Talk:Roman numerals

message: "The largest number that can be represented in this manner is 3,999 (MMMCMXCIX), but this is sufficient for the values for which Roman numerals are commonly used today, such as year numbers:" - Is there year 4000 problem. Because largest Roman numeral is MMMCMXCIX or 3999, ignoring vinculum. But vinculum can't be properly displayed on screen. Epochalypse2038 (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a Y5k problem!  I'd suggest waiting until MMMMCMXC before bringing this up again, then you can start the international panic going. ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: MMMM breaks the rule "No more than three repeating letters". Epochalypse2038 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See Roman_numerals#Other_additive_forms.  There are no "rules", only conventions. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear!! This is hardly a pressing problem, even assuming that we're still likely to be numbering years in the same sequence over the next two or three millennia, or for that matter still using Roman Numerals for doing so! Vinculum is irrelevant in the context of current usage of RNs anyway, but if it were otherwise it would be simple enough to standardise a method of ensuring its standard representation "on the screen". To paraphrase Martin of Sheffield's edit there are no prescriptive rules "governing" the use of RNs in any case. But PLEASE do not reopen that can of worms! Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, this time I'm not the one who brought it up. Anyway OP, you're correct in that vinculums are difficult (although not impossible) to use for computer inputs. Fortunately, there's an alternative, which is to apply parentheses in place of vinculums, so that 4,000 or MMMM would become (IV). As another example, 6,986 would be (VI)CMLXXXVI. I've seen sources that repeat vinculums, presumably up to three times (since it becomes difficult for the eye to distinguish after three repetitions); and in fact, the related apostrophus is stated by the article to have a 3x limit. Thus, the upper limit for RNs would be 4 trillion minus 1, or (((MMMCMXCIX)))((CMXCIX))(CMXCIX)CMXCIX, or 3,999,999,999,999. Alternatively, you could put (((MMMM))) or 4 trillion as the highest value, since that's more aesthetically pleasing. Either way, that gives you plenty of room to work with. Xcalibur (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right! after all the "system" has already been through many changes. But the real point is that even the standard "maximum Roman numeral" doesn't overflow for any use to which we currently put this archaic and long obsolete system to for another couple of millennia. Hopefully that's even enough time for the Americans to "go metric" lol Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But why use the irrational decimal system?  It would be far better to standardise on base sixteen in the long run.  It makes for a far simpler interface with cyber. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT'S an idea! 1,976 years is a long time for us to assume that ANY human "civilisation" will survive, much less anything we would recognise. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (OT) Always remember that there are 10 sorts of individuals – those that understand binary and those that don't. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Twelve and sixteen are excellent choices for base numbers. As for measurement, I don't think we'll switch over, metric will remain in a secondary role, with imperial/standard as primary, there are many reasons for this which I won't get into. Finally, two millennia is plenty of time to figure out a keyboard shortcut for adding vinculums if one is eventually needed, in the meantime, there's parentheses as I explained above. Xcalibur (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

text: o 103.209.196.225 (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soundofmusicals 103.209.196.225 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 4000 Problem 

message: The original heading (Standard form) goes much better with the wording of the previous section - and also with our philosophy of "describing" rather than "mandating" a "usual" form that is accepted and understood (more or less) everywhere. Under the following heading we group all "variant" forms that "differ from the standard described above" - with a minimum of comment - just mentioning that they have "occurred" (been used at some time or period in a document or inscription). This kind of clarity is incompatible with any kind of attempt to tie down the inconsistencies of historical usage to a set of "rules" - which is why we ended up as we did. Very relieved that the attempt to go back to these was so promptly reverted by its proposer! Well done by the way. Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you were wondering, I was creating a permalink for the rules content, since I've made further adjustments & improvements since the controversy. I had no intention of stirring up any more trouble than I have already. As for the section title (Standard form vs Roman numeric system), I just wanted to try out an alternative, but I can see where your use of "Standard form" fits with the existing content, such as Other forms. Another reason is that I wanted to use that title for my own content, but that's not a conflict, given the consensus. As I said above, I never would've been so stubborn if you had just pointed out that the rules are too technical for this article. Anyway, hopefully my recent edits were not a big deal. Xcalibur (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject heading change 

message: I'm new so I can't edit but there is a spelling error where the page says 'the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) mean "18 century"' instead of the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) meaning "18 century".
If someone could edit this that would be great Taftaloka (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mean" is correct (to take a simpler construction "for example, A means B") but yes, a construction with "meaning" would be correct too ("for example, A, meaning B" or "for example, A (meaning B)"). I've switched to "for". NebY (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Although it doesn't really matter, I was also wondering about why the article does not use the Unicode Roman Numerals and instead opts for keyboard characters. (for exampleⅩⅧ instead of Latin characters XVIII) Taftaloka (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See Roman numerals#Unicode and Talk:Roman numerals/Archive 10#Using Unicode points for numerals?. NebY (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: * The notation  for 499 or  for 999 is used in crossword puzzles.
I removed this bit, because (a) it is not clear what it means. Clues give words, not numbers, so on the face of it, this is backwards; (b) crossword setters play games with language, so unless extremely clear and significant these games do not belong here. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing some crossword puzzle had the clue "499" and the answer was "ID", and same for IM. However I think there has to be a link to the crossword puzzle as a reference for this information to stay. It is mildly interesting in that, along with the Excel thing, shows how common the "anything subtracts" idea is in modern times. Spitzak (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed crossword puzzle use 

message: Opening a question regarding linking Roman Numerals with sequences, and the Wikipedia article Sequences. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What, or where, is your question? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequences