7 ms·
> The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. Using "IIII" instead of "IV" isn't even necessarily wrong. Rome was a big empire with a widely-distribut
by kibwen 3y ago
> The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals.
Using "IIII" instead of "IV" isn't even necessarily wrong. Rome was a big empire with a widely-distributed populace that lasted for a thousand years. The usage of numerals changed over time and according to context:
"While subtractive notation for 4, 40 and 400 (IV, XL and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times, additive notation to represent these numbers (IIII, XXXX and CCCC)[9] continued to be used, including in compound numbers like 24 (XXIIII),[10] 74 (LXXIIII),[11] and 490 (CCCCLXXXX).[12] The additive forms for 9, 90, and 900 (VIIII,[9] LXXXX,[13] and DCCCC[14]) have also been used, although less often. The two conventions could be mixed in the same document or inscription, even in the same numeral. For example, on the numbered gates to the Colosseum, IIII is systematically used instead of IV, but subtractive notation is used for XL; consequently, gate 44 is labelled XLIIII."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Origin
As for clock faces, the explanation that I always heard was that it simplified the manufacturing process to use IIII rather than IV; something about making better use of materials to have one fewer V and one more I.
- Waterluvian 3y agoI can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.
- withinboredom 3y agoI guess it depends on how hard it is to make a V vs. an I. For all we know, V's are more expensive.
- fsckboy 3y agothe point is that you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times and get what you need for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII this is not for modern manufacturing of millions, it's for one at a time clockmaking in a little shop, for which it's a pretty efficient way to accomplish the task and doesn't require keeping an inventory
- tadfisher 3y agoWouldn't that also work with IXIVIII on the die? How do you print IX with yours? An improvement would be IXIVIII actually, then all combinations can be located in that string.
- nwiswell 3y ago> How do you print IX with yours? You rotate XI 180 degrees.
- maratc 3y agoIn most serif typefaces, one of the glyphs is significantly thicker than the other, and they don't meet exactly at 50% height. If one rotates the letter X 180 degrees, it would look out of place. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Capitalis_monumentalis_X.SVG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Capitali...
- froh 3y agothere is no XI in XVIIIII though ah nvadr spells it out: VIIIIX https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39722131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39722131
- TylerE 3y agoNo, because you need a 5th V for IV. Adding a V is more overhead than adding a I, and will give you 3 V's you have no use for.
- Waterluvian 3y agoOh that’s clever!
- a1369209993 3y ago> you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times To be a bit more explicit, you use the the die four (4) times, and get 4 Xs, 4 Vs, and 4*IIIII = 20 Is, which is exactly right for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII. Using IV would mean a 5 Vs, but only 4 Xs, and 17 Is, so you couldn't cut a full set with a single die without using a much larger die (= more work making and using the die) or having extra pieces (= wasted material) left over.
- swman 3y agoDang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
- aragilar 3y ago2 thousand if you also include the eastern empire.
- morcus 3y agoIf you consider the so-called Byzantines to be Romans (and you should, for lots of reasons), the Roman state was at least a notable regional power all the way from the mid 300s BCE all the way up to 1204 - that's around 1500 years. And it existed for a few hundred years more on either end. Truly boggles the mind.
- cncovyvysi 3y agoFound the gold player with conq knowledge
- schoen 3y agoI remember someone (maybe Tamim Ansary?) writing that states that claimed to be the direct successor of the Roman Empire existed until 1922, at least in the sense that the Ottoman Empire used some titles and administrative terminology of the Byzantine Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#State_organisation_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_the_Ottoman... > After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmed II, Ottoman sultans came to regard themselves as the successors of the Roman Empire, hence their occasional use of the titles caesar (قیصر qayser) of Rûm, and emperor, as well as the caliph of Islam. A more direct name claim would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum which lasted until 1308. A different later tradition of claiming to be the Roman emperor is the Holy Roman Empire's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire which used that term after a break of several centuries (so not very continuously with the ancient Roman Empire). But Germans then claimed to be Roman emperors (in some sense) until 1806! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor These aren't as continuous with the ancient Roman empire as the Byzantines, but it's still pretty astonishing to think that various monarchs were still claiming to be (in at least a theoretical legal sense) Roman emperors during the 1800s and 1900s.
- tempestn 3y agoOne cool thing about the purely additive notation is that you can then add numbers together by just gathering up all their characters, sorting largest to smallest, and combining any groups of 5 or more.
- tempestn 3y agoOr in one step, by combining them from smallest to largest, combining and carrying as you go.
- chacham15 3y agoIn the marketplace it was difficult to quickly discriminate between IIII and III as compared with II and III. When you get to 4, you have to start counting whereas with 3 or fewer, you can tell how many there are at a glance. That being said, this change was something that happened later in its history and as mentioned was more heavily done in specific use cases.
- vitus 3y agoI recall seeing IIII in my Cicero class and expressing confusion, but being informed by the professor that said style was more common historically. The Wikipedia citation for 9 is Commentarii de bello Gallico (Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War), which interestingly comes from around the same timeframe (first century BC, toward the end of the Roman Republic).