TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

How Did Anyone Do Math in Roman Numerals?

188 点作者 iamjeff将近 8 年前

18 条评论

WalterBright将近 8 年前
It&#x27;s interesting how the notation used can encourage or retard progress. For example, Leibniz&#x27;s calculus notation was vastly superior to Newton&#x27;s, and calculus theory advanced much more quickly where Leibniz&#x27;s notation was used.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Leibniz%27s_notation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Leibniz%27s_notation</a>
评论 #14820234 未加载
评论 #14819505 未加载
评论 #14819523 未加载
评论 #14820670 未加载
评论 #14819587 未加载
评论 #14819582 未加载
评论 #14821613 未加载
评论 #14820526 未加载
zw123456将近 8 年前
I always thought that roman numerals would be a simpler way to do basic arithmetic and might lend itself more to simple commerce. For example: III represents 3 things, so III + II = IIIII For simple commerce application that is simpler, I just have to then remember that IIIII = V, and VV = X and XXXXX = L, LL = C. Armed with just those simple rules I could probably get by in the market place in Rome.<p>With Arabic numbers, I have to learn that 1 is one thing, 2 represents 2 things, 3 represents 3 things and so on. Then I have to remember that 2 + 2 = 4, and 3 + 2 = 5, there is more memorization required.<p>Where Roman Numerals for someone with little or no education could get by in the market square with some simple rules and even use twigs as a primitive calculator. It is not until you get to much more complex ideas that the Arabic notation wins out.<p>So perhaps, different notations lend themselves better or worse depending on the application ?<p>Just some random thoughts that this very interesting post brought to mind.
评论 #14822370 未加载
评论 #14823107 未加载
评论 #14821349 未加载
评论 #14821631 未加载
评论 #14823468 未加载
评论 #14821585 未加载
评论 #14821215 未加载
评论 #14821606 未加载
ewanm89将近 8 年前
Okay so the article is wrong about some points. We have evidence for both IIII and IV notation in classic roman archeological finds. The obvious example is the entrance fee doors around the colliseum in Rome, they&#x27;re are engraved with numbers, in both forms of notation.<p>Seriously I figured they used abacus for everything they just figured out the notation to write it down in at the end some would convert to the if notation while others would not.
评论 #14819418 未加载
评论 #14819298 未加载
评论 #14822815 未加载
flipp3r将近 8 年前
&gt; the Romans greatly preferred the simpler IIII to IV, XXXX to XL, and so on. (The IIII-for-4 notation survives today on the faces of clocks.)<p><i>looks at watch</i><p>Well, damn, it&#x27;s IIII. However my watch does use IX over VIIII, what&#x27;s up with that?
评论 #14819768 未加载
评论 #14820729 未加载
interlocutor将近 8 年前
Fun fact: What is known as &quot;arabic numerals&quot; in the west is known as &quot;indian numerals&quot; in middle-eastern countries. That&#x27;s because it came from India. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93A...</a>
评论 #14823620 未加载
oaktowner将近 8 年前
You know what I&#x27;ve always wondered? How did they <i>pronounce</i> each number? I mean, I read it &quot;eye, eye-eye, eye-eye-eye, eye-vee, vee, vee-eye.&quot;<p>But of course, there&#x27;s no way they actually <i>said</i> it that way.<p>Right? Right??
评论 #14821836 未加载
评论 #14821234 未加载
评论 #14821210 未加载
thunderbong将近 8 年前
I had, for some reason, never thought of that directly. Although I do remember some joke on arithmetics in one of the Asterix comic books.<p>But reading this article and trying out a few things, I found it was great fun!
评论 #14819619 未加载
hrehhf将近 8 年前
Off topic rant:<p>It bugs me when people mix our standard numerals with Roman numerals, such as 12MM to mean twelve million. They are different numerals and the meaning is not defined when they are used together.<p>And Roman numerals are not like SI suffixes, meaning they are not multiplicative; Roman numerals are additive, so MM is two thousand, not one million. Also, M is an SI suffix, so 12M means twelve million and 12MM just looks like a typo.<p>Obviously people do not use SI suffixes may not feel the same way, this is just my pet peeve because I use SI suffixes in science.
评论 #14823026 未加载
squid_ca将近 8 年前
Here&#x27;s the article on its own site: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.straightdope.com&#x2F;columns&#x2F;read&#x2F;3330&#x2F;how-did-anyone-do-math-in-roman-numerals" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.straightdope.com&#x2F;columns&#x2F;read&#x2F;3330&#x2F;how-did-anyone...</a>
MichaelBurge将近 8 年前
In 2017 we just do:<p><pre><code> $ perl6 -e &#x27;say Ⅻ &#x2F; Ⅲ&#x27; 4</code></pre>
评论 #14819669 未加载
maxxxxx将近 8 年前
Since we have a lot of math experts here I thought I&#x27;d ask a question I was always wondering about: Is there an inherent advantage or disadvantage to using the decimal system as we do? Somehow I think octal or hexadecimal would be easier but I am not sure.
评论 #14819946 未加载
评论 #14820346 未加载
评论 #14819806 未加载
评论 #14819919 未加载
评论 #14822163 未加载
评论 #14820024 未加载
barking将近 8 年前
The greeks used the method on this page (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.trottermath.net&#x2F;algebra&#x2F;multsqs.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.trottermath.net&#x2F;algebra&#x2F;multsqs.html</a>) to do multiplication so I suppose the romans did too.
aphextron将近 8 年前
Perhaps this is why there were really no Roman mathematicians. For how much they admired and emulated the Greeks, they themselves were never really able to contribute to math and science in the same way. Practically everything we think about today in western civilization in terms of Law, Architecture, Engineering, and Urban Planning comes directly from the Romans. Yet they never produced an Archimedes or a Pythagoras. Euclid remained the height of mathematical sophistication in the West through their entire reign until the rise of Arab&#x2F;Islamic mathematics in the 800s.
评论 #14823020 未加载
MayeulC将近 8 年前
The article is wrong on a couple of counts (for multiplication and division).<p>Here is a more complete one: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thonyc.wordpress.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;10&#x2F;the-widespread-and-persistent-myth-that-it-is-easier-to-multiply-and-divide-with-hindu-arabic-numerals-than-with-roman-ones&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thonyc.wordpress.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;10&#x2F;the-widespread-and-p...</a><p>(Surfaced on HN with <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13636277" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13636277</a> )
评论 #14819683 未加载
JadeNB将近 8 年前
For what it&#x27;s worth, you can find this material on the Straight Dope site itself; no need to go through the WCP site (which doesn&#x27;t let you read the article without Javascript). <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.straightdope.com&#x2F;columns&#x2F;read&#x2F;3330&#x2F;how-did-anyone-do-math-in-roman-numerals" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.straightdope.com&#x2F;columns&#x2F;read&#x2F;3330&#x2F;how-did-anyone...</a>
EGreg将近 8 年前
I heard they divided by two on one side and multiplied by the other, adding 1 where they needed.<p>In fact they did this in ancient Egypt too!<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mathnstuff.com&#x2F;math&#x2F;spoken&#x2F;here&#x2F;2class&#x2F;60&#x2F;egyptm.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mathnstuff.com&#x2F;math&#x2F;spoken&#x2F;here&#x2F;2class&#x2F;60&#x2F;egyptm....</a>
vok将近 8 年前
Claude Shannon created the THROBAC I to do this. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;synesthete&#x2F;2591624549" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;synesthete&#x2F;2591624549</a>
Garet_Jax将近 8 年前
Some aspects of &#x27;math&#x27; came along with arabic, but Roman Numerals work fine for their situation, at that time.<p>In conversation, it&#x27;s just the I-M&#x2F;0-1000 range for instance, learning how to notate that number is a different issue.<p>Notation is somewhat straight-forward: When you get to 4, the number undergoes a state change to &#x27;subtract from the next number, dropping everything behind it, and we&#x27;re in a new state so &quot;the&quot; number is changed to 5&#x27; so III becomes IV. Otherwise, just keep adding 1. That should work, adding to the previous rules as the state changes. Going to X leaves the V rules in place.<p>So it would be a XXXII-bit computer, for example.