Roman Numerals---Three Different Answers

[george9252]

Got it!

GC

----- Original Message -----
From: Dominik Wujastyk <ucgadkw at UCL.AC.UK>
To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Roman Numerals---Three Different Answers


> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, george9252 wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Aargh.  That is a real old chestnut.  It all depends on what you are used
> to, and what you are doing.
>
>         I + II = III
> or
>         CXI + IX = CXX
>
> are certainly simpler than
>
>         1 + 2 = 3
> or
>         111 + 9 = 120
>
> There are other operations which make me blench in Roman, which I am very
> used to doing in Hindu-Arabic.  But the main point is that all these
> systems are and were embedded in educational systems which interpreted
> them and made them usable.  Their "ease" "efficiency" etc. can only be
> judged (if at all) by examining the ... [drum roll] social context of
> their use.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
> --
> Dominik Wujastyk
> Founder, INDOLOGY list