“The numerals for 4 (IV) and 9 (IX) are written using subtractive notation, where the smaller symbol (I) is subtracted from the larger one (V, or X), thus avoiding the clumsier IIII and VIIII. Subtractive notation is also used for 40 (XL), 90 (XC), 400 (CD) and 900 (CM). These are the only subtractive forms in standard use.
[…]
While subtractive notation for 4, 40, and 400 (IV, XL, and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times [citation needed], additive notation to represent these numbers (IIII, XXXX, and CCCC) very frequently continued to be used, including in compound numbers like 24 (XXIIII), 74 (LXXIIII), and 490 (CCCCLXXXX).[12] The additive forms for 9, 90, and 900 (VIIII,[9] LXXXX, and DCCCC) have also been used, although less often“
Mind you, 0 needs inventing or what happens between 1 and -1 ... oh and -1 needs defining too, whatever that nonsense is!
People haven't somehow magically become cleverer over the recent millennia. We just have some fancier tools these days. I'm sure if you gave a few Romans enough wine and the starting point of "Quid CDI significat?" then you would probably get a decent discussion.
And CDI plans better than those in year MMXXV.
MMDCCLXXVIII AVC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_urbe_condita
MMXXV is a legitimate usage of Roman numerals, but CDI is unauthorized
Certainly in modern use CDI is “a hundred less than five hundred, plus one”, or 401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Standard_form:
“The numerals for 4 (IV) and 9 (IX) are written using subtractive notation, where the smaller symbol (I) is subtracted from the larger one (V, or X), thus avoiding the clumsier IIII and VIIII. Subtractive notation is also used for 40 (XL), 90 (XC), 400 (CD) and 900 (CM). These are the only subtractive forms in standard use.
[…]
While subtractive notation for 4, 40, and 400 (IV, XL, and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times [citation needed], additive notation to represent these numbers (IIII, XXXX, and CCCC) very frequently continued to be used, including in compound numbers like 24 (XXIIII), 74 (LXXIIII), and 490 (CCCCLXXXX).[12] The additive forms for 9, 90, and 900 (VIIII,[9] LXXXX, and DCCCC) have also been used, although less often“
1 reply →
-49?
Mind you, 0 needs inventing or what happens between 1 and -1 ... oh and -1 needs defining too, whatever that nonsense is!
People haven't somehow magically become cleverer over the recent millennia. We just have some fancier tools these days. I'm sure if you gave a few Romans enough wine and the starting point of "Quid CDI significat?" then you would probably get a decent discussion.
good selection of conscripts