System of digits in Mathcad

[ValeryOchkov]

Mike Armstrong wrote (see http://communities.ptc.com/message/238943😞

I went there (Burma) about two years ago for a site visit for a pipeline installation contract we won and to say the client was challenging, would be an understatement.

Mike, can you transtate it (Prime for Burma):

[MikeArmstrong]

Not a chance - I was only there a couple of weeks

[Werner_E]

584 + 237 = 821

Prime for Burma sure will transform Prime into a PTC sales hit, I guess 😉

[ValeryOchkov]

Werner Exinger wrote:

584 + 237 = 821

Yes - see one Toolbar for Burma:

[ValeryOchkov]

Mathcad for Rome:

[dschenken]

In the next release IIII will be corrected to IV.

A Roman soldier goes into a bar and holds up two fingers and says "Five beers, please."

[ValeryOchkov]

David Schenken wrote:

In the next release IIII will be corrected to IV

... and N as 0.- it will be a retro Mathcad.

PS

I have written in school not 04.04.1964 (as now) but 4/IV-1964

And one more from my scool

Мы Dарим Сочные Lимоны, Хватит Vсем Iх.

Cash mashines use roman numbers

7861 rub= 5000+1000+1000+500+100+100+100+50+10+1

Roman - 7: M D C L X V I

USA - 7: 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 $

EU - 7: 500 200 100 50 20 10 5 Euro

USSR - 7: 100 50 25 10 5 3 1 rub

[ValeryOchkov]

A Roman soldier goes into a bar and holds up two fingers and says "Veni, vidi, vici, please".

Do you know what hr wanted?

[ValeryOchkov]

We can use Excel component for this task:

[Werner_E]

IMHO IIV and IIIX are not valid Roman numbers, while IV but also IIII both are.

If we want to be very subtle then there is no such thing as a Roman number. They used the same natural numbers as we do. What is usually meant is the representation of a natural number by Roman numerals.

I also think that IC isn't valid for 99. I am not sure about that, though. But on the other hand, the subtraction shortcut hardly ever was used by the Romans themselves but rather was introduced in Europe much later at the time of printing presss. You also usually still have IIII at clock faces and not IV. So there may be no right and wrong concerning IC anyway, but to the best of my knowledge there never was more than just 1 lower valued symbol to the left of a numeral allowed, or better said, used.

EDIT: I am pretty convinced now that IC is also invalid. If you presume the reason for the subtraction shortcut is not to minimize numerals but to avoid having to repeat one sysmbol four times and if we demand that the representation of any number should be unique, there would only be six shortcuts allowed: IV, IX, XL, XC, CD and CM. The Romans themselves on the other were not so tricky, picky and accurate, as guessopedia tells us.

[ValeryOchkov]

Werner Exinger wrote:

IMHO IIV and IIIX are not valid Roman numbers, while IV but also IIII both are.

I have especially input wrong Roman number to show possible error in Excel.

Correct function is here http://twt.mpei.ac.ru/MCS/Worksheets/Romam-Arabian-Number.xmcd

[dschenken]

" the subtraction shortcut hardly ever was used by the Romans themselves but rather was introduced in Europe much later at the time of printing presss."

That's probably true. I, myself, was too young to remember the change. It is nice when those who were there tell of it.

[ValeryOchkov]

Werner Exinger wrote
You also usually still have IIII at clock faces and not IV.

Only this object shows us correct Roman numbers [and correct [world] time]

not this

[Werner_E]

We sure can find examples of clockfaces for both notations.

See below some from St. Stephans in Vienna, Rolex and the last ones from Café Ziferblat (ziferblat.net) in Moscow, where you don't pay for the coffee but for the time you stay - there is also one in London.

[ValeryOchkov]

I see Roman numbers... on my dacha.

It is one case when the usung (write on wood) Roman numbers is more simply then the using Arabian numbers.