![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Shibboleth is apparently correct about multiplying and dividing in modern machine language (I haven't tried it much since about 1980), although I wish he had explained it a little to Mr. Hardy. The mul, div, imul, idiv, fmul and fdiv commands at x86 instruction listings are apparently intended for multiplying and dividing. Art LaPella 02:38, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the algorithms presented here were, in fact, the ones used by ancient romans? -- Mathish 01:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to know if these algorithms are historical. There is an alternate method using cancellation for addition of values with subtractive notation, and multiplication can be done with a (presumably modern, albiet simple) multiplication table rather than the iterative solution presented here. -- Dcorrin 16 November 2005
I found this guide to Roman Multiplication, but I don't know his sources. It seems like a much easier method of multiplying MDCCLXIII by CCXVII, and other large quantities. http://www.phy6.org/outreach/edu/roman.htm ih8evilstuff 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Consider this:
The Romans used the abacus extensively, and Roman numerals efficiently record abacus results (hence 'IV'). The abacus is a very effective tool in experienced hands, and I very much doubt that any Romans would have bothered with rather cumbersome symbol-manipulation.
Trying to apply the symbol-manipulation approach to Roman numerals says more about expectations of people use to Arabic numerals, which are effective for such methods, than about Roman mathematics.
It all seems a bit of a red herring to me. Sawatts 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone should mention this:
To multiply using Roman numerals, say XXIX × XVII (29 × 17), convert it to:
(XX + IX) × (X + VII)
Then XX × X = CC, IX × X = XC, XX × VII = CXL, IX × VII = LXIII.
To multiply by 10, increase the "rank" by one: I --> X, V --> L, X --> C, L --> D, C --> M, and so on.
Add them up: CC + XC + CXL + LXIII = CDXCIII.
If anyone can figure out how to do division, I'd be pleased to hear from you! -- 121.7.203.64 ( talk) 03:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
XXIX × XVII ------ CCXC (X) LLVL (V) XXIX (I2) + XXIX (I1) ------
CC XC LL VL XX IX XX IX
CC XC C XXXXV XXXX VIIII VIIII CCC XCX XXX XXXX V VV IIII IIII CCC C XXXXX XX V X IIIII III CCCC L XXX V V III CCCC L XXX X III CCCC LXXXX III CD XL III CDXLIII
I thought this was very well done and I found it very interesting! Whether or not it was "unfounded" does not detract from its value. What is important is that some Romans COULD HAVE used these methods for calculating manually -- we don't know that they didn't. We DO know that the Mayan Indians did something like this with their number system (replacing five dots with a bar when adding and the bars with dots on the carry). So the Romans might have also in spite of their not having a true place value system like the Mayans. LawrenceRJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceRJ ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The Roman Numeral System was used extensively on coins. It was a simple additive system and the symbols IV, IX, IL, IC, ID and IM were not part of it. Simply put it was I,II,III, IIII,V,VI, VII,VIII,VIIII,X then the I through VIIII was repeated through the next four Xs until the L symbol was used at XXXXVIIII. Clear and convincing evidence of the accuracy of my explanation comes from Roman Numerals on coins up to the 18th century when the use of combined symbols IV and IX came into vogue to show a single digit symbol 4 or 9. The Holy Roman Empire that lasted from roughly 650 A.D. to 1850 A.D. used these symbols correctly on their state and ecclisiastical coins and the Vatican and Papal states in Italy used them corectly too. Most of this crap has been promoted under the banner of artistic license. As time passes it gets worse as now math symbols are being interceded between the symbols too.
By the end of the Summer I plan to release essays on the original RN System, RN System Uses, RN Systems and Modern Calendar Systems, RN Symbols Used In Error. The Impact of Using Roman Numerals (that are not part of the orignal) In Modern Practice.
If you have evidence of actual use of Roman Numerals Before 1500 when Arabic Numerals became popular in Europe I would be very interested. The adoption on Gregorian Calendar and Arabic Numerals occurred in Great Britian in MDCCLII and it's Colonies including the U. S. A.
Glen Shake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.213.4 ( talk) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Roman_arithmetic seems to confirm that the Romans never did arithmetic in a way proposed by this article. It is a modern day fancy and not even a notable one as shown by the lack of citations. Therefore I have prodded it. Dmcq ( talk) 02:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have redirected the page now to Roman abacus as about the only thing I've ever seen title 'Roman arithmetic' says it would be difficult and they used an abacus or sand table. The best stuff I've found about it all is Literary evidence for Roman arithmetic with fractions which starts saying there were things thay would need other than an abacus for it doesn'tr give evidence and ends saying that the main work they've got probably was done using an abacus. There is an interesting bit about roman fractions in that though I think it is probably already all covered in the Roman numerals article. Dmcq ( talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Shibboleth is apparently correct about multiplying and dividing in modern machine language (I haven't tried it much since about 1980), although I wish he had explained it a little to Mr. Hardy. The mul, div, imul, idiv, fmul and fdiv commands at x86 instruction listings are apparently intended for multiplying and dividing. Art LaPella 02:38, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the algorithms presented here were, in fact, the ones used by ancient romans? -- Mathish 01:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to know if these algorithms are historical. There is an alternate method using cancellation for addition of values with subtractive notation, and multiplication can be done with a (presumably modern, albiet simple) multiplication table rather than the iterative solution presented here. -- Dcorrin 16 November 2005
I found this guide to Roman Multiplication, but I don't know his sources. It seems like a much easier method of multiplying MDCCLXIII by CCXVII, and other large quantities. http://www.phy6.org/outreach/edu/roman.htm ih8evilstuff 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Consider this:
The Romans used the abacus extensively, and Roman numerals efficiently record abacus results (hence 'IV'). The abacus is a very effective tool in experienced hands, and I very much doubt that any Romans would have bothered with rather cumbersome symbol-manipulation.
Trying to apply the symbol-manipulation approach to Roman numerals says more about expectations of people use to Arabic numerals, which are effective for such methods, than about Roman mathematics.
It all seems a bit of a red herring to me. Sawatts 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone should mention this:
To multiply using Roman numerals, say XXIX × XVII (29 × 17), convert it to:
(XX + IX) × (X + VII)
Then XX × X = CC, IX × X = XC, XX × VII = CXL, IX × VII = LXIII.
To multiply by 10, increase the "rank" by one: I --> X, V --> L, X --> C, L --> D, C --> M, and so on.
Add them up: CC + XC + CXL + LXIII = CDXCIII.
If anyone can figure out how to do division, I'd be pleased to hear from you! -- 121.7.203.64 ( talk) 03:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
XXIX × XVII ------ CCXC (X) LLVL (V) XXIX (I2) + XXIX (I1) ------
CC XC LL VL XX IX XX IX
CC XC C XXXXV XXXX VIIII VIIII CCC XCX XXX XXXX V VV IIII IIII CCC C XXXXX XX V X IIIII III CCCC L XXX V V III CCCC L XXX X III CCCC LXXXX III CD XL III CDXLIII
I thought this was very well done and I found it very interesting! Whether or not it was "unfounded" does not detract from its value. What is important is that some Romans COULD HAVE used these methods for calculating manually -- we don't know that they didn't. We DO know that the Mayan Indians did something like this with their number system (replacing five dots with a bar when adding and the bars with dots on the carry). So the Romans might have also in spite of their not having a true place value system like the Mayans. LawrenceRJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceRJ ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The Roman Numeral System was used extensively on coins. It was a simple additive system and the symbols IV, IX, IL, IC, ID and IM were not part of it. Simply put it was I,II,III, IIII,V,VI, VII,VIII,VIIII,X then the I through VIIII was repeated through the next four Xs until the L symbol was used at XXXXVIIII. Clear and convincing evidence of the accuracy of my explanation comes from Roman Numerals on coins up to the 18th century when the use of combined symbols IV and IX came into vogue to show a single digit symbol 4 or 9. The Holy Roman Empire that lasted from roughly 650 A.D. to 1850 A.D. used these symbols correctly on their state and ecclisiastical coins and the Vatican and Papal states in Italy used them corectly too. Most of this crap has been promoted under the banner of artistic license. As time passes it gets worse as now math symbols are being interceded between the symbols too.
By the end of the Summer I plan to release essays on the original RN System, RN System Uses, RN Systems and Modern Calendar Systems, RN Symbols Used In Error. The Impact of Using Roman Numerals (that are not part of the orignal) In Modern Practice.
If you have evidence of actual use of Roman Numerals Before 1500 when Arabic Numerals became popular in Europe I would be very interested. The adoption on Gregorian Calendar and Arabic Numerals occurred in Great Britian in MDCCLII and it's Colonies including the U. S. A.
Glen Shake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.213.4 ( talk) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Roman_arithmetic seems to confirm that the Romans never did arithmetic in a way proposed by this article. It is a modern day fancy and not even a notable one as shown by the lack of citations. Therefore I have prodded it. Dmcq ( talk) 02:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have redirected the page now to Roman abacus as about the only thing I've ever seen title 'Roman arithmetic' says it would be difficult and they used an abacus or sand table. The best stuff I've found about it all is Literary evidence for Roman arithmetic with fractions which starts saying there were things thay would need other than an abacus for it doesn'tr give evidence and ends saying that the main work they've got probably was done using an abacus. There is an interesting bit about roman fractions in that though I think it is probably already all covered in the Roman numerals article. Dmcq ( talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)