Roman Numerals---Three Different Answers

[george9252]

" ... not that this would be in any way related to Indology "

Well, doesn't it show that the Hindu ("Arabic") numeral system is, at least
in this respect, much more efficient (and more clear) than the Roman and the
Egyptian systems?

George Cronk
Philosophy & Religion
Bergen Community College (NJ)

----- Original Message -----
From: birgit kellner <birgit.kellner at UNIVIE.AC.AT>
To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Roman Numerals---Three Different Answers


> Katharina Kupfer wrote:
>
> > Certainly no, correct is:
> > CMDCCCVI
> >
> > Kailash Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >> The following are three different replies to my question as to how
> >> Romans
> >> wrote 986!!!
> >>
> >> CMIICVI
> >>
> >> CMDCCCVI
> >>
> >> CMVCCCVI
> >>
> >> Was it possible to write the same number in three different ways?
> >>
> >
>
> No, but here's a fourth, and unless I've left my mind at home, this
> should now be the correct one - the number "986" is correctly written as
> CMLXXXVI, to be resolved as "nine hundred" (CM) plus "fifty" (L) plus
> "thirty" (XXX) plus "five" (V) plus "one" (I). There seems to be a
> tendency to confuse fifty (L) with five hundred (D) or five (V).
>
> ... not that this would be in any way related to Indology ...
>
> regards,
> --
> Birgit Kellner
> Institut f. Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde / Institute for Tibetan and
> Buddhist Studies
> Universitaet Wien / Vienna University