Ping: Roman numeral scholars

21C · 03-02-2009, 07:06 PM

I just had a student ask what was the Roman numeral for 4000. I had to admit that I did not know the answer and I couldn't find an acceptable answer by Googling.

I know that 1000 is M and that larger numbers can be represented by a line above a letter - like V(bar) is 5000 and X(bar) is 10000. So 6000 should be V(bar)M and my best guess for 4000 would be MV(bar).

My Googling found MMMM (don't think so) and IV(bar) which initially sounded plausible until I realized that there is no such thing as I(bar).

I don't know if there is a definitive answer. Any thoughts?

cartman · 03-02-2009, 07:09 PM

From what I remember, 4000 was the cutoff to start using the bar, so I believe it is MMMM.

Mac Howard · 03-02-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21C

I just had a student ask what was the Roman numeral for 4000. I had to admit that I did not know the answer and I couldn't find an acceptable answer by Googling.

I know that 1000 is M and that larger numbers can be represented by a line above a letter - like V(bar) is 5000 and X(bar) is 10000. So 6000 should be V(bar)M and my best guess for 4000 would be MV(bar).

My Googling found MMMM (don't think so) and IV(bar) which initially sounded plausible until I realized that there is no such thing as I(bar).

I don't know if there is a definitive answer. Any thoughts?

I don't have the answer though I think that cartman is probably right but your post reminded me of a similar question from a few years back. It occurred in one of my daughter's Mental Maths homework exercises. The question was to turn 189 into Roman numerals. Nothing exceptional you might say but my daughter was only 8 at the time - this was an exercise for year 3 students! I recall thinking "what was in the mind of the person that set the curriculum for year 3 students when they decided that converting 189 into Roman numerals was something an eight year old should know?" But, astonishingly, she did it!

21C · 03-02-2009, 07:27 PM

I thought (and have always taught) that you were not supposed to have more than three of the same letters together.

Commo_Soldier · 03-02-2009, 07:29 PM

It appears IV(Bar over both) would be the correct way to label it.

Here is what I found....

from answers.com/roman_numerals.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Roman numerals

Top
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

System of representing numbers devised by the ancient Romans. The numbers are formed by combinations of the symbols I, V, X, L, C, D, and M, standing, respectively, for 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1,000 in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. A symbol placed after another of equal or greater value adds its value; for example, II = 2 and LX = 60. A symbol placed before one of greater value subtracts its value; for example, IV = 4 and XL = 40. A bar over a symbol indicates that its value should be multiplied by 1,000.
For more information on Roman numerals, visit Britannica.com.

21C · 03-02-2009, 07:37 PM

I disagree. By that reasoning, 2000 would be II(bar) where it is really MM.

Commo_Soldier · 03-02-2009, 07:45 PM

It may go up to MMM as we have a set letter to represent 1000, but since you can't have more than three of the same symbols in a row after that you need IV instead of MMMM. Using II with bars makes absolutely no sense when we have a letter for 1000. Therefore we use bars for numbers >= 4000.

sabotai · 03-02-2009, 07:46 PM

With my google-fu, it seems that the Romans didn't really have a standard for large numbers. I'm going to go with "Any way that gets you to 4000 in the smallest amount of letters used is acceptable". So II both w/ bar or MV w/ a bar over V. Either one works.

Groundhog · 03-02-2009, 07:48 PM

Yup, I've just read more on Roman numerals via google than I ever thought I would. Basically, there was no "standard" once you get high up in the numbers, and things changed over time. I saw some awful creative methods of writing it, but I honestly think I'd go with MMMM for ease of use.

Mac Howard · 03-02-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Yup, I've just read more on Roman numerals via google than I ever thought I would.

Me too!

This site seems to know what it's talking about:

Roman Numerals

panerd · 03-02-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I don't have the answer though I think that cartman is probably right but your post reminded me of a similar question from a few years back. It occurred in one of my daughter's Mental Maths homework exercises. The question was to turn 189 into Roman numerals. Nothing exceptional you might say but my daughter was only 8 at the time - this was an exercise for year 3 students! I recall thinking "what was in the mind of the person that set the curriculum for year 3 students when they decided that converting 189 into Roman numerals was something an eight year old should know?" But, astonishingly, she did it!

Not sure how the teacher presented it because I have worked with some from both sides but my guess is it was meant as a challenge to really get her thinking. This would have required the teacher to do at least some explaining about Roman Numerals and also to say that this is a challenge and if they don't figure it out they shouldn't worry about it. If so, it shows how bright your daughter is to not only you but the teacher. And then the teacher can begin to really challenge your daugther.

With that said it could also just be an idiot teacher not understanding the intent of the curriculum. Who teaches kids to estimate using strict rules, who asks odd questions on tests that knowing the answers will never serve any practical purpose (Name the 4 empires who battled during World War I), and who probably can't do the problem themselves. They have no knowledge outside of anything explained in the book.

I would say there are a lot of these teachers out there but not near the number of parents who consider their teacher one of them.

Buccaneer · 03-02-2009, 09:15 PM

It said the largest numbers they regularly dealt with were dates. Why is that? There had to have been lots of things that required large numbers (like population, quantity of goods, troops, inventory etc.).

Mac Howard · 03-03-2009, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Not sure how the teacher presented it because I have worked with some from both sides but my guess is it was meant as a challenge to really get her thinking. This would have required the teacher to do at least some explaining about Roman Numerals and also to say that this is a challenge and if they don't figure it out they shouldn't worry about it. If so, it shows how bright your daughter is to not only you but the teacher. And then the teacher can begin to really challenge your daugther.

With that said it could also just be an idiot teacher not understanding the intent of the curriculum. Who teaches kids to estimate using strict rules, who asks odd questions on tests that knowing the answers will never serve any practical purpose (Name the 4 empires who battled during World War I), and who probably can't do the problem themselves. They have no knowledge outside of anything explained in the book.

I would say there are a lot of these teachers out there but not near the number of parents who consider their teacher one of them.

Two further pieces of information:

1) it was just one of 25 questions in a mental arithmetic homework excercise.

2) It wasn't one teacher that chose this but in an official Western Australian curriculum book of tests - ie set by the education board.

There were a number of questions in the book (containing about 20 tests in all) which struck me as being somewhat esoteric for eight year olds.

sterlingice · 03-03-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It said the largest numbers they regularly dealt with were dates. Why is that? There had to have been lots of things that required large numbers (like population, quantity of goods, troops, inventory etc.).

Why didn't you just ask them at the time, then we'd know now

SI

03-02-2009, 07:09 PM	#2
cartman Death Herald Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas	From what I remember, 4000 was the cutoff to start using the bar, so I believe it is MMMM. __________________ Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint Last edited by cartman : 03-02-2009 at 07:10 PM.

03-02-2009, 07:45 PM	#7
Commo_Soldier College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: JBLM, WA	It may go up to MMM as we have a set letter to represent 1000, but since you can't have more than three of the same symbols in a row after that you need IV instead of MMMM. Using II with bars makes absolutely no sense when we have a letter for 1000. Therefore we use bars for numbers >= 4000. __________________ I killed a wolf and I liked it. Last edited by Commo_Soldier : 03-02-2009 at 07:46 PM.

03-02-2009, 07:46 PM	#8
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	With my google-fu, it seems that the Romans didn't really have a standard for large numbers. I'm going to go with "Any way that gets you to 4000 in the smallest amount of letters used is acceptable". So II both w/ bar or MV w/ a bar over V. Either one works. Last edited by sabotai : 03-02-2009 at 07:47 PM.

03-02-2009, 07:48 PM	#9
Groundhog Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia	Yup, I've just read more on Roman numerals via google than I ever thought I would. Basically, there was no "standard" once you get high up in the numbers, and things changed over time. I saw some awful creative methods of writing it, but I honestly think I'd go with MMMM for ease of use. __________________ Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. --Ambrose Bierce

03-02-2009, 07:27 PM	#4
21C College Prospect Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Newcastle, Australia	I thought (and have always taught) that you were not supposed to have more than three of the same letters together.

03-02-2009, 07:37 PM	#6
21C College Prospect Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Newcastle, Australia	I disagree. By that reasoning, 2000 would be II(bar) where it is really MM.

03-02-2009, 09:15 PM	#12
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	It said the largest numbers they regularly dealt with were dates. Why is that? There had to have been lots of things that required large numbers (like population, quantity of goods, troops, inventory etc.).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)