------> 1345AD |3 1 t ( |-| |_| t £ "sbelobaba" , "Anatoly Fomenko".
Although it would've been tempting to use non-standard methods with subtractive notation to write roman numerals back then because, as you've shown, you could drastically reduce the amount of numbers you'd need to use (eg. you could write 49 as IL instead of XLIX), I think it would've been better for them in the long run not to do this. This is because if you make sure to use the I, X and C symbols before only the first two numbers larger than each of them (ie. I only before V and X to make IV and IX; X only before L and C to make XL and XC; and C only before D and M to make CD and CM), then that'd greatly reduce the amount of possible combinations of letters you'd come across. Therefore people back then would become used to seeing the same combinations of letters appearing over and over again, and eventually they'd be able to tell at a glance what the number is without needing to stop to actually work out what the number is. For example, they'd be able to tell at a glance that the XC in MCCXCVis 90, without needing to actually subtract X from C. So although some numbers may be longer than they otherwise could've been, if this convention didn't exist, then it would slow down and frustrate the reader because of seeing an unfamiliar combination of letters. And in general they'd just have to be more careful when reading the numbers, just in case a rare occurance of a IC or XD appears that they might otherwise misread, and that would slow them down also.
You missed the most important part! Roman Numerals show you how to set up your abacus. Since symbolic forms of addition and multiplication did not exist and the only way to do arithmetic was on an abacus or a counting board, roman numerals were surprisingly functonal for the technology of the day.
Yes, almost everybody in the ancient world used the abacus, from Europe to Japan, because apart from anything else, the process of calculation was visible, very handy when doing business deals.
Today we are so accustomed to how Arabic/Hindu numerals are used, it is natural that we try to replicate this methodology on Roman numeral system: Such as excruciating procedures to perform multiplication or long division with pen and paper, and by extention argue that Romans must have been severely limited in any non-trivial mathematics. However Roman numerals were not used for symbol-manipulation maths. They are, simply, a means to record the state of an Roman Abacus. Any calculations would be performed using that device, and in the hands of a skilled user reasonably complex maths could (can) be performed far faster than pen+paper. The mapping to abacus state is also where the small-first-subtracts notation comes from, and explains its restrictions. The abacus has columns for powers of ten, and a column ready to overflow would be recorded as its denomination off the next column - IX, XC, CM, M((|)), ... Additionally each column is split into four lower beads - units, and one upper - five units; giving _, I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, VIIII. (in whatever the columns units are). This again gives the short hand for one-off-the-fives; IV, XL, CD, M|)), ... This also precludes using other combinations in a subtraction role - IC, VL, or IIX - as these make no sence when transcribed to the abacus. Interestingly Abacuses also had columns for fractions. These seemed to vary - possibly specialised uses; but oft supported higher precisions than uncia 1/12ths. Given that most had an S bead, one might assume that 11/12 might have been written •I, or 5/12 as •S. But I'm not aware of any evidence and usage of fractions on abacuses is not well understood. Fun fact: China got the Abacus from the Romans, who got pasta in exchange!
The way I remembered it was to pair them up since each pair happens to line up with a modern two letter abbreviation. One and five make an IV, ten and fifty are XL, and one hundred and five hundred make a CD.
That’s true, but just remember that you can’t use IV (4) after a V (5) to make VIV (9). Instead you must write 9 as I (1) and X (10) to make IX (9). Same with 90 and 900. 90 must be written as X (10) and C (100) to make XC (90), rather than as L (50) and XL (40) to make LXL (90). And 900 must be written as C (100) and M (1000) to make CM (900), rather than as D (500) and CD (400) to make DCD (900).
Very interesting, Muddling the two systems is worrying. When working in a computer programming office some time ago, We were offered applications for a British computer Society competition , one task required was a computer program to convert between the two Number systems. Not as simple as first seems !! Thank you for your lucid explanation of the fractional notation in the ancient Roman number system and those interesting insights such as the backward 'C' giving the possible 'D' for 500 .
I love the fact that you addressed that the Arabic numeral system is actually the Hindu numeral system which was wrongly credited, because the Arabs only modified it a little bit
Things I learned from this video: -Roman numerals were invented when Esther was born -You can have multiple ways to write the same number -nulla -There are _fractions‽‽_ - Apostrophus, though the symbols at the end of that chapter look familiar. Awesome video😎
Back in grade 4 I had a homework question that asked what 0 in Roman numerals is. When I responded there is no 0 in Roman numerals the answer was marked wrong.
The result is MMMCCMXXCIIX, which only has 12 characters instead of 15. Still quite long. Another fun way to write 3888 is as 4000 - 112, using parenthesis, like this: (CXII)M(IV) The IV on the right is multiplied by M, and the CXII on the left is subtracted.
I've also seen with vinculum that you can get extremely high numbers just represented as nearly two letters, such as a googol, with it having 33 sets of 3 zeros and one set of 10 being X, it could be written as (xxxiii)|X a ten multiplied by 1000^33, which is equal to a googol.
I was taught you couldn't write a numeral A before a numeral B if A wasn't B/10. So you can write XC for 90 but not IC for 99 since X = C/10 but I =/= C/10. If true, this means there is only one correct way to write any number, and for 999 that's CMXCIX.
Yes, the way I was taught was that you could only subtract using: I, X, and C, and they could only subtract form the next two larger values. Meaning you can have XC, but not VL or IM.
That was thought to be true, as most findings were on marble housenummer plates. They later found out that rich romens mostly did that to show off there were rich. But the common people who carved there home number on an wooden plate, used the shortest possible way. And if I remember it correctly they found a fashion change around 50AD to complex house numbers as it looks more expensive ^^
There are actually two acceptable ways of writing 4. IV, the "legal" way, and IIII which was popular. Many classical clocks such as that in Capri, IT use IIII instead of IV. I, for one, love when clocks have IIII. Makes it feel so vintage.
X means “10” in base 12 numbers. Remember that. L + inverted L = Blocky c. Remember: *_4_*_ x 2 = _*_13._* Because *D is the 4th letter* and *D is 500.* 500 x 2 = 1000 representing M, the *13th* letter.
2:57 I get the point, and it still definitely stands for other numbers, but: Why would you make it harder on purpose? Just write IIXCM or CXIIM or whatever and problem solved. It's a tiny reform, but it'd significantly improve terseness-and by extension-readability
Up until the Computer age fractions were used by more people than decimals. So even late into the last century fractions were more important to Joe public. This iis why there are still many people around who understand the merits of non metric systems. Prior to the 1970s the British currency was based on 240 pence to the pound which was much more divisible than 100 to the pound. After all, if you buy a pizza and want to share between 3 people you just divide into thirds, you don't whip out the calculator and try to divide it into 33.3333333 recurring percent sized slices.
I learned Roman Numerals in 1st or 2nd grade (1970s) and I never would left modify "M"s with "I"s, "V"s, "X"s or "L"s. The rules are you can only left modify as follows: 1000's place with hundreds (CM = 900) 500s with hundreds (CD = 400) hundreds with tens (XC = 90) 50s with tens (XL = 40) 10s with ones (IX = 9) & fives with ones (IV = 4) You can't skip way back like your were doing. I've never heard of that being "legal", as you say.
Fun fact: nowadays roman numerals are to be read almost always as ordinal numbers. Years were treated as such, and year 2000 should be year 2000th. That's why the first year in the third (ordinal!) millennium is the two thousand and FIRST year. And that's why it makes no sense to speak about year 0.
Weird bit about fractions being sort of base 12 - there are some indications that fractions as low as 1/1728 were used - while the natural numbers are sort of in base 10.
My problem with it is mostly like your example of XVIXIII, because it can be understood as XVI XIII or 10+5+1 10+1+1+1 (16, 13) alternatively XV IX III or 10+5 10-1 1+1+1 (15, 9, 3) or if you stretch it X VIX III 10 10-(5+1) 1+1+1 (10, 4, 3) With knowledge of the system it can be worked out, without it, it's just confusing. Heck, even the chinese numeral characters I find much easier to handle: 零 0 一 1 二 2 三 3 四 4 五 5 六 6 七 7 八 8 九 9 十 10 十一 11 (10+1) 十二 12 (10+2) … 二十 20 (2×10) 二十一 21 (2×10+1) 百 100 千 1000 万 1 0000 億 1 0000 0000 兆 1 0000 0000 0000 Most of those folks have caught up with hindu numerals for everyone's convenience too. They still like to space out by 4 digits as opposed to the 3 digits spacing common elsewhere.
XVIXIII is *not* standard form and is not even mathematically valid like MMMIM. No properly-programmed Roman numeral converter will ever output something like XVIXIII, and many may not even except that as an input. Even with your Chinese-numeral example, wouldn't it be weird to write 1613 as 十六十三?
I absolutely agree with this video. No matter how much I love the Roman Numerals as a way cooler vintage equivalent of Arabic Numerals... It is undeniable that they are way harder and more annoying to use, more limited and generally not ideal for arithmetics. I definitely didn't know that you can write fractions with Roman Numerals, nor did I know there was a simpler way to write giant numbers like 100000, which I counted to be the biggest problem of Roman Numerals, as to write 100000, you'd need to write... _clears throat_ *MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM* (You get the point...)
As we add lines on top of the M, it was no use how big it is if you add more lines. Now we had to add Roman Numeral on the left of it (fractions not permitted).
@@BlenderTimer Vinculum is useful as we can write 100,000 as C with a line over it instead of MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
See my reply above. That custom was started in the Middle Ages when clock faces first appeared (the Romans used sundials). If they used IV they would have to make another V for every clock. They already used a lot of I's so it was simpler to just use IIII. I's were easier to make than V's..
I used them as chapter numbers in "Diamond Dragons" (series). 🙂 I don't know how many books I've seen which do this, but it definitely lends a different feel to the work as soon as you see the ToC. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Imagine if Arabic numerals were used in the same direction as they wrote their words and we adopted that convention making our numbers in the reverse direction of our righting. If you think Roman numerals are an odd combination of other numbers, you should check out the French numerals!
Even today, after over 20 years of knowing Roman numerals, it still greatly bothers me to see clocks that use Roman numerals to incorrectly use IIII instead of the correct IV.
One other issue is fraction representative (Fractiosentitivity) Because roman numerals uses 6÷12 1÷3 or 3÷4 would be useless But E for 1/3, E- for 2/3, E(2) for 2/6, E(3) for 4/12 T for 1/4, S: for 2/4 T- for 3/4, T/ for 6/8
what is the : When writing out a number of three or more digits, the word and is not necessary. However, use the word and to express any decimal points that may accompany these numbers.
The Roman numerals do have one advantage to Arabic in that it's easy to see a numbers relation to the next place value making it a little easier to add or subtract. For example ix + i =x, vii -ii = v and so on. It was how I learned addition as a kid, breaking it down into easier parts and then adding it all together at the end
@@freddiesimmons1394 it's really easy when you remember subtracting from a negative is adding a positive. Here vii-iv=(5+2)-(5-1)=(5+2)+(-5+1)=(2)+(1)=iii
@@jeffthemagicalpufferfishco9006 ...I know how to add and subtract with negative numbers. I'm saying it's nowhere near as intuitive as your examples that included no borrowing, carrying, or no negative numbers.
@@freddiesimmons1394It does kinda work, it's like building with numbers. Vii-iV, take V from Vii and add an i. The thing is adding and subtracting simple numbers is already so intuitive that you don't really need a system.
you sure it's great for addition? CDIX + MIV = MCDXIII substraction maybe? CD - IX = CCCXCI want to try multiplication? XCIV * VIII = DCCLII doubtless, it's a lot easier than in arabic numbers.
I am suspicious of your claim that vertical bars around a value multiply it by ten. I can’t find that mentioned in your sources. Are you sure that’s accurate?
Ummm...no, I'm not sure that's accurate.
Good catch! Two vertical lines multiplies by 1000 just like an overline.
I don't know what I mixed up.😆
@thizayenriquez4110 Good question. I guess because I'm confused...😆
He lied
@@BlenderTimerTwo vertical lines combined with the overline multiply by 100000.
Wtf who cares
Ever since I was a small kid who first learned about Roman numerals, I've hated that 8 is usually written as VIII and not IIX
Well I see your point but you can't really change it
Why lol
bruh
This would make a major change. 80 would be written as XXC instead of LXXX and 800 would be written as CCM instead of DCCC.
what bothered ME was seing four written as IIII instead of IV
This is the definition of a underrated education channel
LOL
Thats actually true
xçχɟʈ
@@BlenderTimer hey, make part 2
also th-cam.com/video/MuowatfXksk/w-d-xo.html
Yes indeed true
This is really cool! I remember learning Roman numerals in grade school and for some reason I never questioned how they did fractions. Maybe I figured that like the zero they just didn't have them. Thanks for sharing all this neat stuff.
Yeah, same. I thought Roman numerals just didn't have fractions. Really cool to see that they do though!
I=1
V=5
X=10
L=50
C=100
D=500
M=1000
1:06 just remember this joke. Some Romans walk into a bar. One of them hold up two fingers and says: “Five beers, please.”
I'm so glad I found this channel, I usually struggle with finding little channels with good content but this one is truly amazing. I hope the channel gets bigger 😁
Thanks!
@@BlenderTimer You know the XVIXIII for 1613? Well my dad wrote his birth year (1921) like that it was XCXXI
2:19
Last time I study Roman numerals there are rules on subtractions that are allowed.
Like
You can only use
I for V and X,
X for L and C,
C for D and M
So there is no such thing as LD (only CDL)
I was pretty much told that "fives" can't subtract.
So the general rule is that any power of ten can subtract from only that number times five or number times ten.
Sad because now you can’t make a meme with 490 XD
That is the common implementation and is used by most converters. Some people object to the idea of only one correct answer even when others are still mathematically reasonable.
Fun fact: M is the only Roman numeral that can be repeated 4 times!
so the largest character used with this 7 signal system is The number 4999
But how do you write 5000?
Actually it is 4999 11/12 (MMMMIM S.....) check 3:53.
@@ElevatorFan1428 V̄
@MichaelJ Broderick ?
@MichaelJ Broderick For 5000 and larger there are no longer letters for large values. You can use vinculum or even apostrophus if you're a weirdo.
We really appreciate the free educational videos that teach about history from a different perspective. Most students in schools today don't get to learn about these things this way.
The first education channel that doesnt give me a headache and wants me to learn more and is funny
If it helps you remember, 666 in Roman numerals is DCLXVI
1:01 I memorize earlier ones as following:
I is one finger, hence 1;
V is a palm with a thumb sticking out, hence 5 (hand has five fingers)
X is two arms crossed, hence 10.
Interesting method. I guess whichever way you can memorize best is best!😄
Interesting observation. Maybe that's what that weird system evolved from.
@@mrcryptozoic817 V, Venus 5th day of the week Friday, planet passes between Earth and the Sun 5 times every 8 years.
X, The crucifixion cross of Christ, Given valve of 10 to add an extra fake 1000 years to the calendar,
e.g. date X345 (345 after Christ's birth) -------> 1345AD
Also I = 1 , (iesus, Jesus) i345 ------> 1345AD
|3 1 t ( |-| |_| t £ "sbelobaba" , "Anatoly Fomenko".
What don’t I know about Roman numerals?
After 1 minute - EVERYTHING !!
LOL
Although it would've been tempting to use non-standard methods with subtractive notation to write roman numerals back then because, as you've shown, you could drastically reduce the amount of numbers you'd need to use (eg. you could write 49 as IL instead of XLIX), I think it would've been better for them in the long run not to do this.
This is because if you make sure to use the I, X and C symbols before only the first two numbers larger than each of them (ie. I only before V and X to make IV and IX; X only before L and C to make XL and XC; and C only before D and M to make CD and CM), then that'd greatly reduce the amount of possible combinations of letters you'd come across. Therefore people back then would become used to seeing the same combinations of letters appearing over and over again, and eventually they'd be able to tell at a glance what the number is without needing to stop to actually work out what the number is. For example, they'd be able to tell at a glance that the XC in MCCXCVis 90, without needing to actually subtract X from C.
So although some numbers may be longer than they otherwise could've been, if this convention didn't exist, then it would slow down and frustrate the reader because of seeing an unfamiliar combination of letters. And in general they'd just have to be more careful when reading the numbers, just in case a rare occurance of a IC or XD appears that they might otherwise misread, and that would slow them down also.
XD
“Roman numerals are so confusing maybe this video will help!”
“Nope just even more confused now”
I heard about the horizontal line above numbers, but the other non-standard systems were completely new to me, that's so interesting.
I like ur name and pfp
0:05 slightly shake your phone and the background will shake
nulla... is that where the word null came from?
I'm always looking forward to your videos, keep it up! 🙌🏼
Thanks!
You missed the most important part! Roman Numerals show you how to set up your abacus. Since symbolic forms of addition and multiplication did not exist and the only way to do arithmetic was on an abacus or a counting board, roman numerals were surprisingly functonal for the technology of the day.
Yes, almost everybody in the ancient world used the abacus, from Europe to Japan, because apart from anything else, the process of calculation was visible, very handy when doing business deals.
It's easy for me to remember M since my parents gave my initials, MM, for the year I was born. Also part of the reason I like Roman numerals so much.
Genius move by your parents
Perhaps they just like candy
Today we are so accustomed to how Arabic/Hindu numerals are used, it is natural that we try to replicate this methodology on Roman numeral system: Such as excruciating procedures to perform multiplication or long division with pen and paper, and by extention argue that Romans must have been severely limited in any non-trivial mathematics.
However Roman numerals were not used for symbol-manipulation maths. They are, simply, a means to record the state of an Roman Abacus. Any calculations would be performed using that device, and in the hands of a skilled user reasonably complex maths could (can) be performed far faster than pen+paper.
The mapping to abacus state is also where the small-first-subtracts notation comes from, and explains its restrictions. The abacus has columns for powers of ten, and a column ready to overflow would be recorded as its denomination off the next column - IX, XC, CM, M((|)), ...
Additionally each column is split into four lower beads - units, and one upper - five units; giving _, I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, VIIII. (in whatever the columns units are). This again gives the short hand for one-off-the-fives; IV, XL, CD, M|)), ...
This also precludes using other combinations in a subtraction role - IC, VL, or IIX - as these make no sence when transcribed to the abacus.
Interestingly Abacuses also had columns for fractions. These seemed to vary - possibly specialised uses; but oft supported higher precisions than uncia 1/12ths. Given that most had an S bead, one might assume that 11/12 might have been written •I, or 5/12 as •S. But I'm not aware of any evidence and usage of fractions on abacuses is not well understood.
Fun fact: China got the Abacus from the Romans, who got pasta in exchange!
Further
0=Nulla
1/288=℈
1/48=Ↄ
1/24=Σ
1/12=·
1/8=1/24+1/12=Σ·
1/6=··
1/4=···
1/3=····
5/12=·····
1/2=S
7/12=S·
2/3=S··
3/4=S···
5/6=S····
11/12=S·····
1=I
2=II
3=III
4=IV=IIII
5=V
8=IIX=VIII
10=X
50=L
99=IC=XCIX
100=C
500=D
1000=M
5000=IↃↃ
10000=CCIↃↃ
50000=IↃↃↃ
100000=CCCIↃↃↃ
500000=IↃↃↃↃ
1000000=CCCCIↃↃↃↃ
where did u got it
@@randomcuber230Wikipedia
No wonder they assassinated Caesar, I get it now
Romans be copying the Greeks with 1/24
@@cycy98geographyminecraft oh thanks
The way I remembered it was to pair them up since each pair happens to line up with a modern two letter abbreviation. One and five make an IV, ten and fifty are XL, and one hundred and five hundred make a CD.
That’s true, but just remember that you can’t use IV (4) after a V (5) to make VIV (9). Instead you must write 9 as I (1) and X (10) to make IX (9).
Same with 90 and 900. 90 must be written as X (10) and C (100) to make XC (90), rather than as L (50) and XL (40) to make LXL (90). And 900 must be written as C (100) and M (1000) to make CM (900), rather than as D (500) and CD (400) to make DCD (900).
Very interesting, Muddling the two systems is worrying. When working in a computer programming office some time ago, We were offered applications for a British computer Society competition , one task required was a computer program to convert between the two Number systems. Not as simple as first seems !! Thank you for your lucid explanation of the fractional notation in the ancient Roman number system and those interesting insights such as the backward 'C' giving the possible 'D' for 500 .
You're welcome!
@ 6:11. With the backward C used in CIC meaning 1000, you can sort of see that this is the origin of the letter M for 1000.
I saw the title and thought "Hmm, we'll see about that!"
I watched and what I saw was What I Didn't Know About Roman Numerals.
Excellent vid.
LOL Thanks!
It's always nice to just stumble upon a great channel
Welcome!
1:04 this. This is nice and comfy and nostalgic I am blown away to see someone else see it that way.
*in American military r&d facility*
"Alright, we have a backlog of gear we haven't named, any ideas?"
"5:12"
"Charles you are a genius"
I memorized the roman numerals by this sentence "MeDiCaL XaVIer" and it helped alot for me.
I is a finger, V is a hand, X is two hands. C is cent for 100. M is 1000 for mille
On clock faces IIII is commonly used instead of IV to preserve a degree of symmetry with the VIII opposite.
I love the fact that you addressed that the Arabic numeral system is actually the Hindu numeral system which was wrongly credited, because the Arabs only modified it a little bit
thank you for the amazing videos as always, also i wonder what the best and most efficient number system would look like
Thanks!
@@epsi cool
Things I learned from this video:
-Roman numerals were invented when Esther was born
-You can have multiple ways to write the same number
-nulla
-There are _fractions‽‽_
- Apostrophus, though the symbols at the end of that chapter look familiar.
Awesome video😎
Rome had some brilliant engineers. How on earth did they calculate with a system so complex.?
Abacus, like almost everybody else outside India.
Straight to the point, amazing.
Yep! No one needs a lecture that says the same thing 500 times right?😂
Back in grade 4 I had a homework question that asked what 0 in Roman numerals is. When I responded there is no 0 in Roman numerals the answer was marked wrong.
Well...your teacher was wrong.😐🤷♂️
Imagine having to plan a building like the Colloseum with this mess
I wish I was taught in school like this. Amazing quality video!
Thanks!
I thought I read or heard somewhere that apart from S=1/2 (or 6/12), they also used T=1/3 (or 4/12) and Q=1/4 (or 3/12).
That would make sense. They even had a word for 3/4: "Dodrans"
@@HansLemurson hopefully not abbreviated to D ;)
This channel must get more attention! It's like on par with the channel It's okay to be smart
Thanks!
Imagine US being stuck with roman numerals, like they are with imperial temperature, weight, length, etc
LOL
Historically Roman numerals were used (at least sometimes) purely additively. Such as having 14 be XIIII instead if XIV
it certainly would be easier to read xd
maybe not easier to write, but certainly easier to read
Usually, found on clocks as IIII at the four O'Clock position
This is a great visual presentation. May I ask what program you use for these seamless flow of information?
Thanks! I use Blender 3D for the animations.
1:17 That one guy: If you divide it by 100, that's the size of my-
Watched your speed of light and now love your content and addicted to watch your videos so please upload new one fast.
LOL🤣
@@BlenderTimer what?
@@Saransh_Tiwari69 "What" what? It's funny the way you worded that.😄
Loving your videos, it's breaking my brain. Keep it up!
At 3:00
We can shorten VII to IIX, LXXX to XXC, DCCC to CCM.
The result is MMMCCMXXCIIX, which only has 12 characters instead of 15. Still quite long.
Another fun way to write 3888 is as 4000 - 112, using parenthesis, like this:
(CXII)M(IV)
The IV on the right is multiplied by M, and the CXII on the left is subtracted.
MMMDCCCLXXXVIII=3888
MMMCMXCIX=3999
S=½
just wait a while buddy this channel will easily cross 1m if it blows sometime in future
New to your channel -- well explained with excellent animations. Never knew about the fractions especially!
Thanks! And welcome to the channel!
I've also seen with vinculum that you can get extremely high numbers just represented as nearly two letters, such as a googol, with it having 33 sets of 3 zeros and one set of 10 being X, it could be written as (xxxiii)|X a ten multiplied by 1000^33, which is equal to a googol.
10^33 is a decillion if you were wondering but i know thats not the focus here
10^33 is a decillion and 1000^33 is a duotrigintillion, which is a tenth of a googol.
Quality quality channel
Thanks!
I was taught you couldn't write a numeral A before a numeral B if A wasn't B/10. So you can write XC for 90 but not IC for 99 since X = C/10 but I =/= C/10.
If true, this means there is only one correct way to write any number, and for 999 that's CMXCIX.
Yes, the way I was taught was that you could only subtract using: I, X, and C, and they could only subtract form the next two larger values.
Meaning you can have XC, but not VL or IM.
That was thought to be true, as most findings were on marble housenummer plates. They later found out that rich romens mostly did that to show off there were rich. But the common people who carved there home number on an wooden plate, used the shortest possible way. And if I remember it correctly they found a fashion change around 50AD to complex house numbers as it looks more expensive ^^
@@TinusBruins oh that's actually rad, thanks for that
149 is also C (100) IL (50-1) CIL=149
This is how I always saw it.
There are actually two acceptable ways of writing 4. IV, the "legal" way, and IIII which was popular. Many classical clocks such as that in Capri, IT use IIII instead of IV. I, for one, love when clocks have IIII. Makes it feel so vintage.
So that's why some of the clocks in the Rusty Lake games use IIII instead of IV.
Thank you!
You're welcome!
@@BlenderTimer there is an also very good explantion at latintutorials:)
X means “10” in base 12 numbers. Remember that.
L + inverted L = Blocky c.
Remember: *_4_*_ x 2 = _*_13._* Because *D is the 4th letter* and *D is 500.* 500 x 2 = 1000 representing M, the *13th* letter.
i got recommended this by youtube, great video!
Thanks!
No mention of when double subtraction was used? Such as IIX for 8?
2:57 I get the point, and it still definitely stands for other numbers, but:
Why would you make it harder on purpose?
Just write IIXCM or CXIIM or whatever and problem solved.
It's a tiny reform, but it'd significantly improve terseness-and by extension-readability
intresting, but how do you write fractiona that are not in base 12, like 1/5?
i might use half-dots so 2 dots and 1 half dots are written as 1/5
You can't. That's why Arabic numerals took over Roman numerals. Roman numerals are just too limited.
Just a question, what about decimals? Ex: 0.782 but a roman numeral.
You can't for most unless it's one that has it's own symbol. Hence why Arabic Numerals have become the standard.
@@BlenderTimer Okay.
Up until the Computer age fractions were used by more people than decimals. So even late into the last century fractions were more important to Joe public. This iis why there are still many people around who understand the merits of non metric systems. Prior to the 1970s the British currency was based on 240 pence to the pound which was much more divisible than 100 to the pound. After all, if you buy a pizza and want to share between 3 people you just divide into thirds, you don't whip out the calculator and try to divide it into 33.3333333 recurring percent sized slices.
you are REALLY underrated, hope you grow soon
Thanks!
I am witnessing a great channel growing
Bro your my favorite channel
Thank you!
keep it up mate
i love ur videos
Thanks!
great video
Thanks!
Very cool! Did you used to run the channel called Wonder Why?
Thanks!
No I didn't run the channel Wonder Why. Never heard of it.😄
I learned Roman Numerals in 1st or 2nd grade (1970s) and I never would left modify "M"s with "I"s, "V"s, "X"s or "L"s.
The rules are you can only left modify as follows:
1000's place with hundreds (CM = 900)
500s with hundreds (CD = 400)
hundreds with tens (XC = 90)
50s with tens (XL = 40)
10s with ones (IX = 9)
& fives with ones (IV = 4)
You can't skip way back like your were doing. I've never heard of that being "legal", as you say.
They are still mathematically allowed, albeit not in standard form.
Fun fact: nowadays roman numerals are to be read almost always as ordinal numbers. Years were treated as such, and year 2000 should be year 2000th. That's why the first year in the third (ordinal!) millennium is the two thousand and FIRST year. And that's why it makes no sense to speak about year 0.
Weird bit about fractions being sort of base 12 - there are some indications that fractions as low as 1/1728 were used - while the natural numbers are sort of in base 10.
Blame the thirds.
My problem with it is mostly like your example of XVIXIII, because it can be understood as
XVI XIII or 10+5+1 10+1+1+1 (16, 13)
alternatively
XV IX III or 10+5 10-1 1+1+1 (15, 9, 3)
or if you stretch it
X VIX III 10 10-(5+1) 1+1+1 (10, 4, 3)
With knowledge of the system it can be worked out, without it, it's just confusing.
Heck, even the chinese numeral characters I find much easier to handle:
零 0
一 1
二 2
三 3
四 4
五 5
六 6
七 7
八 8
九 9
十 10
十一 11 (10+1)
十二 12 (10+2)
…
二十 20 (2×10)
二十一 21 (2×10+1)
百 100
千 1000
万 1 0000
億 1 0000 0000
兆 1 0000 0000 0000
Most of those folks have caught up with hindu numerals for everyone's convenience too. They still like to space out by 4 digits as opposed to the 3 digits spacing common elsewhere.
Japanese*
@@elchile336 japanese literally got their kanji numeral system from the chinese
XVIXIII is *not* standard form and is not even mathematically valid like MMMIM. No properly-programmed Roman numeral converter will ever output something like XVIXIII, and many may not even except that as an input. Even with your Chinese-numeral example, wouldn't it be weird to write 1613 as 十六十三?
D being "didnt remember 500 was a D" is the most accurate description of how everyone remembers it bahaha
I absolutely agree with this video. No matter how much I love the Roman Numerals as a way cooler vintage equivalent of Arabic Numerals... It is undeniable that they are way harder and more annoying to use, more limited and generally not ideal for arithmetics.
I definitely didn't know that you can write fractions with Roman Numerals, nor did I know there was a simpler way to write giant numbers like 100000, which I counted to be the biggest problem of Roman Numerals, as to write 100000, you'd need to write... _clears throat_ *MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM*
(You get the point...)
Yeah. They're fun and interesting but generally not as practical as Arabic numerals.
So when Homer Simpson says MMMMMMMM donuts he's just specifying quantity. I never realised that before...
If you look at pictures of a Roman pocket abacus, you'll see that it has fraction buttons at the right-hand side, marked "S" etc.
So, when a microwave says MMMMMMMM it's just specifying how intense it'll beep in decibels. I never realised that before...
2:42 What5 about IM?
As we add lines on top of the M, it was no use how big it is if you add more lines. Now we had to add Roman Numeral on the left of it (fractions not permitted).
woah only 1,000 views??? this is a great video, you deserve more haha
Thanks! Hope more will come soon!
@@BlenderTimer Vinculum is useful as we can write 100,000 as C with a line over it instead of MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
@@SushanthEmpire52YT Indeed!
@@SushanthEmpire52YT man you really wrote *EXACTLY 100 M'S*
@@mohammedyuan8213 yeah..
this is onw of those videos you have no idea why you clicked on it but you are glad you did
LOL🤣
One thing which is confusing is that clocks with roman numerals use IIII instead of IV.
No?
@@shardtheduraludon Some of them do.
@@Alaryk111 ones that are made incorrectly? maybe?
Yeah, some do some don't. It's not really incorrect vs correct. It's more the preference of who made it.
See my reply above. That custom was started in the Middle Ages when clock faces first appeared (the Romans used sundials).
If they used IV they would have to make another V for every clock. They already used a lot of I's so it was simpler to just use IIII. I's were easier to make than V's..
I used them as chapter numbers in "Diamond Dragons" (series). 🙂 I don't know how many books I've seen which do this, but it definitely lends a different feel to the work as soon as you see the ToC.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
4:15 3 "Point..." **THREES INTESIFIES**
Imagine if Arabic numerals were used in the same direction as they wrote their words and we adopted that convention making our numbers in the reverse direction of our righting. If you think Roman numerals are an odd combination of other numbers, you should check out the French numerals!
This channel is definitely going to blow up..
that means i can brag about being subbed before 15k
jk
Thanks for the fractions
New knowledge 👌
You're welcome!😄
Someone: "Take that L!"
Me: "You want me hold 500?"
Even today, after over 20 years of knowing Roman numerals, it still greatly bothers me to see clocks that use Roman numerals to incorrectly use IIII instead of the correct IV.
Also, although subtraction was generally accepted, IV on its own was considered blasphemous as it referred to the king of gods, so IIII was retained.
4:16 1/3 in decimal isn't 3 point never mind, it's 3 point 3 going to Hell and beyond, as that's where the final digit of the fraction can be found
5:23 mmmmmm, monke
v̅i̅, monke
Yo didn't expect to see you here
When typing, you can use lowercase x instead of X_ (the line is on top, that's why lowercases are used.)
One other issue is fraction representative (Fractiosentitivity)
Because roman numerals uses 6÷12
1÷3 or 3÷4 would be useless
But E for 1/3, E- for 2/3, E(2) for 2/6, E(3) for 4/12
T for 1/4, S: for 2/4 T- for 3/4, T/ for 6/8
just leaving a comment here b4 this channel blows uo
As what I know to have 97 As XCVII and not XIIICX. The max is 3 And If we know what we do. What now is a lot of M,s
"In the time of Esther." Wow, did not expect such a culture specific time indicator haha
Which Software you are using for Animation? Is It Blender?
By the way Love You content its amazing
Yep! I use Blender.
Thanks!
@@BlenderTimer so thats why ur name is "Blender"Timer
@@cKoruss Yes. (ish)
what is the : When writing out a number of three or more digits, the word and is not necessary. However, use the word and to express any decimal points that may accompany these numbers.
this is google
Doing algebra with Roman numerals would have been a pain in the arse.
The Roman numerals do have one advantage to Arabic in that it's easy to see a numbers relation to the next place value making it a little easier to add or subtract. For example ix + i =x, vii -ii = v and so on. It was how I learned addition as a kid, breaking it down into easier parts and then adding it all together at the end
Yeah but good luck doing 7-4
vii - iv =....
@@freddiesimmons1394 it's really easy when you remember subtracting from a negative is adding a positive. Here vii-iv=(5+2)-(5-1)=(5+2)+(-5+1)=(2)+(1)=iii
@@jeffthemagicalpufferfishco9006 ...I know how to add and subtract with negative numbers. I'm saying it's nowhere near as intuitive as your examples that included no borrowing, carrying, or no negative numbers.
@@freddiesimmons1394It does kinda work, it's like building with numbers. Vii-iV, take V from Vii and add an i. The thing is adding and subtracting simple numbers is already so intuitive that you don't really need a system.
you sure it's great for addition? CDIX + MIV = MCDXIII
substraction maybe? CD - IX = CCCXCI
want to try multiplication? XCIV * VIII = DCCLII
doubtless, it's a lot easier than in arabic numbers.
How did they calculate complex engineering like the Partenon, for example?
They didn't. LOL