The biggest Roman number is M being 1000.
This is too big for the Romans.
2006-07-02 11:27:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Thermo 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Interesting Question!
Brings a shock to me, not a scholar, but merely a well-educated layman, that teaches me something.
You say "decimal no." Do you mean : >0.99998698885454< ?
If so, the shock to me is that Romans did not, from anywhere I've read, even have decimals or fractions. They thought in whole-number units.
But if you put this into ARABIC numerals, with commas as we do it, that number looks like this:
999,986,988,895,454
Also as far as I've seen, their highest number was M, for 1,000 . D. was 500; and C was 100; 50 was L; X was 10
V. was 5; and 1 was I.
So you would need to write
"M" 999,869,988,895 times,
-which I'm not gonna do,- and then add >"CCCCLIV"<(454)
or CDLIV (also 454)
or add > CCCCLIIII<
or CDLIIII.
So there are four ways to do that.
I'm tired. Answer is too long, but I think I covered it.
See why we don't use roman numerals? See why the Arabic system, which included zeroes
(Romans had no cipher), is so superior?
expl.......
I believe "4" could be written either as IIII, or they used a shortcut,
by putting I before V, meaning "5-1", which is 4.
When a smaller letter/ number appeared BEFORE a bigger one, then that indicated a subtraction.
2006-07-01 20:10:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by DinDjinn 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can't...
The biggest Roman Numeral is ONE MILLION , letter M with a dash above it:
_
M
999 Trillions...... is way too high no matter how many M's the system could allow you to put in sequence....(Maximun 4)
And besides they didn't have the figure of decimal numbers, just round ones....
Where is the point to the decimal?
2006-07-01 20:07:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by CHISPITA 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sorry, the conversion site I use doesn't allow numbers that high.
Here's the page that shows the numerals; you can do your own decimal conversion:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/roman_numerals_advanced.htm
2006-07-01 19:53:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Julian calendar, Latin: Dies Veneris xxiv Maius MMVIII In Roman type, that's extra complicated: DIES VENERIS A.D. IX KAL. IVN. MMDCCLXI A.U.C. As somebody else pronounced, some dates have been expressed as dates till now yet another date, so twenty fourth might will become 9 (IX) till now the Kalends (KAL) of June (IVN). AUC (ab urbe condita) counts the years from the beginning up of Rome you are going to be able to discover human beings turning up on the incorrect date in case you convey the date interior the Roman way!
2016-12-10 03:27:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by suire 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
For large numbers 2 thousand and above , a bar is placed above a base numeral to indicate multiplication by 1000 ( -) ..and For very large numbers (five million and above), there is no standard format, although sometimes a double bar or underline is used to indicate multiplication by 1,000,000.for example
IV = 4 000 000
¯¯
So to represent the number 999986988895454 we can use under lines and over lines to gain this number as I think..
________
–––––––– ––––––––– __________
CM XC VI CM LXXX VI CM LXXX VIII DCCC XC V CD L IV
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Remark : THE 3rd BAR ABOVE IS ON (DCCC XC V) NOT ON(CM LXXXV III).
I do think it's the right answer ... please tell me it is no
Yahoo Id : mabuhelwa
thank u
2006-07-01 22:43:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by M. Abuhelwa 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
roman numerals doesn't have decimal points.
2006-07-01 19:49:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by catsup 4
·
0⤊
0⤋