How did the Romans manage without a concept of the number zero? If they needed to count backwards for any reason, what did they think came after 1? And what about simple arithmetic where often the end digit is 0?
2007-02-27 04:09:41 · 3 answers · asked by Duffer 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
According to the Encyclopedia Americana, the Romans used a symbol that looks like a backward "C" (which was called an apostrophus) to represent large numbers. (As this symbol cannot be reproduced on our present-day keyboard, I'll use a ">" for this symbol in what follows.) For example, before they used "M" (which probably came from their word "mille," meaning a thousand) they used "CI>" for 1000 and "I>" (which eventually became "D") for 500. Then CCI>> meant 10,000 and CCCI>>> meant 100,000, and so on; I>> meant 5000, I>>> meant 50,000, etc. Sometimes (especially in later Latin) a bar, called a vinculum, was placed over a symbol to denote multiplication by 1000; so V with a bar over it meant 5000, etc. There was no symbol for zero, but because the Roman notation does not use place holders there really wasn't a need: one simply used a word like "nihil" (meaning "nothing") or "nullus" (meaning "none").
2007-02-27 04:24:31 · answer #1 · answered by uknative 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You confuse the 'concept' with the 'symbol'. They were perfectly able to say 'nothing' or 'nullus' and therefore were fully aware of the concept . They just didn't write it down in symbolic form, presumably finding no need so to do.
2007-02-27 05:12:42 · answer #2 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
who knows but didt they do well wot wot
2007-02-27 04:20:19 · answer #3 · answered by Ally S 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋