From: Michel Bottin (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 17 2010 - 17:14:36 CST
Le 17/02/10 23:16, John H. Jenkins a écrit :
> The Roman numerals are there for the sake of compatibility with older standards only and their use should be avoided. It's better to simply build the Roman numerals you want to use out of the appropriate Latin letters.
But then we lack the numeric order. For example for the numbers 1-24,
30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 the collating sequence of the Latin
C, I, II, III, IV, IX, L, LX, LXX, LXXX, M, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XC, XI,
XII, XIII, XIV, XIX, XL, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII,
and then for the kings of France, "Louis IX" (Saint Louis) precede
"Louis V" and an hypothetic "Louis XIX" would have preceded "Louis XIV"!
I understand the restriction of use for compatibility, but I think that
we really lack at least, the following figures necessaries to write
every roman numeral:
I, II, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XL, L, XC, C, CM, M
encoded each as a unique character in a continuous sequence, with
corresponding numeric properties.
> On Feb 17, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Sándor Halász wrote:
>> You have Roman numerals beginning at (decimal) 8544 and 8560, but each only twelve. Are there elsewhere Roman numerals through 24? (I find it hard to search your website.) Note that the Italians already in the 14ht century built tower clocks with Roman numerals from I through XXIIII (with XVIII at the top, because they began the day at sunset).
> John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 17 2010 - 17:18:30 CST