Talk:Roman numerals/Decode: Difference between revisions

m
→‎Roman numeral numbers: added whitespace, corrected some typos and misspellings.
(→‎Roman numeral, returning an integer: When people say "Roman numerals"...)
m (→‎Roman numeral numbers: added whitespace, corrected some typos and misspellings.)
Line 4:
==Roman numeral numbers==
 
I feel that any legal Roman numeral number (such as <tt> IIII </tt> should be converted correctelycorrectly and without error. The Romans started using <tt>&nbsp; '''IV''' </tt>&nbsp; (and others) &nbsp; after they realized the praticablenesspracticability of shortening their numbers, especially those having <tt>&nbsp; 8s'''8'''s </tt>&nbsp; in them; &nbsp; easily justified when chiseling those numbers in stone or scribing them in wet clay.
<br>Also, numbers such as <tt> IIXX </tt> should also be converted correctly, as they do appear on old structures and tombstones. Even though modern rules say such a construct is invalid, the number still has an equivalent decimal number. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 03:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 
FurthermoreAlso, thenumbers Latinsuch wordas for&nbsp; '''eighteenIIXX''' is&nbsp; '''duodeviginti'''should whichalso literallybe meansconverted '''two-from-twenty'''correctly, oras '''IIXX'''they do appear on old structures and tombstones. &nbsp; Even though modern rules say such a construct may be invalid, the number still has an equivalent decimal number. &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 2103:3453, 925 JulyApril 2012 (UTC)
 
Furthermore, the Latin word for &nbsp; '''eighteen''' &nbsp; is &nbsp; '''duodeviginti''' &nbsp; which literally means &nbsp; '''two-from-twenty''', &nbsp; or in Roman numbers; &nbsp; '''IIXX'''. &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 
==asking for help==